Introduction

My contribution attempts to grapple with contentious issues which impact negatively on the processes of reconciliation in South Africa today.
Although our constitution is world renowned, however, the pace, at which we are realizing the values enshrined in it, is extremely slow.

The provisions of section (1) of our constitution state that:

“The bill of rights is a cornerstone of
democracy in South Africa. It ensures the
rights of all people in our country and
affirms the democratic values of
human dignity, equality and freedom”

Immediately after the attainment of democracy, South Africa established the office of the Public protector, The Constitutional Court and five commissions, namely, the Gender Commission, Land Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the Youth Commission as well as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I will, within the context of my presentation, focus on the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission as it relates to its contribution, lessons learned and the outstanding issues emanating therefrom.

I would draw the participants attention to missed opportunities which continue to undermine efforts towards peace building and sustainable reconciliation. Reference would be made to the mandate of the three standing committees of the Truth Body. Attempts would also be made to explore what else could have been achieved towards reconciliation through making use of communication tools that were at the disposal of the Commission.

(i) lack of consensus and contradictions regarding the Truth about the past.

The core function of the Human Rights Violations Committee was to establish the truth about the nature and extend of gross human rights violations which took place in South Africa between 1960 and 1994. The importance of establishing the truth should be seen in the context of its ultimate goal or overall objective which was to promote national unity and reconciliation.

Stated differently, the mathematical equation between truth-seeking and reconciliation is that, if any society has to succeed in identifying the past wrongs, that society would have to work towards reaching consensus on a mechanism for restoring the dignity of the survivors and see that as a critical ingredient for promoting healthy co-existence.

However, the truth seeking process was generally characterised by contradictions, distortions, silences, denial and ambivalences. These psycho-dynamic factors were a manifestation of socially created false identities, images, values, interests and understanding. Given the racialistic nature of the colonial and Apartheid rule, people’s reaction were informed by their location as either Black or White. This process, although limited by the enabling Act, called for a dialogue by involving two extremist players: those who were to be described as protagonists of gross human rights violations and those who were victimised. The labelling and categorisation of people beyond the legal categories was like side effects. Some social scientists introduced a notion of protagonists as: collaborators, beneficiaries, bystanders, and many others which were either not anticipated or implied in the clauses of the Truth Body’s enabling Act. It was the failure of the Commission not to utilise the media (television, radio, print media and magazines) to stimulate public debates beyond the limits of the Act.

Special Hearings which aimed at giving institutions, like the media and business, an opportunity to examine their role during years under investigation, were convened. These hearings had a potential to achieve far more gains than individual statements which merely focused on witnesses as though these witnesses were targeted in their personal capacities. Again, denial accusations and confusion characterised the public face of these hearings. Major Craig Wiliamson, for example, pointed to systematic links between the economy, civil society and apartheid as he stated:

“Our weapons, ammunitions, uniform, vehicles, radios and other equipment were all developed and provided by the industry. Our finances and banking were done by bankers who even gave us covert credit cards for covert operations. Our chaplains prayed for our victory and our Universities educated us in war. The media carried out our propaganda and our political masters were voted back into power time after time with ever increasing majorities”

The leadership of the Congress of Trade Unions presented to the Commission that, amongst others, influx control and the legislation of a two –tied wage policy created cheap labour not only to the benefit of local companies, but, South Africa as a whole.

Some representatives of special institutions gave presentations based on what I would call the admit and avoid approach when they referred or explained their past failures. Such ambivalence positions undermined even utterances which could have initiated a process of healing and accepting each other irrespective of what a person had done. The admit and avoid approach resulted in the denial of the role played by the significant sectors of our society, like the business, thereby making survivors to be cynical about the mission of the Truth Body (which was the promotion of national unity and reconciliation). It sent a public message that collaborators and beneficiaries were determined to preserve their profit rather than to take advantage of the Truth Body by investing in the healing of the nation or efforts to promote co-existence and lasting democracy.

The same can be said of the Land Commission, where property owners, who had acquired land for free, following the evictions and forced removals of blacks, are not prepared to cooperate with Government to see how land could be distributed between them and concerned Blacks so as to produce an amicable settlement.

(ii) Lack of a coherent, strategy for restoring survivors’ dignity

As I have tried to portray missed opportunities in relation to the work of the Human Rights Violations Committee, the same should be asked of the Reparations and Rehabilitation as well as the Amnesty Committees.

Although the Amnesty Committee had a certain degree of independence, its process had a direct impact on the success of the Commission in achieving its objectives. The envisaged outcome, out of the Amnesty process, was that it would create an opportunity for survivors, their families and communities to bring about closure to the past in a forward looking way (reconciliatory spirit, so to say).

The efforts to engage the public, the black community, in particular, to monitor, participate and evaluate the granting of amnesty, from a cultural perspective, would have promoted tendencies to empathise with some of the applicants. The ability to empathise with the “enemy” would have freed many from hatred, anger and resentment of perceived enemies. This reconciliatory process could have been consistent with values of ubuntu which, to a certain extent, prevailed when the leadership of liberation movements participated in the political transformation of our country which also a embraced a violence free transition from Apartheid to democracy. There are missed opportunities in this regard since those (from the oppressors side) who triggered off the bullets or who tortured or poisoned the perceived enemies faced the history on their own, yet their actions defended and maintained the system which benefited the white community as a whole. If one looks at the number of amnesty applicants, against the incidence of casualties, one, somehow, appreciates racial polarisation in society today.

Failure to interrogate the past, on the part of many citizens, is manifesting itself on a daily basis. For example, an on-going humiliation and expression of hostile behaviours against those previously oppressed are not perpetrated by those who would have applied for Amnesty, but by the so-called defenders of the democratic rule and the culture of human rights. Those of you who read South African books, on democracy, and the print media, circulating internationally, will observe, at a glance that, the black leadership is consistently portrait as either corrupt, inefficient, confused or immoral, and such a practice points, indeed, to reconciliation as a vexed question of our times.

There was room for moving beyond the limitations of the Act by offering apologies and other gestures, like doing community service, offering bursaries to children of victims. One of the members of the panel, with us today, is the son of the late Drs Reibero who were both killed by the security agents of the state. Andy, and other brothers, could not peruse their studies and he is still not able to do so, and he has no money to finish off his degree and all his endeavours to get a job have not succeeded.

If we are committed to a sustainable reconciliation process, we have got to ask ourselves a question whether Andy’s reality, today, is conducive to his healing. A form of social justice, like a bursary or a gesture, from the killers of his parents, could help him to move beyond the current reality of being destitute and possibly let his parents rest in peace.

(iii) “Realise opportunities”

This brings me to opportunities which could have been realised through the operations of the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee. This was another opportunity for a mass healing movement. Communities could have been mobilised to use their rich indigenous knowledge and creative approaches to healing. Today, Government could be analysing the recommended policy with an aim of paying attention to individuals at risk like the elderly and all those with pressing needs which could not wait for a promised transformation and development related-services.

Awarding of reparations is important as it enables communities to celebrate victories over their oppression and humiliation. Exhumations, reburial, and installation of headstones, memorial parks, are some of the actions, which can promote closure. This form of social justice is a legal right and is key to raising peoples’ levels of satisfaction and general preparedness for reconciliatory everyday social interactions. To emphasise the significance for government to come up with a coherent and comprehensive reparation programme, I would like to quote an excerpt from Wole Soyinka’s book, entitled, The Burden of Memory, The Muse of Forgiveness:

“As the world close together – the expression ‘global village’ did not come onto currency for no just cause – it seems only natural to examine the scoresheet of relationships between converging communities. Where there has been inequity, especially of a singularly brutalizing kind, of a kind that robs one side of it’s most fundamental attribute –its humanity-it seems only appropriate that some form of atonement be made, in order to exercise that past. Reparations… serve as a cogent critique of history and thus a potent restraint on it’s repetition it is not possible to ignore the example of the Jews and the obsessed commitment of survivors of the Holocaust, and their descendants, to recover both their material patrimony, and the humanity of which they were brutally deprived”

In short, the above brief examination of what could be achieved through the process of the Truth Body, indicates that South Africa has put in place significant instruments for promoting reconciliation like, The Constitution, and particularly the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It is, however, unfortunate, that these can only yield results if the starting point of most citizens is to critically examine their role as to the past, their location and responsibility today as well as their current contribution towards reconciliation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, future commissions should, as a matter of principles, accommodate accounts about the past beyond “victims” and “perpetrators” by accommodating all citizens so as to widen the reconciliation net so to say.

It is also important to point out that, besides contradictions, gaps and tensions, there are features of the Commission which will always be remembered:

(i) The Commission served as a Beacon of hope.

The public face of the Commission captured the society’s energies and gave the newly elected democratic government time to develop their policies and to negotiate budgets. The transitional phase would have, otherwise, evoked emptiness and feelings frustrations and intolerance.

(ii) Media Campaigns elevated stories of suffering and victories.

Capturing and circulation of faces and voices of ordinary people, by making use of information technology, exonerated the so-called freedom fighters’ propaganda. The faces which appeared on television will always be remembered, and hopefully, also motivate many to work for guarantees of non-repetition, like readiness to challenge tyranny, defending democracy and embracing good governance.

(iii)The commission became a pillar of democracy.

The commission put in peace norms of the democratic governance. Levels of openness, transparency, accountability and the promotion of equity anchored democracy to everybody’s satisfaction.

(iv)The commission affirmed the morality of black empowerment and skills transfer.

Revelations and admissions of cabinet decisions on targets for elimination, the passing of the laws which legalised the deprivation of black people clearly called for drastic corrective measures to redress the imbalances of the past.

Gains already made, the Commission, no matter how debatable, will go a long way towards carrying forward those who have the will and desire to transform the land and put guarantees of non-repetition, thereby fostering reconciliation, national pride and hope.