Tag: apologies

Posted on

Publication in International Review of Social Psychology

The PAC team published the results of their study of the texts of political apologies (N=203 offered by 50 countries). In this exploratory study, we conducted a cross-national comparative analysis of the texts of political apologies and coded whether they included a statement of sorry, apology, or regret (IFID), and an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, acceptance of responsibility, promise of non-repetition, promise of reparations, recognition of victim suffering, victim re-inclusion, victim praise, or a recognition of moral values/norms. In our analysis, we coded for the presence of these components but also for how these components were expressed (implicit/explicit). Although we did find a sort of baseline template that apologies across the world consist of, there is clear variation in the quality of how these components are expressed. We conclude by stating it is crucial to take into consideration how the apology elements are expressed and how explicit countries are when recognizing past wrongdoings since it is likely to affect the extent to which apologies actually address victims’ needs.

The article can be found open access via:
Zoodsma, M., Schaafsma, J., Sagherian-Dickey, T., & Friedrich, J. (2021). These Are Not Just Words: A Cross-National Comparative Study of the Content of Political Apologies. International Review of Social Psychology, 34(1), 15. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.503

This publication is part of the special issue #Sorrynotsorry: Social psychological and intergroup underpinnings of political apologies of the International Review of Social Psychology (@irsp_rips). 

Posted on

The Political Apologies Database

We are proud to introduce the Political Apologies Database!

The open-access database mapped and compared political apologies offered by states or state representatives for human rights violations in the (recent) past. The extensive and unique database, accessible to academics, the public, and the press, shows a strong increase in the number of apologies in the past two decades. More than 70 countries have now expressed regret for a variety of past wrongs. A significant portion of the more than 350 apologies in the database has to do with World War II; apologies for slavery have been offered only sparsely.

Many countries struggle with how to deal with past wrongdoings. Increasingly, they apologize for human rights violations. Last week the mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, apologized for the role of the Amsterdam city government in the colonial slavery and slave trade, which immediately raised the question: will the Netherlands government now apologize as well? 

The Netherlands appears to be an average performer, measured by the number of apologies offered and how extensively and explicitly past wrongs are acknowledged. The leaders are still Japan, Germany, Canada, and the US. Apologies are offered mainly by liberal democracies and by countries transitioning from authoritarian to more democratic rule. In doing so, apologies seem to have become a means par excellence to profess and affirm liberal values. 

The Database can be accessed via this website under the tab Database. Data can be explored via the world map and the timeline, and more information can be found on the Apology Detail page. For questions or information regarding the project or the database, please contact Juliette Schaafsma (j.schaafsma@tilburguniversity.edu) or Marieke Zoodsma (m.a.zoodsma@tilburguniversity.edu).

Posted on

Rutte’s Apology and the Importance of Acknowledgement

These last days, in the run-up to and aftermath of the International Commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz, there has been a lot of (media) attention for the apology Prime Minister Mark Rutte has made for the Dutch government actions during the Holocaust. Or, perhaps we could phrase it as an apology for the failure of government actions during that time. Some media report on the fact that Rutte kept his decision to apologize ‘silent’ until the very end, that even the Dutch Jewish community was surprised, while others point out that it is an important and necessary step that “marks a definitive turn in thinking about the Dutch attitude to and relationship with the German occupier” (“markeren de definitieve omslag in het denken over de verhouding tussen Nederland en de Duitse bezetter”).

What we see in the public reaction to this apology, from victims as well as non-victims, is similar to what we have seen during our research in the United Kingdom, South Korea, and El Salvador on how people evaluate apologies for past wrongdoings. In the interviews that we conducted in these countries, we asked people what they saw as the most important aspect of the apology that was offered to them by their respective leaders for past human rights violations (in all three cases state violence against unarmed civilians). Across the three countries, participants stressed that for them, it was crucial that the crimes were finally acknowledged and that their suffering was recognized in public by their government.

The importance given by people to the public acknowledgment of the crimes fits quite well with the idea of an apology representing a threshold or a moral turning point, where a political leader or a government – sometimes more explicitly and sometimes more implicitly – changes the way certain collective crimes are being spoken of. This makes, by definition, such an act a contestation in historical narrative. But potentially, it could open up debate and dialogue.  As one male participant from South Korea told us: “I don’t see an apology as a way to escape from responsibilities. Because this apology has put things in motion, a discussion like this today can happen. Now everyone can discuss things freely”.

Time will show whether or not Rutte’s speech last Sunday will mark a (moral) turning point in the way the Dutch view their history of collaboration. It is at least a big step further from the apology made by Prime Minister Wim Kok in 2000 for the ‘chilly response’ Jewish people and other persecuted minority groups received when returning to the Netherlands after the war. But in a European perspective, the Dutch are taking their time in this process of ‘dealing with and facing up the past’. Representatives of countries such as Belgium, Norway, and Poland have already expressed words of apology for their country’s role during the Holocaust. In that sense, Rutte was definitely right by emphasizing the importance that “now that the last remaining survivors are still with us, I apologize” – it just took the Dutch government 75 years to realize that fact.

Marieke Zoodsma