How Governments Apologize
Saying sorry in a day and age where past injustices are frequently brought to light and reputation is everything
December 7, 1970. The German Chancelor Willy Brandt visits Poland to mend Polish-West Germany relations. At the end of his visit, he approaches the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising memorial (“The Monument to Ghetto Heroes”) and falls to his knees, in an act of apology that makes news around the world. This was an apology that had no words but simply raw emotion, and that can often make a huge impact. The gesture is a symbol of asking for forgiveness today and even has a monument dedicated to it. Brandt, later said, “… I acted in the way of those whom language fails.” It is to date thought to be an important step in restoring relations between Germany and Easter European countries.
Governments around the world have not been strangers to saying sorry. Often governments, as part of the regime they were run by at the time, have committed crimes, atrocities and human rights abuses. Many have decided to stay mum on the matter, despite widespread recognition of their violence, both externally and internally. Many governments have apologized for their wrongdoings in order to soother the pain or just to address the elephant in the room. Interestingly enough, sometimes governments also choose to acknowledge the crime and not outright apologize for it either. On the change of government, a few have resorted to Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to ease the suffering of the victims and legitimize their struggles with loss of family, loved ones and inquire about the gross injustices that may have taken place against them or their communities in the previous regime.
The Anatomy of the Apology
Apologia is derived from the Greek word of the same name and is defined as the “defense of one’s actions and opinions”. Today, the definition of apology is not limited to that. Often, if one were to defend their actions of wrong-doing, they would be criticized and ridiculed, and would appear on a list of worst apologies of the year. Jokes apart, apologies are important. On a personal scale it is easy to understand the power of a well-thought out, straight-from-the-heart apology. Blatz et al. condenses the interpersonal apology into six elements. They are as follows —
- Remorse — saying “I’m sorry”
- Acceptance of responsibility — saying “It’s my fault”
- Admission of injustice — saying “What I did was wrong”
- Acknowledgement of harm — saying “I know you are upset”
- Promises to behave better in the future — saying “I will never do it again”
- Offers of repair — saying “I will pay for damages”
The large scale apology is not too different — except a lot rides on the quality of the apology being made. Often simply saying sorry will not cut it. If the victimized group is asking for reparations then saying sorry will imply that the apology will not be accepted. The reverse is also true. In 2007, when the then Canadian government decided to remove a statement of apology as part of the settlement with its indigenous communities, it was not well received at all. The community responded saying, “We are extremely disappointed that the current government does not understand the significant role an apology would have in the healing and reconciliation process for our people.” To counter this Blatz et al. provided four additional elements to make a final ten elements of a governmental apology —
- The government might choose to address the identity concerns of a minority — this might answer why this minority has been facing oppression at the hands of other communities
- The government might seek to phrase its apology to least avoid backlash from the majority — majorities may often strongly oppose an apology to a minority
- The government might seek to include praise for the current system — this encourages people to believe that they live in a country which is fair and just (NB: it may also be used to establish “political good will” and also paint the image of a “noble” party in a populist structure)
- The government might dissociate itself from the regime in which the injustices occurred — the laws then are not be same as those that were before — acts of discrimination were often legal — be it mass murder, extremely high taxes, etc.
When it comes to large scale apologies done at a national scale, national memory is at stake, and a good one can even kick start a rebuilding process of society itself, as is the case of South Africa post-apartheid and post-TRC. A healthy understanding of these ten elements, and an honest and heartfelt application can surely do wonders.
The Rhetorics of the Apology
James L. Jasinski, in the entry on Apologia in his book Sourcebook on Rhetoric (which also happens to be the base of this assignment) has documented work on the rhetoric of apology. Ware and Linkugel, in 1973, divided the genre into two — the postures or the goals that the delivered apology seeks to achieve, and the tactics or the strategies that the apologizer will use to achieve the goal they wish to. To understand it better, they are supposed with examples of interpersonal apologies.
The postures are further divided into five categories-
- Seeking Acquittal. To acknowledge the charge and deny the accusation. Chetan Bhagat’s large post on Facebook fits the bill exactly.
- Seeking Absolution. To acknowledge the charge and admit guilt. Tony Robbins makes a heartfelt apology after his inappropriate comments at an event — https://twitter.com/TonyRobbins/status/983012094760177665
- Attempting Explanation. To acknowledge the charge and offer one’s side of the story. Varun Grover’s open letter regarding allegations against him are a good example of this — https://medium.com/@varungrover/an-open-letter-to-find-some-closure-d8bd8dad8ca9
- Seeking Vindication. To not acknowledge the charge and misdirecting the accusation. Although Kevin Spacey acknowledges that he may have done something, he does a good job changing the subject — https://twitter.com/KevinSpacey/status/924848412842971136
- Justification. To redefine the act in question to something justifiable/praiseworthy/noble.
The four tactics are further divided into four categories-
- Strategies of Denial. These include forms of denial that may be used to disagree with the accusation. They include denial of substance, of intent, of extent of consequences, and forms of indirect denial.
- Bolstering. The process of linking the accused to something greater, such as to family values or the objects like the flag.
- Differentiation. This seeks to create distinctions between the act and the element of the situation.
- Transcendence. This includes a significant reinterpretation of the act in question.
A good example of how this works is that of Turkey’s after they shot a Russian plane down that apparently violated their airspace, and were diplomatically cornered by other countries and thereby forced out an apology. Erdoğan cleverly apologised by saying, “would like to inform the family of the deceased Russian pilot that I share their pain and to offer my condolences to them. May they excuse us.” No apology was made to the Russian government, nor any reparations offered for the destroyed plane. Erdoğan didn’t apologize for shooting down the plane. The apology was for the pilot who lost his life and for nothing else. This is an interesting example of how to politically maneuver oneself, while also mildly ceding to political pressure. If we were to analyze it as per the above information of the goals and tactics used to apologize — then this apology seeks to achieve vindication; this would be the goal. It is an “indirect response to charge” (“the family of the deceased Russian pilot”) and the charge — of shooting a Russian plane down — was never acknowledged. Instead the collateral damage of the loss of the pilot’s life was condemned. As far as the tactics are concerned, significant redefinition or reinterpretation of the questionable act took place, thereby confirming that the tactic of transcendence was made use of here.
Public Apology for Crimes of Years Past
Jasinski says,
In life, an attack upon a person’s character, upon his [sic] worth as a human being, does seem to demand a direct response. The questioning of a man’s moral nature, motives, or reputation is qualitatively different from the challenging of his policies.
In a public apology, reputation comes into play. In an apology, the kind a government has to mete out for itself, the audience receiving the apology is huge, not just one person or a bunch of people. Another added pressure that comes along with governmental apologies is the disapproval of the apology by the opposition. In some governments, apologies are far from being given, such as in Turkey for the Armenian Genocide, in Japan for the Nanjing Massacre (what is also called The Rape of Nanking) or for Pakistan’s 1971 Genocide of Bangladesh. Many of the time, addressing a crime that the government had indulged in comes at loggerheads with national interest as well as national pride. Often, governments may even shun literature and media that seeks to discredit or defame a country because of its involvement with the said perpetration.
Where apologizes on behalf of governments are concerned, Justin Trudeau, Prime Minster of Canada seems to have been busy in the apologies department. In November 2016, he apologized for the Komagata Maru incident of 1914, where Sikh, Hindu and Muslim individuals were denied entry into Canada. In November 2017, he apologized to the indigenous people of Newfoundland and Labrador where children from indigenous families were separated and admitted in residential schools, where many said they had faced abuse. Later in the same month, Trudeau apologized for the “ state-sponsored, systematic oppression and rejection” of LGBT Canadians. In November 2018, he apologized on behalf of the federal government for rejection of a ship of Jewish refugees in 1939 fleeing the Holocaust. He called for an end to antisemitism and that this was a “shameful event in Canadian history”. Oh, to be Canadian and apologetic.
Trudeau, in his time at the top of the Canadian government, has apologized four times. It’s interesting to see his approach to apologies. Many of them generally seem like acts of goodwill — this of course is backed by his proactive social equality actions like having a cabinet of an equal number of men and women, as well as his participation in LGBT pride parades. As per Jasinski’s entry, all apologies seem to seek absolution — Canada admits wrongdoing and agrees to never do it again — and reaffirms a commitment in something greater (such as the call for an end to antisemitism). For the various stakeholders in these apologies — it would have been a moment of relief — to finally have received an acknowledgement for the injustices they and their families would have faced under these terrible actions.
On February 13, 2008, the then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the indigenous population of Australia for forced removal of children from their families (also called The Stolen Generations) by state as well as federal forces. Some of the lines in PM Rudd’s apology include
That today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.
We reflect on their past mistreatment.
[…]
We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.
[…]
For the pain, suffering, and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.
[…]
And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.
We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.
This is a powerful apology, following which a compensation and reparation plan was talked about in the Parliament by Rudd. Many have considered this to be a powerful start to apologies and revisiting the painful memories of separation, loss of culture, loss of identity and ripping apart of the familial fabric. Often this is the first step that is required for a generation to reconcile with its past. Rudd’s apology on behalf of the Australian government was a good one, simply because it aimed to seek absolution for it’s past crimes. As far as the tactics are concerned — it aimed to bolster itself in the eyes of the public — by linking itself to the idea of Australia being a free and fair nation and that the Parliament would never do such a thing again.
The Jasinski entry can be applied in any apology to check and analyze. Often, the authenticity, the sincerity and the honesty with which an apology is rendered can be understood. Further, autopsies on these expressions of regret can also be analyzed to understand and identify any underlying motives in the choice of tactics used or the goal that is looking to be achieved. In conclusion, it’s smart to stay informed and to be skeptical. Jasinski’s documentation on the rhetoric of apologies are a fantastic tool to be aware and alert to the subtle undertones that celebrities, politicians and governments may use to make their case.
As far as the quality of apologies is concerned — a great apology would probably be one that makes use of all ten criteria to properly and respectfully acknowledge injustices and provide the confidence of it never being repeated again. Furthermore, one can also saying that using the right rhetoric styles and ideas could only make one’s case for an apology. Lastly, the most important thing to keep in mind while delivering an apology is the apologee. One must be careful to keep in mind the unfairness, the crimes and the abuse that a community would have gone through. It must always be kept in mind that the apology is for relieving the persons and the community of their pain, and not for absolving a guilty party from their misdeeds (although this may happen as a by-product of the apology). The survivors must always come first.
Closure is a beautiful thing.
Read More (read: stuff I went through for this article but did not include them)
A documentary clip on Der Kniefall von Warschau
The branched out piece on Genocide Denial on Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia article on the Nanking Massacre denial.
The Wikipedia article on the Armenian Genocide denial.
The Wikipedia section on the Bangladeshi Genocide denial.
Smithsonian Magazine’s article on the Bangladesh Genocide.
The extremely well-detailed Wikipedia article on Australia’s Stolen Generations.
An interesting website called Sorry Watch which claims to “praise the good [apologies] and fling metaphorical monkey poop at the bad ones”.
A 7-minute NPR podcast clip on the “Economics of Apologies”.
Australia’s National Sorry Day and the effect of the Rudd apology ten years on.
The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, the request for an apology one hundred years later, and UK’s “reflection” on the matter.
Bibliography
Jasinski, James L. “Apologia.” Jasinski, James L. Sourcebook on Rhetoric. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2001. 20–22.
