In land of apologies, ‘sorry’ never just sounds

When it’s time to say sorry, and words fail, sometimes one gesture is enough. And so Willy Brandt went to Warsaw in 1970 through the knees. A spontaneous action, the West German Chancellor would later say, prompted by the war misery that Germany had caused in Poland. But it was an action that changed history: Poland felt seen, Polish-German relations were resumed. Brandt received a Nobel Prize for it.

The contrast between Brandt’s silent kneeling and the apologies that are sounding today is stark. The latter is all about precise choices: the right words, leaving nothing to chance. There is no such thing as spontaneity. The ‘deepest apologies’ that Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren (D66) offered this week on behalf of the cabinet to the relatives of the victims of the genocide in Srebrenica, the Muslim enclave that was supervised by Dutch Dutchbat soldiers, was preceded by long official deliberations. .

Positive reactions and criticism after apologies to relatives of Srebrenica: ‘In fact, the minister did not appoint anything’

So the Dutch government does not just say sorry. And yet apologies are on the rise. Last month, Prime Minister Mark Rutte (VVD) apologized to the Dutchbat soldiers because they had been sent “with an assignment that gradually proved unfeasible”. Last February, Rutte apologized to the people of Indonesia for the extreme violence during the Indonesian National Revolution (1945-1949). No apologies are made for the slavery past, it was announced two weeks ago, but they may follow later.

Cabinet is waiting with apologies for slavery

In the past, Dutch history was mainly something to be proud of. The fact that the government is now increasingly saying sorry shows that the painful chapters are no longer being swept under the rug and even accountable for them. The trend is undeniable. In the past four years, the Dutch government has apologized for human rights violations at least eight times, according to a database from Tilburg University. The apologies for the Supplements affair and gas quakes in Groningen are not included in this. In the twenty years before that, it was also eight times. For example, in 2001, for the first time since 1947, apologies were made for human rights violations.

Defensive Walls

The apologies don’t come out of nowhere: they are asked for. “The media, the House of Representatives and watchdogs such as the National Ombudsman are increasingly pounding on the traditional defense walls of policymakers,” says public administration expert Paul ‘t Hart. “They don’t accept it anymore when the government denies or downplays problems or blames them on external factors. And the last defense wall of the cabinet is: say sorry.”

Now that people have to say sorry more and more, the government is looking for guidelines: when should you say sorry or not? And how do you say that? It must appear sincere, but cannot lead to claims for damages, is the idea. To get a grip on this, officials met for years in an ‘interdepartmental working group Apologies’, it turned out this week. documents of the Ministry of Finance with regard to the Allowances Affair obtained by RTL News and Fidelity through the Open Government Act (Woo).

The final report of the working group from 2018 is not public. But how much thought was given to the how and why is apparent from the fact that officials from no fewer than eight ministries took a seat. Even Infrastructure and Water Management contributed ideas about expressing regret. The Woo documents only contain the conclusion: offering an apology does not have to lead to compensation claims “if carefully formulated”. The documents also show at a detailed level how pragmatic the cabinet is. For example, officials write about a ‘flower voucher’ for victims of the Allowances affair: ‘undesirable’. This could have an ‘oil slick’ effect and the cabinet could come across as ‘too humble’.

Also important: timing. The apologies for ‘Srebrenica’ took 27 years to be issued almost simultaneously with the apologies to the veterans. According to a Defense spokesperson, the decision was ‘linked’. If one group gets an apology, the other can’t wait.

But apologizing to too many groups too quickly is also not desirable. One of the government’s considerations for not offering an apology for the slavery past, despite an advice to do so, is precisely the growing number of apologies for other matters. It must remain special. Moreover, a good opportunity presents itself. Next year, we will commemorate the 150th anniversary of the end of slavery.

Doubting Integrity

If the government does make an apology, every word is carefully weighed. She is often afraid of legal consequences. You can clearly see that in the apologies for ‘Srebrenica’. Ollongren said: “The international community failed to protect the people of Srebrenica. As part of this community, the Dutch government shares political responsibility for the situation in which this failure could happen. For that, we offer our deepest apologies.”

Also read this NRC comment: Apologies Srebrenica are the right step, but could be better

“It sounds like a lot of thought has gone into that, so that you don’t have to say: we failed,” says Tom Postmes, professor of social psychology. “There is probably a legal reason for that, but for the healing aspect of apologies it is good to admit to the victims that you have failed.” Postmes says that his PhD student saw how the confidence of the population in Groningen was damaged by the apologies that the authorities offered time and again for mistakes in gas extraction and the settlement of earthquake damage. “If people see that things continue to go wrong in the meantime, they start to doubt your integrity. And that is problematic, because you still have to continue working together.”

Ultimately, the answer to one simple question seems to be the deciding factor in any form of apology: are they sincere? “We live in a land of excuses”, noted Benefits parent Kristie Rongen this week on Twitter about the attitude of civil servants and ministers, ‘while they actually do not want to give it’.