A recent commentary published by Jan-Werner Müller has sparked debate by suggesting that American citizens might need to consider forms of 'popular justice' to hold individuals accountable who are perceived to be operating with impunity. The article highlights instances where former US officials, implicated in controversial actions or promoting conspiracy theories, appear to be monetising their past roles without facing significant repercussions.
Among the examples cited is Greg Bovino, a former Border Patrol commander, who reportedly attended a 'remigration summit' in Portugal. At the event, Bovino was seen interacting with Martin Sellner, an Austrian activist described as a notorious right-wing extremist, and expressed immediate alignment with his views. Separately, Tina Peters, a former elections clerk whose sentence was commuted by Colorado Governor Jared Polis, is noted for appearing on a prominent show to disseminate conspiracy theories about electoral fraud.
The commentary argues that such scenarios unfold against a backdrop where a potential future US administration could offer widespread pardons, as seen with some individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol insurrection. In the absence of formal accountability, the author posits that citizens seeking justice might need to take peaceful action. The piece draws a parallel with Argentina's experience following its dictatorship, where extensive amnesty provisions meant many perpetrators of atrocities lived unpunished. Argentine citizens eventually organised 'escraches' – non-violent public demonstrations outside the homes of these individuals, involving noise, graffiti, and theatrical performances, to highlight their identities and past actions to unsuspecting neighbours.
Historically, similar forms of popular justice, known as 'charivari' or 'rough music', have existed since medieval times in various cultures, including Britain. These involved villagers protesting outside the homes of officials accused of misdeeds or ordinary citizens suspected of transgressions, using loud noises and mock parades. These actions were often conservative in nature, aiming to remind individuals of community moral commitments and ideally facilitate reintegration.
However, the commentary acknowledges the significant risks associated with such approaches. A primary concern is that popular justice could become uncontrolled, deteriorating into public shaming without proper oversight, where the practitioners themselves remain unaccountable. There is also the danger of reciprocal actions and the potential for an escalation that could undermine the rule of law and foster societal division, ultimately raising the spectre of civil unrest.