National Apology

Many nations have perpetrated grave injustices against foreign peoples, internal minority populations, and other groups. The injustices attributable to currently existing nations include genocide, hostile occupation, religious persecution, material exploitation, discrimination, and various forms of economic and political interference. Because most of these nations will persist in roughly the same form for the foreseeable future, and because the victimised groups will also continue to exist, the governments of these nations must take responsibility for their misconduct, repair the damage they have caused, and restore trust between themselves and victimised groups. Fortunately, because they persist with roughly the same political structure, national governments are in a unique position to take these reparative measures. I suggest that governments should institute a practice of national apology and that they regularly engage in public acts of apology and repentance. Just as individuals must apologise one another in order to maintain trusting relationships throughout a lifetime, so must governments engage in a similar practice over the course of their (much longer) lifetimes. Public apology is a necessary part of an institutional practice that can be modelled on our interpersonal practice of holding responsible. We hold one another responsible for our moral failures through a process of blame, apology/repentance, and reconciliation. Wrongdoing is an inescapable fact of life and our practice of holding responsible helps us to maintain relationships with those friends, family, and acquaintances who inevitably wrong us and are wronged by us over the course of a lifetime. Our responsibility practice can be understood as a conversation (McKenna 2012): 1. X wrongs Y 2. Y blames X 3. X recognises Y’s blame and responds (positively or negatively) 4. Y recognises X’s response and responds (positively or negatively) Both individuals and institutions can engage in this process. Indeed, there are examples of each stage at the institutional level (Blustein 2014). Genocide, slavery, discrimination, and economic imperialism are examples of institutional wrongdoing. Divestment and criticism directed at national governments like apartheid South Africa are examples of institutional blame. Stephen Harper’s official apology for the Canadian government’s role in the Indian Residential Schools program is an example of institutional apology. And the Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa and Rwanda are examples of institutional reconciliation. However, despite these examples, no national government has an official practice of national apology. I will argue that such a practice can have three key benefits. First, an apology acknowledges wrongdoing, legitimises victims’ blame, and repudiates the attitudes and values behind the wrongdoing. By doing so, a government acknowledges the moral status of the victimised group. Second, a national apology provides a reason for reconciliation. An official apology cannot be a unilateral event; it must be a cooperative endeavour pursued together with representatives from victimised groups. Third, a practice of national apology reminds citizens that their nation is fallible and that their greatness lies in their moral progress. In this paper, I identify obstacles to an effective practice of national apology, evaluate the prospects of such an endeavour, and consider objections to my proposal.