Grandstanding instead of deliberative policy-making: transitional justice, publicness and parliamentary questions in the Croatian parliament

Addressing the legacy of human rights violations in public can benefit victims, post-conflict societies and democracy building. But publicness of transitional justice (TJ) processes can also have opposite effects. We assess the relationship between publicness and TJ by leveraging the democratic deliberation theory concerned with the impact of publicness on the quality of policy-making. A comparative analysis of oral and written questions about TJ in the Croatian parliament (2004–20) shows that members of parliament use oral questions for nationalist grandstanding and written questions for substantive TJ policy deliberation. We demonstrate how publicness afforded by parliaments stymies TJ’s normative goals.