Strategic silence as a third way: political parties and transitional justice

Abstract

How do political parties react to transitional justice (TJ) processes? Do they always have to choose between supporting and rejecting the punishment of the outgoing elite and their collaborators? While Huntington emphasized the existence of two major approaches to TJ – for and against – this article argues there is a third way that has been relatively understudied – strategic silence. It will be argued that, under certain conditions, political calculations can lead to the adoption of silence as a deliberate strategy by certain political actors in TJ processes. Focusing on the Portuguese case (1974–1976), the article explores why, and under what conditions, silence is perceived as the best strategy in dealing with the past following the defeat or breakdown of an authoritarian regime.