Njabulo S. Ndebele, former Vice Chancellor and Principal of the University of the North in South Africa and author of South African Literature and Culture: Rediscovery of the Ordinary and Fools and Other Stories.
Max du Preez, journalist in Johannesburg
South Africa’s
Truth and Reconciliation Commission was set up to offer amnesty in exchange for disclosure
of events in the apartheid years. How successful has it been?
“ ‘If you want to go to war, I must be honest and admit that we cannot stand up to you on the battlefield. We don’t have the resources. It will be a long and bitter struggle, many people will die and the country may be reduced to ashes. But you must remember two things. You cannot win because of our numbers: you cannot kill us all. And you cannot win because of the international community. They will rally to our support and they will stand with us.’ General Viljoen was forced to agree. The two men looked at each other . . . [and] faced the truth of their mutual dependency.”
This declaration, and its acceptance by everyone at that meeting, illustrates one of the major factors that led to the foundation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in 1995 (see box). The basis of any compromise is that contending parties display a willingness to give up irreconcilable goals, and then enter into an agreement that yields substantial benefits to all parties. The apartheid government of South Africa desired to continue to hold on to the reins of power, but was willing to allow for increased political participation by blacks. The liberation movement, on the other hand, desired the complete removal of white power. Neither of these goals seemed achievable without an all-out war. It seemed in the best interest of all to avoid such a situation.
One of the demands of the beleaguered apartheid government was that in exchange for loss of power there should be a blanket amnesty for all the agents of apartheid, particularly the police and the armed forces. But while such an outcome would be beneficial to whites, it would not enjoy the support of those who were victims of apartheid. They would rightly feel that the beneficiaries and enforcers of apartheid were getting away too easily. The worst outcome of such a solution would be that black South Africans, victims of apartheid, would lose confidence in any of their leaders who could accept such a solution.
The flaw in this equation is that it does not offer a substantial benefit for both sides, and therefore does not inspire universal confidence. What was finally agreed upon was conditional amnesty. Firstly, the victims of apartheid should have the opportunity to tell what happened to them, and for their sufferings to be publicly acknowledged. Secondly, the perpetrators of political crimes should account for their deeds by making full and truthful disclosure of their actions. Lastly, reparations should be made to the victims.
An important aspect of the amnesty process is the stipulation that the life of the TRC be prescribed, on the grounds that a time frame would provide an incentive for perpetrators wishing to come forward and, after making full disclosure, to be amnistied. Failure to take advantage of the process within the prescribed time would open perpetrators to prosecution in the ordinary courts of law.
The shame of public exposure
During the hearings held by the TRC, harrowing stories of suffering and cruelty were heard. Did the process result in reconciliation?
One strong criticism of the amnesty process is that it frustrates justice and the desire for punishment. This does not take into account the fact that many of the recipients of amnesty experience a kind of punishment they never anticipated: the shame of being publicly exposed. The exposure of their participation in despicable acts of cruelty has in some cases resulted in broken families, disorientation and loss of self-esteem–a form of punishment that can arguably be far more devastating than that exacted by an ordinary jail sentence. Equally, the contrition leading to a plea for forgiveness, as part of a quest for reacceptance in society, can be far more restorative than the hoped-for rehabilitative effects of an ordinary prison term. The cure in the method of the TRC is located within social practice rather than in the artificiality of punitive isolation. This experience raises legitimate questions about traditional methods of retributive justice.
It can be said that as a result of the TRC, South Africa has become a more sensitive and a more complex society. South Africans have been forced to confront the complex contradictions of the human condition, and the need to devise adequate social arrangements to deal with them. The healing that results will not be instant. It will come from the
new tendency for South Africans to be willing to negotiate their way through social, intellectual, religious, political and cultural diversity. In sum, it will come from the progressive accumulation of ethical and moral insights.
Certainly, some objectives have been achieved. No South African, particularly white South Africans, can ever claim ignorance of how apartheid disrupted and destroyed the lives of millions of black people in the name of the white electorate. All South Africans can now claim to have a common base of knowledge about where they have come from, particularly in the last 50 years, and this is an essential foundation for the emergence of a new national value system. Public acknowledgment of South Africa’s history of racism represents a form of reconciliation.
Moving towards social justice
The TRC has not by any means been a smooth process. Many whites, particularly among Afrikaners, felt that the TRC was a punitive witch-hunt, targeting them as a community. This criticism did not take into account the fact that the TRC also addressed gross human rights violations perpetrated by the liberation movements themselves. The even-handedness of the TRC in this regard is very clear in its report, and could itself be regarded as a significant contribution to reconciliation.
There are people who are not happy with the amnesty mechanism and strongly feel that justice has been compromised (see next page).
|
I was chained as you were chained. I was freed, and you have been freed. So if I can pardon my oppressors, you can too. Nelson
Mandela, former President |
Reconciliation is not a single event. It is a process. The TRC was a mechanism to deal with enormous human tensions which could have exploded with devastating consequences. It enabled South Africans to navigate successfully through very rough seas. The question is whether after its second democratic elections South Africa has the will and resourcefulness to take full advantage of the foundation it has inherited. Continuing disparities in wealth, housing, education, and health between blacks and whites indicate that the process of reconciliation must move to a second stage: the achievement of social justice. In this regard, the definitive test of a new democratic society is underway. But the disintegration of the South African state through racial conflict is unlikely in the foreseeable future. This outcome is a highly significant measure of the TRC’s success.
Amnesty
applications have shed light on unsolved murders in South Africa, but for some families
knowing the truth is not enough
More than 7,000 people applied for amnesty, including two former cabinet ministers of prime minister P.W. Botha’s government and several of his police generals. Most have been granted amnesty, although several cases are still under consideration.
Very often, the families of the victims murdered by former policemen and soldiers, and in a few cases by members of the two liberation armies, have rejected the entire notion of amnesty. The most prominent include the widow and son of Black Consciousness leader Steve Biko, who was beaten to death in a cell by policemen, and the family of Griffiths Mxenge, a black lawyer whose throat was cut by three policemen because he represented anti-apartheid activists.
They argue that the provision for amnesty robs them of any sense of justice. In their view, murderers should face a criminal trial and be jailed–failing to do so cheapens the lives of their victims. Simply confessing to these brutal acts should not be enough to buy the perpetrators complete freedom, they argue. They are also against the provision that no civil claims may be made against the killers once they receive amnesty, arguing that it cuts out the chance of obtaining compensation for the death of a breadwinner to their families as well as for pain and suffering.
The counter-argument, stated many times by Commission chairperson Desmond Tutu, is that it would not be in the interest of national reconciliation to send hundreds of former policemen, soldiers and even politicians to jail. Nonetheless, two of the worst killers in the apartheid police force, Eugene de Kock (whose request for amnesty is pending) and Ferdi Barnard (who did not ask for it), were prosecuted and given life sentences. Wouter Basson, the head of the former government’s Chemical and Biological Warfare programme, is currently on trial. There is no evidence to suggest that these cases undermined the reconciliation process in any way.
Another argument often put forward in favour of amnesty is that much, if not most, of the information the TRC obtained about the evils committed by the apartheid governments was disclosed to them through the amnesty applications of perpetrators of gross human rights violations. If it were not for these statements, the truth about a large number of unexplained events and unsolved murders would not have come out. And for the nation as a whole, if there had to be a tradeoff, truth was considered more important than justice.
New heroes
The amnesty applications of Phila Ndwandwe’s murderers is a case in point. The young mother of a baby boy and a unit command
|
What is true of individuals is true of nations. One cannot forgive too much. The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. Mahatma Gandhi, Indian philosopher and politician (1869-1948) |
Phila Ndwandwe’s remains were dug up and reburied at a huge public funeral, where her nine-year-old son received a medal for exceptional bravery on behalf of his dead mother. Instead of Phila Ndwandwe being remembered as an apartheid collaborator, South Africa gained a new hero.
|
Timeline 1948-1951: The National Party comes
to power in 1948 and strengthens segregationist laws against Blacks (76% of the population)
adopted since 1911 and builds apartheid (segregation between “Whites, Coloureds and
Africans”) into a system. |