There is no “best” or “right” way to handle past injustices in a fledgling democracy. On the one hand, people, everyday citizens, committed heinous atrocities to other citizens. On the other, removing these people, who often hold positions of power, could result in the collapse of the a new, unstable democracy.
With this tradeoff in mind, I think it should be clear that removing said individuals immediately after the new democracy is formed is not the optimal strategy. Doing so would have a higher likelihood of bringing down that new democracy than waiting. Unfortunately, this leaves many citizens unsatisfied. However, it must be made clear to them that they would be considerably worse off in a failed state (again).
Instead, countries should, in the short term, make a concerted effort to publicize and remember their past atrocities. They cannot be protected and kept from the public – a strong state brandishes their past failures so that they are part of a history, a history to never be repeated. This can be done through memorial days centered around these injustices and direct compensation to affected families of such injustices.
Although it is not clear when this point would be or, frankly, how to recognize it, once the new state is strong enough, then remaining public figures that were part of the past atrocities should be removed. No life time positions (a la Pinochet) should ever be granted. Once removed, higher up individuals, not the “foot soldiers” following orders, should be prosecuted and punished. By doing this, more citizens can feel indirect catharsis and fewer people from the past regime, now part of the new society, can continue living.
I think you raise a very valid point when discussing the challenge in balancing the moral and the practical. While dissatisfaction among citizens is never optimal, I think your mentioning of perspective is critical, because I do feel that many citizens do not realize what would be at risk if action was taken against ousted authoritarian officials in the short term. To me, I see morality becoming more prominent in the long term, as it allows for democracy to cement itself within society, creating political stability and lowering the risk of sliding back into authoritarian ways. I completely agree that states and citizens should make efforts in the short term to remember past atrocities, but it is interesting to think about whether this comes with any risk itself, for often they are polarizing issues among citizens and can create instability.
I think you raise a very valid point when discussing the challenge in balancing the moral and the practical. While dissatisfaction among citizens is never optimal, I think your mentioning of perspective is critical, because I do feel that many citizens do not realize what would be at risk if action was taken against ousted authoritarian officials in the short term. To me, I see morality becoming more prominent in the long term, as it allows for democracy to cement itself within society, creating political stability and lowering the risk of sliding back into authoritarian ways. I completely agree that states and citizens should make efforts in the short term to remember past atrocities, but it is interesting to think about whether this comes with any risk itself, for often they are polarizing issues among citizens and can create instability.