Political Apologies Research Paper

1625 Words4 Pages

Political apologies are sometimes described as “acts of recognition”. What is being recognised and what political purpose does this recognition serve? Introduction Apology as a method of addressing past injustice has become a global phenomenon especially since the end of the Cold War (Smits 2008; Borneman 2005; Lazare 2004). Political apologies are a symbolic act that involve the recognition of an injustice or wrongdoing that occurred from one group to another, and acknowledges how it continues to affect the wronged group in the present day. It is also recognition of the regret by the apologiser for the harms caused and of the dignity of the wronged group. Specifically, I will discuss injustices done to minorities and citizens by the …show more content…

I will argue that the recognition of responsibility by the state of their past injustice serve a political purpose of dignifying the victim, transforming identity and the relationship between the two parties to reconsolidate national unity and beginning a process of rebuilding damaged relations. Political apologies achieve this through a practical and a moral dimension, in combination with other instruments of reparations and trials. Typically apology is seen as an act performed by the perpetrator taking responsibility of some previous wrongdoing that they inflicted on their victim and promising to not commit the act in the future (Thompson 2012). What distinguishes a political apology, in many cases, is that the agent, as a representative of a nation or state, may not have commit the wrongs they are apologising for and they are often apologising to the victims’ predecessors (Smits 2008). Political apologies are one form of redress against incomparable circumstances of injustice that unbalances society. In society there can be a …show more content…

However, Verdeja (2010) highlights that there are moral/symbolic and practical dimensions of apologies. Practical redress creates a tangible change in the position between the victimised group and their victimiser, it punishes the inflictors of injustice and compensates the victims for their pain. Without reparation (monetary compensation) and/or retribution (criminal trails), political apologies will not equalise the positions of the victim (Verdeja 2010). On the other hand, moral redress attempts to restore the intangible, but still essential, dignity and moral integrity of the victims. The perpetrator who fails to take responsibility for their wrongdoing leaves injustice inadequately addressed and the victim is characterised as unworthy of moral respect (Verdeja 2010). For instance, when Japanese Americans were interned in WWII, lagely because of racial prejudice, by the U.S. government, and housed in humiliating conditions, their dignity was damaged. When the government claimed it was out of military necessity, they failed to acknowledge their responsibility in betraying their own values of liberty. So whereas retribution in the form of criminal trails is necessary to dealing justice, it struggles to restore the moral integrity and the damaged self-worth of the victims (Borneman 2005; Verdeja 2010). Likewise aboriginal leaders of the time

Open Document