Truth and reconciliation commissions test the Nordic ideal

Nordic countries, which are often viewed as leaders in equality and human rights, are now voluntarily confronting their own uncomfortable histories. At a recent roundtable in Copenhagen, members of the region’s truth and reconciliation commissions gathered together to share experiences at a time when their work is shifting from investigation towards implementation.

Presentations, followed by an interactive forum, included commissioners and researchers from Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark who reflected on what their work has revealed so far and what comes next.

Challenging the Nordic self-image

The commissions have been tasked with documenting the history of assimilation policies imposed on Sámi communities and other minority groups. In doing so, they are not only revisiting the past, but also challenging national narratives about fairness, progress and inclusion. Or as Astrid Nonbo Andersen, Research leader of the project Truth and Reconciliation in the Nordic Countries, put it in her opening remarks: “These commissions are intervening in deep-seated historiographic traditions that go to the heart of our Nordic self-image.”

Andersen described the scope of this history as a gradual process of colonisation in the Arctic parts of Fennoscandia, over several hundred years. With the spread of Christianity, Sámi spirituality and nomadic ways came under increasing pressure as missionary efforts sought to replace traditional lifestyles and belief systems. At the same time, the drawing and patrolling of borders between Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland disrupted long-followed migration patterns, particularly for reindeer herding communities.

These changes also affected other groups in northern Scandinavia, who today are referred to as the Kvens/Norwegian Finns, Tornedalians, and Lantalaiset, as well as the Forest Finns, and who faced harsh discrimination and restrictions on their traditional ways of life.

The roundtable also highlighted the broader scope of Nordic truth processes, including a presentation on Sweden’s earlier commission on Tornedalians, Kvens and Lantalaiset (active 2020–2023) from former commissioner Malin Arvidsson, and an introduction from Danish researcher Tenna Jensen to a newly-convened inquiry into historical relations between Denmark and Greenland.

Now, with reports on Sámi relations delivered in Norway and Finland and the final report of the Swedish Truth Commission for the Sámi People expected in October, attention is turning to how the investigations were carried out, the challenges encountered and perhaps the most difficult question of all: whether the findings will lead to meaningful change.

Finding a shared language

At the core of the discussion was a recognition of the challenge related to documenting and describing these past injustices. As Andersen observed, “Part of the role of the commissions has been seeking to find a shared language in which to understand and speak about injustices committed in the Nordic states.”

But even as the commissions work towards a shared language, they are not necessarily working towards a single version of the truth. Much of the work rests on gathering lived experiences, including personal testimonies that don’t always align neatly with official records or even from one to another, making it difficult to reconcile.

As Swedish commissioner Krister Stoor put it, this raises a fundamental question: “How can you build the truth on narratives or stories? Whose truth is it? It is the people who are telling their stories, and it is their truth.”

This tension runs through many of the processes, with truth commissions on one level, seeking to verify events, but also tasked with giving space to memory and emotion. “These individual accounts cannot simply be dismissed,” said Norwegian commissioner Ketil Zachariassen. “This is what happened for them, and that’s important to have in mind.”

For commissions, in practice, this means acknowledging that different experiences of the same government policies can coexist. For example, children taken from their homes and placed in school homes – often far from their families and unable to understand the language of the classroom – experienced these policies in different ways. In their testimonials, some recall this as an opportunity that led to education or employment. Others remember only pain and loss.

“There are different voices and different experiences, and we need to acknowledge that,” Arvidsson said. “But even when experiences differ, we can still understand them as part of a broader assimilation policy and its long-term consequences.”

Turning truth into action

If truths are the starting point, the greater challenge lies in what comes next. Across the Nordic countries, commissioners pointed to a recurring gap between recognition and implementation, or where rights exist on paper but are not always realized in practice. A gap between laws and lived reality that Zachariassen said remains “a massive challenge.”

But the obstacles are not only political; they’re also practical. Where there is a local will to act, there is often a lack of capacity, particularly when it comes to language. Arvidsson pointed to shortages of teachers and translators needed to deliver education and services in minority languages. “Even the basic provision can be difficult when teachers must travel between municipalities to build a full-time role,” she said. “Translating the commission report alone, takes a lot of specialist capacity.”

These kinds of constraints help explain why implementing the commissions’ recommendations can be slow and uneven. In practice, these recommendations can range from language rights and education to land use, cultural protection and the recognition of Indigenous authority.

Reconciliation begins with listening

Alongside implementation, participants also pointed to the importance of how these histories are heard and understood by the wider public. For many, the process of reconciliation begins with listening. In both Norway and Finland, the final Sámi commission reports were read aloud over several days in public settings, bringing testimonies into shared national spaces and opening them to a wider audience.

In Finland, the report was read aloud over three days at the Finnish National Theater. Commission chair Hannele Pokka described it as deeply emotional. “I was sitting there listening… and found that many Finns also came to listen and that it was important for us to hear.”

In Norway, the report was broadcast live on national television over the course of a weekend. As noted, this helped to generate a wider awareness. “To sit and listen to these stories… it creates something between people,” Zachariassen said.

The need for action

At the same time, expectations among the commissioners remain measured. As Pokka put it, “this final report is only the first step on the path of reconciliation.”

But if reconciliation is understood as a long process, the reports also set clear expectations for what should follow. Finland’s report alone includes 68 recommendations. As Zachariassen noted, “the Norwegian commission ended their report with these words: the will to reconcile must be demonstrated in action.”

For the Nordic countries, confronting the past may be voluntary, but what follows will determine whether that process leads to lasting change.