The story
of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is usually
told starting with the negotiations process of 1993, leading to
the country's first democratic elections held in April 1994. This
paper proposes to begin earlier than that, with the announcement
by then President FW de Klerk on 2 February 1990, that the political
parties and organisations which had been banned would be allowed
to operate once again. Within ten days Nelson Mandela was set free,
and the process of talks began, leading to several major agreements
and the lifting of the state of emergency.
That was the
moment of public recognition by the rulers of the time that the
system of apartheid could no longer withstand the continued assault
of internal resistance and international rejection. The price being
paid, in economic and societal terms had become too high. The country
could not be controlled by the sheer force of powerful military
and police units any more. The escalation of the conflict, and the
increasing impact of economic and diplomatic isolation, contributed
to the growing awareness that a small privileged minority could
not continue to rule over a poor and disenfranchised majority.
From that
moment on, in spite of delays, frustrations, disagreements and setbacks,
the political terrain was irreversibly changed. The new questions
were about how to share power and privilege, how to manage the transition,
how to shape the future. At that stage, the more painful questions
about how to deal with the past were more muted - but they would
not go away.
The exiled
political movements returned, their supporters were able to demonstrate
their support (and their occasional disagreements), and over the
next few months the liberation movements formally revised their
commitment to an armed struggle. Eventually the negotiations began,
although it was a year before the National Party agreed to the concept
of a constituent assembly, and almost another year before the first
meeting of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA,
December 1992).
Even then,
the path was not always smooth. Negotiations broke down, were rescued
by, for example, the "sunset clauses" which provided for a government
of national unity for the initial period of transition, and were
often at risk as violence continued to rack the country. Despite
these breakdowns, an Interim Constitution was agreed to by the negotiating
parties on 17 November 1993 and enacted by Parliament on 18 December
1993. The elections of April 1994 could go ahead.
The first
fully democratic elections ever held in South Africa which took
place on April 27 and 28, 1994, have been hailed as a "miracle".
They may indeed have been one, but it was an exhilarating, confusing,
problem-riddled sort of miracle, and one which was only achieved
thanks to the goodwill, patience and tolerance of the majority of
the people - all of them. The installation of the new government,
on May 10, could build on solid foundations: the infrastructure
of the previous government remained intact, and would be transformed
by the advent of an influx of people who had previously been excluded.
It is important
to recognise not only the role played by the supporters of the parties
now represented in Parliament, particularly the majority party,
the African National Congress, but also that of a variety of non-governmental
organisations. During the negotiations phase, NGOs played a valuable
role in raising issues, monitoring the process of agreements, putting
forward claims of particular sectors of the society. The existence
of a strong civil society in South Africa should not be overlooked
in any consideration of its transition. Much of the leadership of
the NGO community was taken up into national, provincial or local
government after the elections, which weakened the organisations
for a period, but meant that many of their concerns were addressed
within government.
Among the
issues attracting the attention of concerned organisations were
the tasks facing the new government if it was to fulfil its commitment
to dealing with the injustices of the past. Implementing the agreement
on amnesty, and dealing with inequalities of access to education,
land, and employment opportunities were the most urgent. The establishment
of a Land Claims Court, an overhaul of the education system, a Reconstruction
and Development Programme, and the integration of government services,
including the national security forces, were speedy indications
of the government's intentions.
The establishment
of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was only one of these
steps. It was developed on the principles articulated in the epilogue
to the interim Constitution, which had been added on in the final
days of 1993, expressing a vision of national unity and the hopes
of overcoming the conflicts of the past:
This Constitution
provides a historic bridge between the past of a deeply divided
society characterised by strife, conflict, untold suffering and
injustice, and a future founded on the recognition of human rights,
democracy and peaceful co-existence and development opportunities
for all South Africans, irrespective of colour, race, class, belief
or sex.
The pursuit
of national unity, the well-being of all South African citizens
and peace require reconciliation between the people of South Africa
and the reconstruction of society.
The adoption
of this Constitution lays the secure foundation for the people of
South Africa to transcend the divisions and strife of the past,
which generated gross violations of human rights, the transgression
of humanitarian principles in violent conflicts and a legacy of
hatred, fear, guilt and revenge.
These can
now be addressed on the basis that there is a need for understanding
but not for vengeance, a need for reparation but not for retaliation,
a need for ubuntu but not for victimisation.
In order to
advance such reconciliation and reconstruction, amnesty shall be
granted in respect of acts, omissions and offences associated with
political objectives and committed in the course of the conflicts
of the past. To this end, Parliament under this Constitution shall
adopt a law determining a firm cut-off date, which shall be a date
after 8 October 1990 and before 6 December 1993, and providing for
the mechanisms, criteria and procedures, including tribunals, if
any, through which such amnesty shall be dealt with at any time
after the law has been passed.
With this
Constitution and these commitments we, the people of South Africa,
open a new chapter in the history of our country.
The Promotion
of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, the founding legislation
for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, was promulgated in
1995, and the Commission of 17 members was appointed in December
of that year. Within weeks staff appointments were being made, offices
were opened in four cities (Johannesburg, Durban, East London and
Cape Town - the last serving also as the national office). The three
committees provided for in the legislation were established: for
Amnesty, for Reparation and Rehabilitation, and for Human Rights
Violations.
One of the
first tasks was to develop a mechanism for recording accounts of
"gross violations of human rights" committed, as defined in the
Act, through "killing, torture, abduction, or severe ill-treatment".
A statement form was drafted (and went through several versions)
and statement-takers were trained to record the accounts given by
deponents who came to the offices of the TRC or to central points
in outlying areas. The Research Department identified areas and
historic events which required attention; the Investigation Unit
provided corroboration of the statements made by deponents. The
Human Rights Violations Committee invited a representative selection
of deponents to testify in public and the first public hearings
were held in East London in April 1996.
That is a
way of putting into one paragraph an extraordinary range of experiences!
I think it is important to try to convey something of what was entailed.
In the first place, Commissioners and staff members embarked on
a process of public information, relying on the support of NGOs
and faith communities to arrange public meetings and discussions
about the TRC. The statement-takers who would then work with individuals
were an essential part of the process: they were drawn from all
sectors of the society, and between them could speak all the eleven
languages of the country. The deponent could speak in his or her
own language, but the statement form had to be filled in in English,
so that it could then be uniformly captured onto the database. The
statement-takers therefore needed to be accurate and detailed, but
at the same time they were required to bring to the interview the
qualities of respect and empathy with which the TRC constantly strove
to address victims of violations. For thousands of people those
interviews would be the only face-to-face encounter with the Commission,
and the goal was to ensure that they were a positive experience.
In total the
Commission received over 20 000 statements, and the Human Rights
Violations Committee is now in the final stages of assessing them
and making findings in each and every case. Questions have been
asked about the veracity of the statements, and it is a great reassurance
to the committee that the majority of them were subjected to investigation
by the Investigation Unit. This Unit was made up of people drawn
from the South African Police Services as well as from the ranks
of supporters of the liberation movements, and strengthened by skilled
personnel seconded from other countries as part of the international
support for the Commission. It must be acknowledged that such corroboration
was not possible in every case, and in such instances the Commission
is obliged to state that it is "unable to make a finding". All too
often, the necessary documentation to prove incidents had taken
place has been destroyed.
The Reparations
and Rehabilitation Committee's main task was to recommend policy
to the government regarding the measures it should take to provide
reparation to victims of gross human rights violations. It has done
so, and the government is to consider these, and has already indicated
that "urgent interim reparation" will be made as soon as the necessary
documentation is processed. Longer term reparations are still under
debate, as are the broader recommendations which focus on rehabilitation
in a broader sense, and policies of redress to entire communities
and ways of ensuring that such violations can never occur again.
The Reparations
and Rehabilitation Committee did more than consider policy, however.
It explored links with organisations providing care and counselling
to victims of trauma and violations, and referred people needing
urgent care to them. It enabled some people to obtain access to
medical care which might otherwise have been out of their reach.
It provided "briefers" to give particular care to those people who
were asked to testify in public - the briefers went through the
process with them, explaining beforehand what would happen, sitting
with them through the hearing, and accompanying them afterwards.
It would have been very good indeed if this kind of care and attention
had been available to all the people who came forward to make statements.
The Amnesty
Committee was formed as provided for in the legislation, of two
Commissioners plus three other people appointed separately by the
State President. Of these three, one was to be the Chairperson,
and must be a judge, and the other the Vice-Chairperson. In fact
the President went further than the legislation provided and appointed
three judges. In the first few months the process of amnesty work
began slowly, but the number of applications eventually swelled
to over 7 000. The legislation had to be amended to provide for
an enlarged committee, up to a total of 19. Even so, there remain
hundreds of applications still to be considered, and the committee's
life will have to extended beyond that of the Commission to accomplish
this.
The goals
of the Commission are "truth" and "reconciliation", and it is against
these objectives that its achievements will be measured.
The exposure
of a great deal of the truth will surely be acknowledged. The processes
of public testimony of victims and survivors of gross human rights
violations alone have painted a vivid and unforgettable record of
atrocities of the past, committed by perpetrators on both sides
of the political divide. The hearings were held all over the country,
in small rural towns as well as in the major cities. They were accompanied
by astonishingly comprehensive media coverage, maintained over the
whole period. Some of this was made possible by international assistance
with funding, but even without it the newspapers and the electronic
media have held a steady mirror to the proceedings of the Commission.
This has sometimes fed into negative perceptions of divisiveness
and bitterness, but it has made it impossible for anyone to deny
the extent of the abuses which took place. Radio especially, with
its ability to reach people of all the language groups, has served
the Commission's aim of exposing the truth extremely well.
In addition
to the public hearings concerning individual human rights violations,
the Commission also organised hearings aimed at understanding the
broader context within which such abuses took place: the political
parties, the media, the judiciary, the business and the health sectors,
as well as the prisons and the faith communities, all came forward
to explain, accuse, defend or justify their roles in the past.
Submissions
from different special interest groups, such as those working with
land issues, language and educational programmes, and those organisations
which had monitored human rights in the past, all served to enrich
the Commission's understanding of the context and climate which
had obtained during the period of its mandate.
When an overall
assessment of the Commission is carried out in the future, one of
the issues which will surely receive attention is the breadth of
its interpretation of the definition of "severe ill treatment".
Other Commissions have looked more specifically at killings and
disappearances: the inclusiveness of the South African Commission
has resulted in a mass of statements which has been a real challenge
to process. On the other hand, it has resulted in a huge and rich
body of evidence which has enhanced our understanding of the past
and provided a rich lode for future researchers.
The applications
for amnesty are also heard in public if they concern gross human
rights violations, and these too have contributed to a clearer understanding
of the truth. They have often provided answers to the questions
asked by the survivors and families - "Who was responsible? Why
did this happen?"
It is important
to try to convey the impact of these exposures on those survivors
and families; also on the Commission itself and on those close to
it, as well as the broader public.
Staff members,
perhaps more than the Commissioners themselves, have borne the brunt
of a good deal of this - the statement takers, the briefers, the
people dealing with the investigations, information and research,
and also the interpreters, have had to absorb thousands of statements
and the pain and anger that accompanied them. Journalists too, listening
and telling and re-telling the stories - all of us are in one way
or another changed by what we have vicariously experienced.
There can
be no doubt that all this has had an indelible effect on the public
as well, and has powerful consequences which will have to be taken
into account. Many of the revelations have been dramatic and the
public hearings filled with emotion. Public reactions vary from
horror, guilt and shame, to attitudes of denial and irritation.
The truth is extremely painful and hard to bear, for those who suffered,
and also for those who were responsible for the violations, or even
those who benefited, however unintentionally, from the policies
which led to them.
What have
been the effects of this search for the truth? Sometimes, we can
say with honesty and humility, the generosity of forgiveness has
astonished us all. Sometimes, at least, speaking out has provided
a kind of catharsis, or perhaps a safe channel for long submerged
anger. The right to be heard and acknowledged, with respect and
empathy, do contribute to a process of healing in many cases. People
have told us that being enabled to set out their own understanding
of events has been a relief to them. For some, the exhumation of
the bodies of their family members have brought much longed-for
comfort. The opportunity to observe traditional burial ceremonies
has brought a degree of closure to the mourning process.
The detailed
accounts of these events will also contribute to the historical
record, and help to achieve one of the goals of the Commission -
that such atrocities should never happen again. The documents of
the TRC will go into the National State Archives, and should be
accessible to researchers and the public.
However, we
need to acknowledge the real difficulty of helping people to come
to terms with the past. Reopening of old conflicts without providing
an adequate mechanism for dealing with them is traumatic for victims
and perpetrators alike. The Commission has been accused of carrying
out a witchhunt aimed particularly at Afrikaners, a perception which
will not assist future reconciliation.
At the same
time, considerable anger is directed by victims and survivors towards
the concept of amnesty. Such people have a profound sense of being
deprived of their rights, the right to justice and the right to
bring civil claims. Amnesty was the price paid for peace. Full disclosure
is the cost that must be paid for amnesty. If this does indeed lead
to national reconciliation the costs will have been worthwhile,
but it is important to recognise that individuals' rights have been
sacrificed for the good of the nation.
These matters
have prompted growing discussions about concepts of restorative
justice as opposed to retribution. And this brings us back to the
importance of reparation and rehabilitation. R&R committee's proposals
for individual reparations packages for victims need urgent implementation,
and must be accompanied by broader programmes of economic and social
development, as well as peace-building initiatives to be taken by
the government and by non governmental organisations. Memorials
and symbolic ceremonies must be developed. Some organisations have
developed valuable "Healing of the memories" projects which should
be made widely available. Most importantly, resources will have
to be directed towards impoverished communities still suffering
the effects of past discrimination and repression. There can be
no real reconciliation while there remain such huge discrepancies
between the relatively privileged sectors and the vast number of
desperately poor, unemployed and unhoused people.
From the testimonies
heard, it seems that the majority of victims of the conflicts of
the past have been those who suffered at the hands of persons acting
on behalf of the previous apartheid state. It is natural then that
much of the thrust towards reparation and reconciliation is directed
towards that sector of the society. Nevertheless, it is necessary
to recognise that abuses were perpetrated by resistance movement
supporters against those who were seen as agents of the state, or
their collaborators, and also against other people who were either
innocent bystanders or targetted simply because they were white
and therefore seen as part of the oppressive regime. On both sides
we have witnessed moving scenes of meetings, forgiveness and understanding.
Much work remains to be done, however, before reconciliation on
any major scale can be achieved.
Most people
classified as white can be considered to have been "beneficiaries"
of the apartheid system, even if they were never perpetrators of
any abuses nor even supported the policy. There is a sense in which
they need to be seen to acknowledge this, and express it in a way
which can be heard and received by the once-disenfranchised majority.
The Commissions
has established a "Reconciliation register" in which people who
wish to indicate their regret for specific actions or their commitment
to the new non-racial democracy can make a formal demonstration
of this commitment. This can be accessed in each of the Commission's
offices, or on the Internet, and has attracted considerable support.
Well after the life of the Commission this is the kind of action
which can be undertaken by other organisations. A number of churches
have expressed interest.
The concept
of public listening has been put to use in another context, in that
the South African NGO Coalition, together with the churches and
with the particular blessing of the Archbishop of Cape Town, His
Grace Njongonkulu Ndungane, have organised country-wide public hearings
on poverty. This has succeeded in drawing attention to the urgent
need to take steps to alleviate this.
There remains
a great deal to be done. One of the things which would make a real
contribution would be for those who were responsible for the decisions
and policies which led to the abuses of the past, or created the
climate in which they could take place, would acknowledge this responsibility.
This has happened to some extent, and may still develop. It is something
which is greatly needed by the perpetrators of actual violations
which were carried out in the belief that they were acting on instructions,
and now feel abandoned by their superiors.
This was the
basis of one of the confrontations which have severely challenged
the Commission: when ex-President de Klerk presented the National
Party submission to the Commission he made one of the most sweeping
apologies ever made by a member of the party for the pain caused
by apartheid policies, but this was overshadowed by the fact that
he was unable to acknowledge any responsibility for offences committed
by agents of the security forces. Yet such members, even senior
members of the security forces, have alleged that they believe that
leaders such as Mr de Klerk and Mr PW Botha either gave the orders
or implicitly sanctioned such acts. The Commission will have to
weigh up the evidence brought before it, but already the prospect
of reconciliation has been seriously set back by these acrimonious
differences.
South African
has benefited at critical moments in its recent history by important
steps taken by significant leaders. The reconciliation process will
require equally important leadership from people who have the trust
of the different sectors of a still-fragmented society. White South
Africans, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking alike, are in
need of inspired and inspiring example and direction to help them
to overcome resentment, guilt and mistrust. Only by participating
fully and enthusiastically in processes of reconciliation and reconstruction
will they find themselves at home in the new society.
A sign of
hope in this regard has been the very recent Reconciliation debate
initiated in Parliament by Deputy President Thabo Mbeki, eliciting
frank and heartfelt responses from the opposition. It may be true
that many white people are more concerned with admittedly serious
problems of crime and the economy than with issues of reconciliation.
It may also be true that the right wing, mainly but not solely afrikaans
speaking, probably commands the support of only 2 or 3% of the electorate.
Yet even if they do not have the power to wreck the peace, as long
as they remain bitter and disillusioned, their attitudes are a barrier
to reconciliation.
The two-and-a-half
years of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission have enabled the
country to hear the accounts of many thousands of people who experienced
and caused great suffering during the conflicts of the past. Developing
a common understanding of how and why this happened is an important
ingredient of creating new ways of looking at our society and seeing
beyond the narrow confines of individual or group identities. The
pieces of the jigsaw puzzle have been taken out of the box and shaken
up. Now they need to be put together to create a picture in which
all will be able to see themselves reflected, and all will be able
to find a place for themselves.
Mary Burton
Cape Town, June 1998. TRC,
South Africa
Dealing
with the Past
