Understanding “New Power” by Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms (hbr.org)

We all sense that power is shifting in the world. We see increasing political protest, a crisis in representation and governance, and upstart businesses upending traditional industries. But the nature of this shift tends to be either wildly romanticized or dangerously underestimated.

There are those who cherish giddy visions of a new techno-utopia in which increased connectivity yields instant democratization and prosperity. The corporate and bureaucratic giants will be felled and the crowds coronated, each of us wearing our own 3D-printed crown. There are also those who have seen this all before. Things aren’t really changing that much, they say. Twitter supposedly toppled a dictator in Egypt, but another simply popped up in his place. We gush over the latest sharing-economy start-up, but the most powerful companies and people seem only to get more powerful.

Both views are wrong. They confine us to a narrow debate about technology in which either everything is changing or nothing is. In reality, a much more interesting and complex transformation is just beginning, one driven by a growing tension between two distinct forces: old power and new power.

Old power works like a currency. It is held by few. Once gained, it is jealously guarded, and the powerful have a substantial store of it to spend. It is closed, inaccessible, and leader-driven. It downloads, and it captures.

New power operates differently, like a current. It is made by many. It is open, participatory, and peer-driven. It uploads, and it distributes. Like water or electricity, it’s most forceful when it surges. The goal with new power is not to hoard it but to channel it.

The battle and the balancing between old and new power will be a defining feature of society and business in the coming years. In this article, we lay out a simple framework for understanding the underlying dynamics at work and how power is really shifting: who has it, how it is distributed, and where it is heading.

New Power Models

Power, as British philosopher Bertrand Russell defined it, is simply “the ability to produce intended effects.” Old power and new power produce these effects differently. New power models are enabled by peer coordination and the agency of the crowd—without participation, they are just empty vessels. Old power is enabled by what people or organizations own, know, or control that nobody else does—once old power models lose that, they lose their advantage.

Old power models tend to require little more than consumption. A magazine asks readers to renew their subscriptions, a manufacturer asks customers to buy its shoes. But new power taps into people’s growing capacity—and desire—to participate in ways that go beyond consumption. These behaviors, laid out in the exhibit “The Participation Scale,” include sharing (taking other people’s content and sharing it with audiences), shaping (remixing or adapting existing content or assets with a new message or flavor), funding (endorsing with money), producing (creating content or delivering products and services within a peer community such as YouTube, Etsy, or Airbnb), and co-owning (as seen in models like Wikipedia and open source software).

Sharing and shaping.

Facebook is the classic example of a new power model based on sharing and shaping. Some 500 million people now share and shape 30 billion pieces of content each month on the platform, a truly astonishing level of participation upon which Facebook’s survival depends. Many organizations, even old power players, are relying on these behaviors to grow the strength of their brands. For example, NikeID, an initiative in which consumers become the designers of their own shoes, now makes up a significant part of Nike’s online revenues.


Funding behaviors typically represent a higher level of commitment than sharing and shaping. Millions of people now use new power models to put their money where their mouth is. The crowdfunding poster child Kiva, for example, reports that some 1.3 million borrowers living in 76 countries have collectively received more than half a billion dollars in loans.

Peer-to-peer giving, lending, and investing models effectively reduce dependence on traditional institutions. Instead of donating via a big institution like United Way that parcels out money on donors’ behalf, people can support a specific family in a specific place affected by a specific problem. Platforms like Wefunder allow start-ups to access funding from thousands of small investors rather than rely on a handful of very big ones. One inventor just set a new record on Kickstarter, raising more than $13 million from 62,000 investors. To be sure, new power funding models are not without their downside: The campaigns, projects, or start-ups that are most rewarded by the crowd may not be the smartest investments or those that benefit the most people. Indeed, crowdfunding puts on steroids the human tendency to favor the immediate, visceral, and emotional rather than the strategic, impactful, or long-term.


In the next level of behaviors, participants go beyond supporting or sharing other people’s efforts and contribute their own. YouTube creators, Etsy artisans, and TaskRabbit errand-runners are all examples of people who participate by producing. When enough people produce, these platforms wield serious power. Take Airbnb, the online service that matches travelers who need a place to stay with local residents who have a room to spare. As of 2014, some 350,000 hosts had welcomed 15 million people to stay in their homes. That’s enough to put real pressure on the incumbent hotel industry.


Wikipedia and Linux, the open source software operating system, are both driven by co-ownership behaviors and have had a huge impact on their sectors. Many of the decentralized peer-directed systems Harvard Law professor Yochai Benkler calls “peer mutualism” belong in this category. Consider also an initiative that grew not out of Silicon Valley but out of a church in London. The Alpha Course is a template for introducing people to Christian beliefs. Anyone wishing to host a course can freely use its materials and basic format—10 meetings devoted to the central questions of life—with no need to gather in a church. Catalyzed by a model that empowers local leaders, the course has reached 24 million people in living rooms and cafés in almost every country in the world.

What’s distinctive about these participatory behaviors is that they effectively “upload” power from a source that is diffuse but enormous—the passions and energies of the many. Technology underpins these models, but what drives them is a heightened sense of human agency.

New Power Values

As new power models become integrated into the daily lives of people and the operating systems of communities and societies, a new set of values and beliefs is being forged. Power is not just flowing differently; people are feeling and thinking differently about it. A teenager with her own YouTube channel engages as a content creator rather than as a passive recipient of someone else’s ideas. A borrower on the peer-to-peer finance platform Lending Club can disintermediate that oldest of old power institutions, the bank. A Lyft user experiences consumption as a kind of sharing and subtly shifts his view of asset ownership.

These feedback loops—or maybe we should call them “feed-in” loops, given that they’re based on participation—make visible the payoffs of peer-based collective action and endow people with a sense of power. In doing so, they strengthen norms around collaboration and make the case that we can do just fine without the old power middlemen that dominated the 20th century. Public polls reflect the shifting attitudes toward established institutions. For example, the 2014 Edelman Trust Barometer shows the largest deficit in trust in business and government since the survey began in 2001.

Among those heavily engaged with new power—particularly people under 30 (more than half the world’s population)—a common assumption is emerging: We all have an inalienable right to participate. For earlier generations, participation might have meant only the right to vote in elections every few years or maybe to join a union or religious community. Today, people increasingly expect to actively shape or create many aspects of their lives. These expectations are giving rise to a new set of values in a number of realms:


New power favors informal, networked approaches to governance and decision making. The new power crowd would not have invented the United Nations, for instance; rather, it gravitates toward the view that big social problems can be solved without state action or bureaucracy. Often encountered in Silicon Valley, this ethos has at its core a deep and sometimes naive faith in the power of innovation and networks to provide public goods traditionally supplied by government or big institutions. Formal representation is deprioritized; new power is more flash mob and less General Assembly.


New power norms place a special emphasis on collaboration, and not just as a way to get things done or as part of a mandated “consultation process.” New power models, at their best, reinforce the human instinct to cooperate (rather than compete) by rewarding those who share their own ideas, spread those of others, or build on existing ideas to make them better. Sharing-economy models, for example, are driven by the accumulated verdict of the community. They rely on reputation systems that ensure that, say, rude or messy guests on Airbnb have trouble finding their next places to stay.


New power is also engendering a “do it ourselves” ethic, as Scott Heiferman, the CEO of Meetup, puts it, and a belief in amateur culture in arenas that used to be characterized by specialization and professionalization. The heroes in new power are “makers” who produce their own content, grow their own food, or build their own gadgets.


New power proponents believe that the more light we shine, the better. Traditional notions of privacy are being replaced by a kind of permanent transparency as young people live their lives on social media. Clearly, the walls between public and private discourse are crumbling, with mixed consequences. And although Facebook profiles, Instagram feeds, and the like are often nothing more than a carefully managed form of self-display, the shift toward increasing transparency is demanding a response in kind from our institutions and leaders, who are challenged to rethink the way they engage with their constituencies. Pope Francis—the leader of an organization known for its secrecy—is surprisingly attuned to the need to engage in new power conversations. His promise to make the Vatican Bank more financially transparent and reform the Vatican’s media practices is an unexpected move in that direction.


New power loves to affiliate, but affiliation in this new world is much less enduring. People are less likely to be card-carrying members of organizations (just ask groups like the ACLU that are seeing this form of membership threatened) or to forge decades-long relationships with institutions. So while people with a new power mindset are quick to join or share (and thanks to new power models, “joining” is easier than ever), they are reluctant to swear allegiance. This makes new power models vulnerable. New power is fast—but it is also fickle.

New power is also fundamentally changing the way everyday people see themselves in relation to institutions, authority, and one another. These new norms aren’t necessarily better. For instance, new power offers real opportunities to enfranchise and empower, but there’s a fine line between democratizing participation and a mob mentality. This is especially the case for self-organized networks that lack formal protections. New power can easily veer in the direction of a Tea Party or an Occupy Wall Street. (We assume that most people think at least one of these is a bad thing.)

A Framework for Understanding the Players

Putting the two dimensions of models and values together yields a framework that helps organizations think about where they are now and also helps them chart their progress toward a more strategic position.


In the bottom-left quadrant are organizations that use old power models and have old power values. By our estimation, this category includes the world’s most valuable company—Apple—as well as some obvious dinosaurs. Apple’s success in the past 15 years can be chalked up to a terrifically executed strategy of cultivated exclusivity and pushing products from the top down. Unlike Google, Apple largely eschews open source approaches, and despite its antiestablishment fan base and the carefully managed “maker culture” of its App Store, it is renowned for secrecy and aggressive protection of IP.


In the top-left quadrant are organizations with a new power model—for example, a network connecting many users or makers—but old power sensibilities. This category includes technology natives like Facebook, whose model depends on participation but whose decisions sometimes seem to ignore the wishes of its community, as well as organizations like the Tea Party, which has a strong, decentralized grassroots network but wields its influence in highly traditional corridors of power. Players in this quadrant tend toward “smoke-filled room” values while relying on a “made by many” model (and many run an increasing risk by doing so).


In the bottom-right quadrant are organizations that use old power models but embrace new power values. Patagonia, for example, has a traditional old power business model, yet it stands out for its embrace of new power values like transparency. Some of these “cheerleader” organizations, such as The Guardiannewspaper, are working to evolve their positions so that they not only espouse new power values but incorporate new power models effectively.


In the top-right quadrant are the “purest” new power actors. Their core operating models are peer-driven, and their values celebrate the power of the crowd. This is where we find established peer-driven players, like Wikipedia, Etsy, and Bitcoin, and newer sharing-economy start-ups, like Lyft and Sidecar. This quadrant also includes distributed activist groups and radically open education models.

Some organizations have moved from one quadrant to another over time. Think of TED, the organization dedicated to “ideas worth spreading.” Ten years ago, the organization talked the talk on collaboration and networks, but in reality it lacked any kind of new power model—it was simply an expensive, exclusive, and carefully curated annual conference. Since then, TED has broadened its model by enabling self-organization and participation via the TEDx franchise and by making its previously closed content open to everyone. Both decisions have had a major impact on the scale and reach of the TED brand, even as the organization has grappled with risks associated with loosening control. TED is now effectively leveraging a complementary old power and new power business model.

Cultivating New Power

Most organizations recognize that the nature of power is changing. But relatively few understand the keys to influence and impact in this new era. Companies see newly powerful entities using social media, so they layer on a bit of technology without changing their underlying models or values. They hire chief innovation officers who serve as “digital beards” for old power leaders. They “reach out” via Twitter. They host the occasional, awkwardly curated, lonely Google hangout with the CEO.

But having a Facebook page is not the same thing as having a new power strategy. If you’re in an industry that is being radically altered by new power, it isn’t enough to add some window dressing. A newspaper business, for example, can’t simply insert a comments section at the bottom of every article online and call that new power—it has to intentionally build reader engagement and a vibrant community, which almost certainly will require shifts in both its model and its values. The New York Times is struggling with exactly this dilemma, as its leaked innovation report last year demonstrated.

Traditional organizations that want to develop new power capacity must engage in three essential tasks: (1) assess their place in a shifting power environment, (2) channel their harshest critic, and (3) develop a mobilization capacity.

Audit your power.

A telling exercise is to plot your organization on the new power compass—both where you are today and where you want to be in five years. Plot your competitors on the same grid. Ask yourself framing questions: How are we/they employing new power models? And how are we/they embracing new power values? To understand how your organization is deploying new power, consider which participation behaviors you are enabling. This process starts a conversation about new realities and how your organization needs to respond. It doesn’t always lead to a resolute determination to deploy new power—in fact, it can help organizations identify the aspects of their core models and values that they don’t want to change.

Occupy yourself.

What if there were an Occupy-style movement directed at you? Imagine a large group of aggrieved people, camped in the heart of your organization, able to observe everything that you do. What would they think of the distribution of power in your organization and its legitimacy? What would they resent and try to subvert? Figure it out, and then Occupy yourself. This level of introspection has to precede any investment in new power mechanisms. (Companies should be especially careful about building engagement platforms without developing engagement cultures, a recipe for failure.)

There’s a good chance that your organization is already being occupied, whether you know it or not. Websites are popping up that provide forums for anonymous employee accounts of what is really going on inside businesses and how leaders are perceived. In our new power world, the private behavior—and core challenges—of every organization is only a leak or a tweet away. This poses a threat to happily opaque old power organizations, which face new levels of scrutiny about performance. Are you really delivering advertising reach for my product? Are you really improving my kid’s reading skills? Today, the wisest organizations will be those engaging in the most painfully honest conversations, inside and outside, about their impact.

Develop a movement mindset.

Old power organizations need to do more than just look inward; they also need to think differently about how they reach out. Organizations that have built their business models on consumption or other minimal participation behaviors will find this challenging but increasingly important.

The capacity to mobilize a much wider community of people can be a critical business advantage, as we saw in the defeat of “online piracy” legislation in the United States, in 2012. In that conflict between technology companies and copyright holders, both sides enlisted armies of lobbyists, but only one side was able to mobilize an army of citizens. Google, Wikipedia, and other organizations inspired meaningful action—10 million petition signatories, more than 100,000 calls to Congress, and a “blackout” of the internet—creating a cultural surge when it mattered. The recent standoff between Amazon and Hachette also shows two sides attempting to flex their mobilization muscle, with Amazon rallying “Readers United” against Hachette’s band of “Authors United.”

To succeed, a movement needs much more than ad campaigns or “astroturfing.” Leaders must be able to actually mobilize true believers, not just talk at them. A key new power question for all organizations is “Who will really show up for you?”

The Challenge for New Power

Organizations that rely on new power can be easily intoxicated by the energy of their crowds and fail to recognize that to effect real change, they too might need to adapt. They should bear three essential principles in mind.

Respect your communities (don’t become the Man).

If old power organizations should fear being occupied, new power organizations should fear being deserted. Those who deploy new power models but default to old power values are especially at risk of alienating the communities that sustain them. This isn’t simply a problem of mindset, where organizations lose touch with the crowds that made them prosper. It is also a practical challenge: The expectations of critical stakeholders—investors, regulators, advertisers, and so on—often run counter to the demands of new power communities, and balancing those agendas is not easy.

Facebook, like many organizations with a new power model, is dealing with this tension between two cultures. Facebook’s old power corporate ambition (more data ownership, higher stock values) clashes with the demands of its own crowd. Initial surges of interest in alternative social networks promising to honor new power values may be a sign of things to come. As new power concepts of digital rights evolve, these conflicts will most likely increase.

Go bilingual.

For all new power’s progress, it is not yet making much of a dent in society’s old power superstructure. Khan Academy is the darling of the digerati, but our education systems remain largely unchanged, with school timetables still built around family lifestyles of the 1800s. Lawrence Lessig, a leading new power thinker, wants to overhaul campaign finance laws in the United States, but he has realized that the best way to “end all super PACS” is with a super PAC.

In this context, the right strategy for the moment is often to go “bilingual,” developing both old and new power capacities. Arianna Huffington, for example, has built a platform that comprises a network of 50,000 self-publishing bloggers, but she also skillfully wields an old power Rolodex. Bilingual players like Huffington deploy old power connections to get what they need—capital, legitimacy, access to partnerships, publicity—without being co-opted or slowed down. They use institutional power without being institutionalized.

Get structural.

New power models will always have limited influence and impact unless they are operating within a superstructure designed to play to their strengths. Take the global grassroots movement Avaaz. Even though it has 40 million members, it will only get so far in its efforts to effect change if the decision-making mechanism that it seeks to influence is an entrenched old power structure like the UN climate negotiation process.

The battle ahead, whether you favor old or new power values, will be about who can control and shape society’s essential systems and structures. Will new power forces prove capable of fundamentally reforming existing structures? Will they have the ingenuity to bypass them altogether and create new ones? Or will they ultimately succeed in doing neither, allowing traditional models of governance, law, and capital markets to basically hold firm?

As we revel in moments of promise and see ever more people shaping their destinies and lives, the big question is whether new power can genuinely serve the common good and confront society’s most intractable problems. Strategy and tactics are important, but the ultimate questions are ethical. “For all of its democratizing power, the Internet, in its current form, has simply replaced the old boss with a new boss,” warns Fred Wilson, a partner at Union Square Ventures. “And these new bosses have market power that, in time, will be vastly larger than that of the old boss.”

Too often, new power bosses dream only of a good “exit” from a hot business, but we need new power leaders to make a grand entrance into civil society. Those capable of channeling the power of the crowd must turn their energies to something more fundamental: redesigning society’s systems and structures to meaningfully include and empower more people. The greatest test for the conductors of new power will be their willingness to engage with the challenges of the least powerful.

A version of this article appeared in the December 2014 issue of Harvard Business Review.

Jeremy Heimans is a cofounder and the CEO of Purpose, a social business that builds movements. He is also a cofounder of the online political communities GetUp and Avaaz.

Henry Timms is the executive director of 92nd Street Y, a cultural and community center in New York. He also founded #GivingTuesday, a global philanthropic movement.

Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow

Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (Hebrew: ההיסטוריה של המחר) is a book written by Israeli author Professor Yuval Noah Harari from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The book was first published in Hebrew in 2015 by Dvir publishing. The English version was published in September 2016 in the UK and will be published February 2017 in the U.S. As with its predecessor, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Harari inspects the course of history while describing events and the individual human experience along with ethical issues derived from history. Homo Deus, as opposed to the previous book, deals more with the abilities acquired by mankind (Homo sapiens) throughout the years of its existence while basing itself as the dominant being in the world, and tries to paint an image of the future of mankind, if any. Throughout the book, many philosophical aspects are inspected, such as the human experience, individualism, human emotion and consciousness. Likewise, the book showcases the current abilities and achievements of mankind.

Pisces New Moon Solar Eclipse, February 26, 2017 (9 degrees) 6:58 am PST

This New Moon Solar Eclipse will usher in the first of two solar eclipses in 2017. The first is an annular eclipse, often called a ring of fire eclipse. During an annular eclipse, the outer edge of the sun appears as a thin ring (annulus) of sunshine around the moon. An annular eclipse is a special type of partial eclipse. At no time will the sky grow dark, but you will still need continual eye protection to watch it from a place on Earth where the eclipse is visible.

This eclipse will be visible from Earth’s Southern Hemisphere, mainly over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and will be viewed from southern South America (Chile, Argentina) and the southeastern part of Africa (Angola, Zambia, Democratic Republic of the Congo). A partial solar eclipse will be visible from a much larger area of South America and Africa, and Antarctica.

New Moons occur when the Sun and Moon are conjunct. As the Moon’s light gradually increases after the conjunction, it represents a new beginning. This New Moon is also the last in a series of eclipses in Pisces, the 12th sign of the zodiac, or the last sign. This represents an ending as well as a beginning. Since this is also a South Node eclipse, information and intuition around old patterns, like defeatism, escapism, and idealism are up for review.

Pisces, as the 12th sign, shows where ego is absorbed by the whole and we merge into all that is. It represents both the womb and the tomb, and who we are as a soul, through many lifetimes of experience, rather than our physicality in this incarnation. In Pisces imagination is unlimited, and it’s intuition that guides us through the indefinable cosmos.

With 6 major players of the zodiac in Pisces (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Neptune, Chiron, and the South Node), this eclipse surrounded by deep water, magnifies our sensitivity. In the deep watery darkness, our other senses are enhanced to make up for our lack of sight. Mercury’s participation is a wide conjunction to this New Moon opening the way for spiritual and subliminal messages from our soul. Pay attention to that quite voice that whispers of things to come and paths that are now open and activated for your evolution.

Jupiter, co-ruler of Pisces, is opposite Uranus and square Pluto. Mars is also in a tight conjunction with Uranus, triggering a challenging t-square aspect. As a result, chaos continues to reign as Uranus in Aries works with these other helpers to break up the cement of Pluto in Capricorn and expose the shadowy underbelly of corrupt governments and greedy corporations.

Written by Wendy Cicchetti

PLAN YOUR OWN NEW MOON CEREMONY. Give yourself some quiet time in meditation to see where you need to seed new ways of becoming. List these areas within your life you want to change. What areas do you want to break free from the norm and become more productive and discerning? The NEW MOON is the time to manifest the personal attributes you want to cultivate as well as the tangible things you want to bring to you. Possible phrasing: I now manifest ____ into my life. I am now _______ . Remember, think, envision and feel with as much emotion as possible, as though you already have what you want. Thoughts are things and the brain manifests exactly what you show it in the form of thoughts, visuals and emotions. The Buddha said, and I am paraphrasing, “We are the sum total of our thoughts up to today. ” If we want to be different then we must change our thoughts. “If you always do what you’ve always done then you’ll always get what you’ve always got.” CONSCIOUS CHANGE is the key.

George Lakoff: Moral Politics

UC Berkeley professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics George Lakoff explores how successful political debates are framed by using language targeted to people’s values instead of their support for specific government programs in this public lecture sponsored by the Helen Edison Series at UC San Diego. Series: “Helen Edison Lecture Series” [11/2005] [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 11194]

List of truth and reconciliation commissions

A truth commission or truth and reconciliation commission is a commission tasked with discovering and revealing past wrongdoing by a government (or, depending on the circumstances, non-state actors also), in the hope of resolving conflict left over from the past. They are, under various names, occasionally set up by states emerging from periods of internal unrest, civil war, or dictatorship.

List by country

Created by President of Argentina Raúl Alfonsín on 15 December 1983, the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas) investigated human rights violations, including 30,000 forced disappearances, committed during the Dirty War. The research of the commission, documented in the Never Again (Nunca Más) report, included individual cases on 9,000 disappeared persons. The report was delivered to Alfonsín on 20 September 1984 and opened the door to the Trial of the Juntas, the first major trial held for war crimes since the Nuremberg trials in Germany following World War II and the first to be conducted by a civilian court.
The National Commission of Inquiry into Disappearances was the first of a series of Latin American commissions. It formed in 1982 but did not complete its report.
The non-punitive National Truth Commission (Comissão Nacional da Verdade) was approved in late 2011 by the Federal Senate and sanctioned by President Dilma Rousseff. The commission will last for two years and consist of seven members appointed by the President. Members of the commission will have access to all government files about the 1946–1988 period and may convene victims or people accused of violations for testimony, although it will not be mandatory for them to attend. After the end of the two years period, the commission will issue a report with its findings. The group will not have, however, the obligation to disclose everything they discover.
The Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a commission investigating the human rights abuses in the Canadian Indian residential school system. It ran from June 2008 through June 2015.
formed a Commission of Inquiry into Crimes and Misappropriations committed by former president Hissene Habre in 1990 which reported there had been 40,000 killings and 200,000 cases of torture under Habre’s rule.
The National Commission for Reparation and Reconciliation (Comisión Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación) aims to help victims to recover from the armed conflict.
Congo (Democratic Republic)
A peace agreement in 2004 mandated the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (DRC) which issued an administrative report in 2007.
The National Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Comisión Nacional de Verdad y Reconciliación; popularly known as the “Rettig Report”), created in April 1990, investigated deaths and disappearances, particularly for political reasons, under Augusto Pinochet‘s rule. The report was released in 1991. The National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (“Valech Report”) also investigated human rights abuses from the reign of Pinochet. Released in 2004 and 2005, the commission differed from the previous one in that it investigated non-fatal violations of human rights, such as torture, and also covered children whose parents had disappeared or been killed. The report of this commission was used by the government of Chile to give out pensions and other benefits to survivors.
Czech Republic
The Office for the Documentation and the Investigation of the Crimes of Communism (Úřad dokumentace a vyšetřování zločinů komunismu) is a subdivision of Czech criminal police which investigates criminal acts from the period 1948-1989 which were unsolvable for political reasons during the Czechoslovak communist regime.
The Truth Commission (La Comisión de la Verdad) was established by the government to investigate the violation of human rights especially during the period of 1984 to 1988.
El Salvador
Established by the United Nations (instead of the Government of El Salvador), the establishment of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador (Comisión de la Verdad para El Salvador) was part of Chapultepec Peace Accords to end the Salvadoran Civil War. The commission investigated murders and executions committed during the war, including that of Óscar Romero.
Reconciliation and Unity Commission.
Created a Commission of inquiry into crimes of the SED in East Germany after unification in 1992.
National Reconciliation Commission.
Historical Clarification Commission (Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico).
The Haitian National Truth and Justice Commission.
Waki Commission; The Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission of Kenya.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
The Truth and Justice Commission of the Mauritius was an independent truth commission established in 2009, which explored the impact of slavery and indentured servitude in Mauritius. The Commission was tasked to investigate the dispossession of land, and “determine appropriate measures to be extended to descendants of slaves and indentured laborers.” It was “unique in that it [dealt] with socio-economic class abuses” and explored the possibility of reparations. The Commission attempted to cover more than 370 years, the longest period of time that a truth commission has ever covered.
Equity and Reconciliation Commission (IER).
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Nepal) reported in 1991 on the period 1961-1990. A new Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons (CIDP) formed on 10 Feb 2015.
A Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission formed in 1999 and reported in 2002.
The Panama Truth Commission (Comisión de la Verdad) was established in 2000 and reported that the former military regime had engaged in torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Truth and Justice Commission (Comisión de Verdad y Justicia).
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación).
Institute of National Remembrance.
In 2010, President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino announced that a Philippines Truth Commission will be formed to investigate unresolved issues concerning the previous administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. On July 30, 2010, a month after being sworn-in as the 15th President of the Philippines, Aquino signed Executive Order No. 1, creating the Philippine Truth Commission of 2010. However, the Supreme Court of the Philippines invalidated the executive order because of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause for singling out the Arroyo administration. In his ponencia in Biraogo vs. Truth Commission, Justice Jose C. Mendoza blatantly tagged Aquino’s Truth Commission “as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution.”
International non-governmental organizations created an International Commission of Investigation on Human Rights Violations in Rwanda since October 1, 1990 that reported in 1993; it did not advance afterwards due to the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Sierra Leone
After the end of the Sierra Leone civil war in 1999, the country created a Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission which reported that both sides had targeted civilians, including children, and called for improvements in democratic institutions and accountability.
Solomon Islands
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Solomon Islands). On April 29, 2009, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was launched by the Government of the Solomon Islands. Its aim would be to “address people’s traumatic experiences during the five year ethnic conflict on Guadalcanal (1999-2004)“. It is modelled on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. Its public hearings commenced in March 2010.
South Africa
After the transition from apartheid, President Nelson Mandela authorized a truth commission under the leadership of former Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu to study the effects of apartheid in that country. The commission was simply called the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
South Korea
The Presidential Truth Commission on Suspicious Deaths in the Republic of Korea reported in 2004. A second Truth and Reconciliation Commission opened in 2005. There has also been a local truth commission for Jeju island.
Sri Lanka
Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. After an 18-month inquiry, the commission submitted its report to the President on 15 November 2011. The report was made public on 16 December 2011, after being tabled in the parliament.
Timor-Leste (East Timor)
Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor (Comissão de Acolhimento, Verdade e Reconciliação de Timor Leste; 2001–2005); Indonesia–Timor Leste Commission of Truth and Friendship (2005–2008).
Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission established in 2009 to investigate the period from 1958 to 2009.
Truth and Dignity Commission (2014)
Uganda Commission of Inquiry into Violations of Human Rights (1986-1994).
Ukrainian National Remembrance Institute (Український інститут національної пам’яті), founded by President Viktor Yushchenko in 2006.
The Investigative Commission on the Situation of Disappeared People and its Causes operated in 1985 and produced a report covering the years 1972-83. A new Peace Commission (Uruguay) was authorized by the president to look into the same period, and reported in 2003.
United States
The Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a non-governmental body that ran from 2004-2006 to investigate events in the city that took place around 3 November 1979.
Yugoslavia (Federal Republic of)
A Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Yugoslavia) was created by the president in 1999 but did not complete its report.