Demanding deliberative accountability in populist times: the Ayotzinapa movement and its quest for truth and justice

Abstract

Human rights violations test governments’ commitment to truth and justice. We argue that elected governments must be deliberatively accountable for how they address human rights violations. Governments are deliberatively accountable to the extent to which they engage in practices of recognition, reciprocity, and public justification that serve the purpose of truth and justice. We analyze how the social movement representing the families of the 43 disappeared Ayotzinapa students demanded deliberative accountability from the Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) government in Mexico. Although AMLO committed to clarifying the crime and ending impunity, his government progressively framed the investigation in populist terms. AMLO claimed that justice was already served and delegitimized the social movement acting on behalf of the victims. The analysis shows how the social movement framed its demand for deliberative accountability in a context of polarization and democratic erosion by defending recognition, reciprocity, and justification in the political process.