debate is the timing of the confessions. The earlier period was a safer moment for the left to
admit to these atrocities without the same level of fear about backlash.
But even in the most propitious moments, as in the earlier confessional era, there is
still too much polarization to freely debate the left’s violent past. As one of the commentary
states about the confessions, “They unsettled me.” Yet one of the most unsettling parts
of the confessional performance for him was the failure on the left to hear. As he stated,
“We have opted not to listen.” Thus, even when a debate is opened up, there is an effort
to shut it down. In this, the left has failed to live up to its own ideals and theories, to think
critically, to reflect, to condemn those parts of the left’s past that deserve condemnation.
If it is the case that even in the best of times, left confessions to violence face silence,
what does this mean for contentious coexistence? If even during the periods of broad
consensus to reject violence as a way to do politics, the left cannot reflect on its own role
in the past, then what are the possibilities of building a strong, democratic, peaceful future
that respects human rights? More poignantly, during the current period, as Latin American
countries move further away from the left, and the right is empowered, can debates render
the kind of contentious coexistence that is positive to democratic dialogue and building a
stronger human rights cultures? Or will they provoke a further rollback of rights and the
delegitimization of the left? Is there a way in which the left can play a constructive role,
in these unpropitious and propitious political environments, in building stronger human
rights regimes?
Timing has never done all of the work of turning confessional performances into
contentious coexistence and democratic practice. How timing affects audience responses is
significant. Until audiences on the left feel it is safe to talk freely about the past – without
fuelling political polarization and playing into the right’s efforts to demonize the left – it
is unlikely that these confessions will have their intended effect of rejecting violence as a
political strategy. And yet without broad consensus against the use of violence by the right
or the left, it is uncertain whether countries can emerge from the legacies of the past and
build democratic and human rights futures.
References
del Barco, Oscar. “No Mataras.” La Intemperie,
Number 17, 2004. Leis, Ricardo. Testamento de los años 70. 12 October
2012. Hectorleis.blogspot.com.ar.
Hilb, Claudia. Usos del pasado: Qué hacemos hoy
con los setenta. Buenos Aires: Siglo
Veintiuno Editores, 2013. No matar: sobre la responsabilidad. Córdoba: Editorial
UNC and El Cíclope, 2007.
Jouvé, Héctor. “La guerrilla del Che en Salta, 40
años después.” La Intemperie, Numbers 15-16,
2004.
Deep Article
Payne, Leigh A.. Unsettling Accounts: Neither Truth
Nor Reconciliation in Confessions of State Violence.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008.
19