{"id":497,"date":"2018-12-10T09:52:06","date_gmt":"2018-12-10T09:52:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/?p=497"},"modified":"2018-12-10T10:18:48","modified_gmt":"2018-12-10T10:18:48","slug":"left-unsettled-confessions-of-armed-revolutionaries","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/left-unsettled-confessions-of-armed-revolutionaries\/","title":{"rendered":"Left Unsettled. Confessions of Armed Revolutionaries"},"content":{"rendered":"
Picture: Members of the Ej\u00e9rcito Guerrillero del Pueblo in Salta, 1964 | Revista El Sur<\/a><\/h6>\n

<\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

By Leigh A Payne,\u00a0 Latin American Centre<\/a>,<\/span> Oxford School of Global and Area Studies<\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

What happens when armed left guerrilla or revolutionary fighters confess to past violence? Can they contribute to building stronger democracies or human rights cultures? Are they in any way similar to confessions by perpetrators of state violence?<\/em><\/p>\n

Some parts of my earlier work on state perpetrators — Unsettling Accounts <\/i><\/a>\u2013 carries through to this new study on Left Unsettled. <\/i>The revolutionary left and state perpetrators, for example, make confessions that are unsettling in content, specifically terrorist violence against civilians and extreme violence against their own comrades. Like state perpetrators, confessions on the left sometimes break or unsettle, a silence over left-wing involvement in past atrocities. When the left speaks out \u2013 like the right–, they do not settle accounts with the past but unsettle them. Confessions by the armed left disrupt a narrative that has settled about that past, that is, the left as innocent victims, and not perpetrators, of atrocity. The term \u2018left\u2019 in the title of the new project refers in part to the stated ideology of the revolutionary groups; but it also refers to what is \u2018left out,\u2019 or silenced from memory politics, what remains or is \u2018left behind,\u2019 in the analysis of past violence.<\/p>\n

The earlier project suggests that despite the unsettling nature of the confessions and the near impossibility of reconciliation as a result–, engagement of the audience can nonetheless positively benefit democracy and human rights through \u201ccontentious coexistence.\u201d Dialogic conflict over past violence puts into practice the very values of democracy–participation, expression, and contestation\u2014that sharpens, refines, and promotes widespread support for human rights norms. The earlier book comes to this conclusion by developing a dramaturgical approach. It is not that the confessional text (script) alone can have a positive effect on democracy and human rights. Indeed, certain texts (e.g., heroic or sadistic ones) can have the opposite effect on their own. Instead, other elements of the confessional performance \u2013 the perpetrators themselves (actor and acting), the political moment (timing), the space of the confession (stage), and the audience \u2013 can turn even these potentially harmful confessions into positive outcomes<\/p>\n

That positive effect is not a typical outcome for armed left confessions, however. Instead, fearful of how the right-wing might exploit these confessions to demonize the left, silencing and not contentious coexistence has resulted. Yet one factor that may contribute to a positive outcome is timing.<\/p>\n

This article considers timing as a factor shaping the impact of left confessions on democracy and human rights. It looks at two different historical moments in which the armed left confessed in Argentina. The more recent set of confessions occurred during the presidency of Cristina Fern\u00e1ndez de Kirchner. Two former members of the armed left made public written confessions, followed up by televised interviews, about their past, condemning the acts of violence in which they had participated. Claudia Hilb was a former student militant who confessed after she had become a professor at the University of Buenos Aires. Ricardo Leis was a Montonero leader who confessed as a Philosophy professor, living in Brazil since his exile there in the 1970s. They both called for a reckoning of the violations of human rights by the left to build a stronger democratic and human rights culture in Argentine politics. They both desired an end to the glorification of violence and the use of violence as a legitimate political tool. They both called for a rejection of human rights violations by whoever engaged in them, regardless of perpetrators\u2019 ideology. The response was silencing. The timing or political moment was not propitious for debate about the leftist past. This was a time of heightened political polarization in Argentina, a strong right-wing \u2018anti-Cristina\u2019 mobilization, and an effort by the right to attack the human rights trials underway in the country as one-sided. \u00a0The confessions were seen as either a call for \u201cjustice for all,\u201d which would mean putting the left on trial after it had already been decimated through torture, disappearance, exile, and extermination during the dictatorship, or \u201cjustice for no one,\u201d which would undermine the ongoing trials of perpetrators of state violence. The analysis of that particular political moment suggests that confessions on the left cannot achieve the positive role of contributing to democracy and human rights and might even cause set-backs in those processes.<\/p>\n

Yet, an earlier confessional moment had a different outcome. They did not engage the right-wing. There were no efforts to silence them. Instead, contentious coexistence emerged among the left in which different individuals, sometimes within the same armed left group, took positions on the past and openly \u2013 and sometimes harshly \u2013 engaged in a dialogue about the violent past. This debate began at the end of 2004 on the pages of the C\u00f3rdoba political left magazine (La Intemperie<\/i>) and was later published in part in a book called No Matar<\/i>. The dialogue began with an interview of the former member of the Ej\u00e9rcito Guerrillero del Pueblo<\/em> (EGP), H\u00e9ctor Jouv\u00e9. Jouv\u00e9 explains that he joined the armed left due to an intellectual commitment to end poverty and injustice, and his awareness that mainstream political parties lacked the will to bring about change. He expresses regrets about that past, however. In particular, he has misgivings about an acceptance on the armed left of authoritarian leadership and its abuses of power. He uses as examples the executions ordered by the leaders of the movement of two rank and file members (Adofo Rotblat \u201cPupi\u201d and Bernardo Groswald). Jouv\u00e9 takes responsibility for witnessing those acts and failing to speak out against them. He thus became, in his view, an accomplice to murder. His confessional text calls for language, speaking out and asking questions, as a political weapon: \u201cculture is a web of conversations\u2026more than defining ourselves, we need to ask good questions\u2026if not, we will continue to repeat the same mistakes.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"
Members of the Ej\u00e9rcito Guerrillero del Pueblo in Salta, 1964 | Revista El Sur<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

His words begin a dialogue. Oscar del Barco wrote a letter stating that Jouv\u00e9\u2019s interview \u201cmoved\u201d him to become conscious, albeit very late, of the serious tragedy within the EGP. He says, that \u201cby supporting the activities of this group, I was as responsible as the murderers.\u201d He goes on to say, \u201cThere is no explanation that makes us innocent.\u201d There are not causes or ideas that remove our guilt. He calls on everyone to accept the command \u201cthou shall not kill,\u201d to recognize that all human beings are sacred, that no one, no matter what they did, should be killed. He refers to the left around the world (Russia, Romania, Yugoslavia, China, Korea, Cuba), as failing to uphold this command, and, as a result, becoming \u201cserial assassins.\u201d He calls for ending the silence about the left\u2019s involvement in atrocities, \u201ctruth and justice should be for everyone.\u201d<\/p>\n

Del Barco is not silenced. A deep dialogic conflict erupted instead. For some the issues that Jouv\u00e9 and del Barco exposed were not new. As one commentator states, \u201cNothing said is new to me; but it has a particular intensity.\u201d For others what emerged was \u201cpreviously silenced themes and problems.\u201d The aim of the magazine and those who confessed, to generate debate and contention over the past within the left succeeded on the pages of subsequent issues of the same magazine and in other news outlets.<\/p>\n

On the positive side, those who supported Jouv\u00e9 and del Barco mentioned how their confessions played a role in presenting a more nuanced version of the past that fell in between the existing narratives of the left as in the two devils theory or a devils-angels theory. The confessions emphasized the danger when the movements\u2019 goals and its actions are disconnected and inconsistent. These supporters further embraced a commitment to the commandment \u201cthou shalt not kill\u201d on the left and the right to end the legacy of violence as a way to do politics. Finally, these supporters identified the value of talk, dialogue, speaking out, as the best weapon in the war against political injustice.<\/p>\n

\"\" \"\"<\/p>\n

Those who criticized these confessional acts, concentrated on del Barco\u2019s text. Some agreed that mistakes were made by the left, but they felt that del Barco went too far in demonizing the whole left for those mistakes, particularly in the reference to \u201cserial assassins.\u201d A common criticism was the view that del Barco constructed a moral equivalency between the violence on the left and right. In particular, the confessional text emphasized a few terrible events on the left that creates a twisted version of the past (\u201cuna moral distorsionada\u201d), more likely to politically polarize society rather than find common ground. The notion of \u201cthou shalt not kill,\u201d moreover, is on the surface unimpeachable, but fails to recognize how throughout history violence and counter-violence was required to address gross injustices. The very independence of Latin America from Spain\u2019s tyranny depended on a willingness to kill and be killed. To reduce the struggle of the armed left to the act of \u201cserial assassins,\u201d furthermore takes away the dignity of those who sacrificed their lives for a better world, turning them instead into \u201csenseless deaths\u201d (\u201cmuertes sin sentido\u201d).<\/p>\n

This contentious debate could be seen as healthy for democracy, putting into practice its essential elements of political participation, expression, and contestation. It could be said that Jouv\u00e9 and del Barco achieved their goal by stimulating dialogue, the art of doing politics through talk, speaking out, raising difficult questions, critical analysis, and overcoming authoritarian adherence to a single perspective.<\/p>\n

Why was contentious debate over the left\u2019s violence possible in the past and not in recent years? One of the historians who participated in the debate focused on the political environment in 2004-2005 when the news media focused on these confessions. He argued that the period of time was less threatening than in the years following the transition. The climate was more conducive to open and public debate than in those earlier times. In addition, there was a catalysing moment, a triggering event, that those on the left responded to in different ways. In the texts, references are made to a Mariano Grondona television program in which a widow of army captain Viola speaks of the cruelty of the People\u2019s Revolutionary Party (ERP) in killing her husband. Grondona evoked \u2013 \u201cwithout any subtlety\u201d — the image of the two devils. This highly contested view of the past promoted by the authoritarian regime was back in circulation. Rather than simply rejecting it out of hand, in this less polarized moment, those on the armed left who had engaged in or witnessed cruelty by their own forces were willing to take a moral stand against it.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"
Maby Pic\u00f3n de Viola on the funeral of her husband, Captain Humberto Antonio Viola, and daughter, Maria Cristina Viola (1974)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Another part of the debate focused on a different aspect of the political moment. This debate followed the \u201cque se vayan todos\u201d (\u201cthrow the bums out\u201d) protests in which a majority of Argentines took to the streets against politicians. Argentines were claiming their voice, their citizenship, their right to have rights. In this context, the closed and unresponsive state was challenged. It is in this context that the authoritarian regime of the past is identified as a terrorist state, and not merely a dictatorship. Thinking critically, challenging top-down views, questioning authority, became part of the political climate of the time. A period of democracy in the streets that seemed to have a contagious effect among the left. Some were willing to reflect on the hierarchies within their own movement that had lost touch with the base, the rank and file, and the goals of social justice, where ends justified means.<\/p>\n

Despite this propitious political moment, there were still efforts at silencing these unsettling truths about the left. Some suggested that del Barco himself had closed off the possibility of dialogue through his use of \u201cunbridled violent language aimed at all protagonists\u201d on the left. \u00a0Because of this, some on the left called for censoring del Barco.<\/p>\n

Another form of silencing occurred with the publication of the book No Matar<\/a>. <\/i>The book was meant to present the full contours of the debate triggered by Jouv\u00e9\u2019s and del Barco\u2019s confessions. Certain positions in that debate were excluded from the publication, however. In particular, those who agreed with Del Barco were left out. One had criticized del Barco\u2019s critics, referring to their positions as using \u201chistorical contingency\u201d to excuse past violence by the left. Another excluded part of the debate questioned the view of the left\u2019s \u201cmistakes.\u201d This view contended that \u201cexecutions are not errors. They tend to follow a long period of planning.\u201d Another excluded commentary was one that shamed the left for \u201chiding in silence\u201d about its use of violence, responding not to their moral duty but their fear of the right\u2019s exploitation of these truths.<\/p>\n

This brings me to my conclusion. Political timing is important, even crucial, to contentious coexistence. The other elements of the confessional performance did not vary much between the two historical moments. Hilb\u2019s and Leis\u2019s confessional scripts resembled the earlier ones by exposing unsettling aspects of the armed left\u2019s past violence. They were similar kinds of actors, having been members of the armed left who had witnessed atrocity. Their confessional stage was not significantly different. They too had published their texts and were interviewed in the media. The audience \u2013 the right and the left \u2013 were similar in each set of confessions. The main difference that helps us explain the possibility of opening up debate is the timing of the confessions. The earlier period was a safer moment for the left to admit to these atrocities without the same level of fear about backlash.<\/p>\n

But even in the most propitious moments, as in the earlier confessional era, there is still too much polarization to freely debate the left\u2019s violent past. As one of the commentary\u2019s states about the confessions, \u201cThey unsettled me.\u201d Yet one of the most unsettling parts of the confessional performance for him was the failure on the left to hear. As he stated, \u201cWe have opted not to listen.\u201d \u00a0Thus, even when a debate is opened up, there is an effort to shut it down. In this, the left has failed to live up to its own ideals and theories, to think critically, to reflect, to condemn those parts of the left\u2019s past that deserve condemnation.<\/p>\n

If it is the case that even in the best of times, left confessions to violence face silence, what does this mean for contentious coexistence? If even during the periods of a broad consensus to reject violence as a way to do politics, the left cannot reflect on its own role in the past, then what are the possibilities of building a strong, democratic, peaceful future that respects human rights? More poignantly, during the current period, as Latin American countries move further away from the left, and the right is empowered, can debates render the kind of contentious coexistence that is positive to democratic dialogue and building a stronger human rights cultures? Or will they provoke a further rollback of rights and the delegitimization of the left? Is there a way in which the left can play a constructive role, in these unpropitious and propitious political environments, in building stronger human rights regimes?<\/p>\n

Timing has never done all of the work of turning confessional performances into contentious coexistence and democratic practice. How timing affects audience responses is significant. Until audiences on the left feel it is safe to talk freely about the past \u2013 without fuelling political polarization and playing into the right\u2019s efforts to demonize the left \u2013 it is unlikely that these confessions will have their intended effect of rejecting violence as a political strategy. And yet without broad consensus against the use of violence by the right or the left, it is uncertain whether countries can emerge from the legacies of the past and build democratic and human rights futures.<\/p>\n

\n
References<\/h6>\n
del Barco, Oscar. \u201cNo Mataras<\/a><\/span>.\u201d La Intemperie, <\/i>Number 17, 2004.<\/h6>\n
Hilb, Claudia. Usos del pasado: Qu\u00e9 hacemos hoy con los setenta<\/a>. <\/i>Buenos Aires: Siglo \u2028Veintiuno Editores, 2013.<\/h6>\n
Jouv\u00e9, H\u00e9ctor. \u201cLa guerrilla del Che en Salta, 40 a\u00f1os despu\u00e9s.<\/a><\/span>\u201d La Intemperie, <\/i>Numbers 15-16, 2004.<\/h6>\n
Leis, Ricardo. Testamento de los a\u00f1os 70<\/i>.<\/a><\/span> 12 October 2012. Hectorleis.blogspot.com.ar.<\/h6>\n
No matar: sobre la responsabilidad<\/i><\/a><\/span>. <\/i>C\u00f3rdoba: Editorial UNC and El C\u00edclope, 2007.<\/h6>\n
Payne, Leigh A.. Unsettling Accounts: Neither Truth Nor Reconciliation in Confessions of State Violence<\/i><\/a><\/span>. <\/i>Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008.<\/h6>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Picture: Members of the Ej\u00e9rcito Guerrillero del Pueblo in Salta, 1964 | Revista El Sur   By Leigh A Payne,\u00a0 Latin American Centre, Oxford School of Global and Area Studies   What happens when armed left guerrilla or revolutionary fighters confess to past violence? Can they contribute to building stronger democracies or human rights cultures? …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":499,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[130,132,139,131,134,133],"class_list":["post-497","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-large-article","tag-argentina","tag-ejercito-guerrillero-del-pueblo","tag-issue2","tag-left","tag-motoneros","tag-no-matar"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/497","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=497"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/497\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":590,"href":"https:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/497\/revisions\/590"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/499"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/europeanmemories.net\/magazine\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}