good intentions gone bad: does it have to be that way?

For my first post, I want to talk about a particular problem that has raised its ugly head in the reparations processes and truth and reconciliation commission that I have been involved with.  It is the problem of 'good intentions gone bad' or to put another way, 'the devil in the details'.  Too often, the intense emotional drive to address the wrongs suffered and to reach a state of peaceful relations can result in overlooking some very real systemic issues that can prevent the desired result.  These systemic issues - such as inequality, socio-political realities, the lack of an inclusive legal infrastructure, and the underlying relationship dynamic which lead to the wrongs - often manifest themselves in the details of implementing any kind of truth commission, victim reparations process, memorialization or any other form of civil redress.  

For example, take a look at what happened in Nova Scotia.  Here is a link to the Institutional Abuse Response Inquiry of Nova Scotia (the "Kaufman Inquiry") which examined the reparations process set up by the Nova Scotia Government to address claims of abuse by adults who had been institutionalized as children:  

http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/kaufmanreport/fullreport.pdf 

Driven by concern that the process for seeking compensation should not be too difficult for potential claimants, and not wanting to re-victimize people, the process designers established a very low validation standard for abuse claims.  It turned out that the standard was so low that it put the validity of the entire reparations process in doubt, thus doing a disservice to those who were legitimate victims of abuse as children as well as others touched by the process.   Though the policy concern that a process should not create further harm is a legitimate one, there may be countervailing issues, or a greater harm created by a process that is in disrepute.

I think this issue will pop up in future posts as I can think of many more manifestations of this particular problem. So far, I think the only way to address the problem of systemic issues derailing redress efforts is to instill  the following central process features:

- identify and include as many 'stakeholder' members as possible in the inner workings of the process in order to increase the chances of the identification of systemic barriers and negative impacts of implementation;  
- identify systemic barriers immediately and as they come up, no matter how challenging the problem;
- create a culture of transparency and openness in dialogue as well as in decision-making; and,
- identify social and/or legal spaces where there exist the possibility of effecting systemic change. I hope to address this last issue in a separate post.  

To summarize, the process used to address historic oppression/wrongs, needs to reflect and model the change in relations that the process seeks to stimulate in the broader societal context. 

I wonder if there are other ways to create touchstones or guideposts for implementers who want to avoid going off track. What is your experience?