Conceptualizing the Legitimacy of Non-Transitional Truth Commissions: Norway and Canada Compared

Recent years have seen a new trend in the transitional justice field, as Western democracies establish truth commissions (TCs) to address harms against Indigenous and national-minority populations. The first, most prominent, and now archetypal of these "non-transitional" TCs emerged in Canada. The most recent have been in the Nordic countries, with Norway leading the way. We suggest that to be effective, these TCs face a distinctive challenge: securing legitimacy not only among victim groups but also among the still-dominant national majorities under investigation for the wrongs in question. How can this be done? To find out, we first construct a model for conceptualising TC legitimacy. Per this model, TCs need legitimacy at three stages: their foundational, operational, and conclusory stages. New, "non-transitional" TCs must also secure legitimacy with two groups: victims and the majority. We test this model against the Canadian and Norwegian cases, using existing research, media analysis, and primary data to study four ways these TCs sought legitimacy: through their genesis, the design and interpretation of their mandates, the choice and behaviour of their commissioners, and the publicity of their fact-finding processes. Our comparative analysis shows that Norway's TC fell short and reveals where.