Moderator: Professor Alexander Boraine, President of the International Center for Transitional Justice
Invited speakers: Rev. Frank Chicane, Director-General, Presidency; Mr Graeme Simpson, Director of the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation; Dr Charles Villa-Vicencio, Director of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation; Ms Hlengiwe Buhle Mkhize, South Africa; Mr Andy Ribeiro, South Africa

South Africa confronts its people with the enormous task and challenge of coping with a situation in which “the past isn’t even the past”, as one of the speakers reminded the audience with this quote from the 1950 Nobel Prize laureate William Faulkner. The degree of emotional intensity during the session reflected the commitment and empathy of all the speakers in the current efforts to come to terms with this past which is still so much alive in the present.

Alexander Boraine, previously chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in South Africa and President of the International Center for Transitional Justice, emphasised in his introduction as moderator the need to be aware of the context of the current South Africa. The first democratic elections took place in 1994. The negotiated settlement towards a democratic society paved the way and served as a basis for the TRC. It also demarcated the limitations of taking the previous perpetrators to task under the new political system. Both repression and resistance had resulted in a stalemate in the late 1980s: those still in power could not eliminate opposition, those in resistance could not defeat the system. Hence the only viable option out of this dilemma was to achieve a win-win situation through a negotiated compromise. The required give and take had also far-reaching implications for the TRC. The final clause adopted at the last moment to pave a way for the transitional constitution as adopted by all parties eight years ago allowed for amnesty in politically motivated cases. This was difficult to accept for the liberation movement. The problem of how to justify impunity in certain cases became a burning issue.

Rev. Frank Chikane, Director-General in the Office of the President, is himself a case in point. The target of an assassination attempt in 1989, he knows those who were executing the deed and remain unpunished. As his case has been publicly known, he refused to testify at the TRC. His personal statement to this seminar did not represent an official government position and summarised “the story behind the story of the TRC”. He emphasised that the TRC did not stand for a theoretical concept but emerged as a product of the struggle. It had a high moral content, to build new bridges in a situation where old ones were burnt. This was an essential aspect, given the particular situation of the white South Africans: having nowhere to run to, they had to stay and deal with the issues. Interaction under the new system was required as a condition to save their future – even if this interaction did not imply a change of heart or mind but reflected more the need for adaptation to changing circumstances in order to survive. The TRC had as its main intention to find the truth rather than to prosecute the perpetrators, to find out about the story to prevent it happening again. Amnesty also served the purpose of encouraging testimony with the aim of establishing the truth. At the same time, such testimony could also restore the humanity of the oppressors. The struggle was not about revenge but about justice.

Charles Villa-Vicencio, Director of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, confirmed that in his view there was no alternative in South Africa other than to learn to live together. He considered the TRC as a good start in seeking to address the past and to evolve a new self-understanding based on compromise in order to secure a common future. The social contract must enable South Africans to reach the defined goals: reconciliation is about the courage to continue a journey already started.

Andrew Ribeiro gave a moving testimonial as a victim of oppression under apartheid. As a son of assassinated parents he refused to accept the relevance of the TRC for healing the wounds. Unable to cope ever since the killing of his parents in late 1986 with the traumata inflicted upon them, the four children of the Ribeiro family all showed in different ways not only the inability to reconcile with the perpetrators, but also with the way in which the new government addressed the grievances of the victims. The murderers of his parents “confessed” during the TRC hearings, not out of remorse but to obtain amnesty. Since those victims not participating in the TRC hearings were disqualified from receiving government assistance (both in terms of financial compensation as well as counselling and other support services), the four children were ultimately divided over the issue of (non-)compliance with the TRC procedures. The conflict among them added to their grievances. For him as a victim, a victim unable to reconcile within the framework that was provided, the TRC created more pain and an academic discussion, while he and others still cry for justice. Through amnesty it supported the collective amnesia among the perpetrators, while it left victims like him with a deep sense of loss and despair. Mr Ribeiro emphasised, that in his opinion the victims were deliberately and cruelly used by the present government as bargaining pawns to appease the perpetrators of the previous apartheid regime. Truth, reconciliation, justice and victims were superficially treated. There was no honesty or sincerity in the TRC.

Hlengiwe Mkhize, who was herself a commissioner and the chairman of the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee of the TRC, reminded the audience that she like many others is part of a “lost generation” in the sense that they were growing up without the privileges of a protected childhood. Their youth was sacrificed to the needs of the struggle. They were living in constant rebellion and dealing with questions surrounding resistance and liberation, while the privileges of exploring life during childhood were denied to them. Such losses, resulting in irreversible deficits, are difficult to measure and impossible to compensate for. The truth-seeking process, as she stated further, was characterised by biases, silence, lies and the psychodynamic factors of distorted personalities with a selective perception. Most of the beneficiaries of the unjust system of the past were in fact not taken to task by the TRC, which displayed a lack of a coherent strategy for restoring the dignity of the survivors. In this sense it had been a missed opportunity. Notwithstanding such limitations, it also served as a beacon of hope, captured public interest and had a calming effect on the minds of the people. The stories told and popularised by media coverage helped to promote an understanding of the suffering of the people under apartheid. In that sense the TRC was a democratic example of accountability.

Graeme Simpson, Director of the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, warned that amidst all change one should not lose sight of the need to understand at the same time how much has still stayed the same. Features of oppression, as reflected foremost in the banality of everyday violence, have remained. The new political system runs the danger of masking the social and structural conflict and violence which remains unsolved also under the new constitution. Institutional transformation requires more than formal changes. It poses the real challenge to transition in South Africa, as the social fabric of society ought to change. This requires a debate over the depth of transformation and considers the TRC as one element only, far from being a decisive instrument. The TRC walked a tightrope concerning the notion of truth as a contested area. If truth is complicated, so is justice. Both truth and justice have to be the subjects of scrutiny. If reconciliation is party bound, issues of race, class and gender are covered and the danger of a “rainbow nationalism” producing new exclusivist tendencies and xenophobic attitudes remains unchallenged. Unless the socio-economic injustice is addressed, the political struggle will be replaced by gang violence instead of offering lasting peace.
Minister of Justice Penuell Maduna took the floor in an impromptu intervention and stressed that as combatants of the armed liberation struggle they were executing aimed and targeted violence which was never directed at civilian victims. Under the given circumstances in the early 1990s the organised forces of anti-colonial resistance made deliberate choices to reconcile. They knew enough to say “never again”. In the same spirit of reconciliation, reconstruction and nation-building, the majority of South Africans would agree in their message to the new government: “Don’t rock the boat, steer it in the right direction”.

A lively debate produced differing views, especially on how to address issues of reconciliation and redistribution of the wealth accumulated by those privileged in the past, those who display little collective responsibility in actively contributing towards a common future. There was a broad consensus on the achievements under the democratic system in South Africa. These were also reflected in the TRC which created, despite all shortcomings and limitations, a piece of national, public knowledge. The TRC failed, however, to establish sustainable and lasting links to wider civil society. Basic contradictions in South African society remain unsolved and pose a threat to lasting solutions. Notwithstanding this reservation and concern, the moderator concluded the session by expressing the conviction that the South Africa of today is far better than the South Africa of the past.