The main argument is that while the benefits of public-empowering justice in transitional states are compelling, significant institutional barriers remain that render participatory governance difficult to sustain in transitional states. Deliberative strategies that bring citizens into the fold of public policy making require extraordinary commitment from both citizens and the state. The author outlines the impediments to public-empowering justice in transitional states, which include serious crime problems and a lack of budgetary resources. On the other hand, states in the midst of democratizing may be particularly well suited to public-empowering justice. For example, citizens’ experience with informal justice in transitioning states suggest that citizens may be more willing to participate in the policy arena rather than simply being consumers of state social control services. Moreover, deliberative activities provide an education in democracy that is particularly relevant for citizens living through a stage of political transition. The case of post-apartheid South Africa is considered, which retreated from its initial interest in public-empowering justice practices such as community policing, the use of lay assessors in criminal trials, and the use of community courts. The reasons South African public-empowering reforms failed are considered and include the mistrust of citizens by police and magistrates as well as short-range thinking by the government, which was under pressure to stem serious crime. “Get tough” crime policies were instituted that valued conventional regime performance over deepening democracy. The retreat from participatory governance was also linked to the country’s interest in stabilizing its economic and social climate. Despite the official government retreat from public-empowering justice, restorative justice programs for youth are emerging around the country and villages are setting up structures to deal with the government’s lack of interest in the poor. Notes, references