The Effects of Injustice Gaps on Leaders' Legitimacy and Reconciliation in Iraq

• In Event: Justice and Injustice in War

Abstract

After violent civil conflict, bringing perpetrators to justice and clearing the names of innocent bystanders is a key component of returning to durable peace. Yet, leaders face the challenge of walking a fine line between under- and over-punishment of perceived former enemies seeking reintegration into society. Seminal work in psychology finds that when punishment of a transgressor falls short of what the victims believe is commensurate to the crime committed, the resulting perception of an “injustice gap” decreases the likelihood of forgiveness and increases the potential for revenge. On the other hand, excessive punishment may be seen as overly harsh and delegitimize transitional justice efforts.

In this paper, I analyze a survey experiment seeking to test the effects of injustice gaps on reconciliation and revenge as well as local leaders' legitimacy. The data comes from three governorates in Iraq grappling with transitional justice in the destructive wake of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Although ISIS was proclaimed defeated in 2019, by 2022 there remained more than a million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in need of reintegration into society. As in many post-conflict settings, a mix of state (i.e., court judges) and local customary authorities (i.e., tribal and religious leaders) are involved in processes of justice and reintegration of IDPs affiliated with an enemy group.

The study elicits a baseline preference of respondents concerning punishment (or amnesty) for a hypothetical accused collaborator accused of cooperation with ISIS, and then imposes a randomized punishment deemed appropriate by one of three local authorities: state court judges, tribal leaders, or religious leaders. The design allows for testing of three independent variables on leaders’ legitimacy as arbiters of transitional justice: 1) the effects of injustice gaps of any kind (positive or negative); 2) the effects of differential sizes of injustice gaps; 3) the effects of positive versus negative injustice gaps (over- versus under-punishment). Outcome measures consider the likelihood of reconciliation versus revenge against the accused collaborator as well as changes in legitimacy of local leaders compared to a baseline.

Roughly half of all war-torn countries lapse back into violence within five years. Thus, the question of how to find the right balance between accountability and the need for reconciliation in post-conflict settings is important.

Author

• Kristen Kao, University of Gothenburg