Rigby labels amnesia” (Rigby 2001). Collective amnesia simply involves the “collective collective choice to forget about the past. There are practical reasons that a democracy or autocracy might choose a policy of collective amnesia. Perpetrators of crimes committed during conflict may still have supporters within society and prosecuting those individuals might lead to renewed violence (Hayner 2011, 197). Additionally, collective amnesia can be seen as an acknowledgment of collective guilt. Depending on the history of a given conflict, individuals may be both perpetrators and victims of violence. By choosing amnesia, society may acknowledge that all sides of a conflict did wrong while refusing the place those wrongs in a hierarchy of blame (Rigby 2001, 57). When society (or some portion of it) decides it cannot move on Trials and Punishment: without first addressing the crimes of conflict, they may choose to punish individuals who are suspected or known to be responsible for specific crimes or groups of crimes committed during the course of war. Trials are most likely to be used as a tool for reconciliation when the regime has the capacity to identify and punish those it wishes and when there is a large majority of the citizenry who want to see the perpetrators of the crimes punished (Rigby 2001, 4). In these cases trials can be used to codify that one side of the conflict (the losers) were at fault while the other side (the winners) were simply victims regardless of the specific acts committed by each side. Alternatively, and positively for the purposes of reconciliation, trials can serve the purpose of individualizing guilt. Rather than blaming an entire group for the problems of war, individuals are identified and punished allowing the rest of society to get along peacefully (Bass 2000, 286). Importantly for authoritarian regimes, trials can also serve to remove or eliminate political threats to the regime (Doung and Ear 2009).
Rigby labels “collective amnesia” (Rigby 2001). Collective amnesia simply involves the collective choice to forget about the past. There are practical reasons that a democracy or autocracy might choose a policy of collective amnesia. Perpetrators of crimes committed during conflict may still have supporters within society and prosecuting those individuals might lead to renewed violence (Hayner 2011, 197). Additionally, collective amnesia can be seen as an acknowledgment of collective guilt. Depending on the history of a given conflict, individuals may be both perpetrators and victims of violence. By choosing amnesia, society may acknowledge that all sides of a conflict did wrong while refusing the place those wrongs in a hierarchy of blame (Rigby 2001, 57). Trials and Punishment: When society (or some portion of it) decides it cannot move on without first addressing the crimes of conflict, they may choose to punish individuals who are suspected or known to be responsible for specific crimes or groups of crimes committed during the course of war. Trials are most likely to be used as a tool for reconciliation when the regime has the capacity to identify and punish those it wishes and when there is a large majority of the citizenry who want to see the perpetrators of the crimes punished (Rigby 2001, 4). In these cases trials can be used to codify that one side of the conflict (the losers) were at fault while the other side (the winners) were simply victims regardless of the specific acts committed by each side. Alternatively, and positively for the purposes of reconciliation, trials can serve the purpose of individualizing guilt. Rather than blaming an entire group for the problems of war, individuals are identified and punished allowing the rest of society to get along peacefully (Bass 2000, 286). Importantly for authoritarian regimes, trials can also serve to remove or eliminate political threats to the regime (Doung and Ear 2009).