by Sean O'Leary, September 1997, Pretoria, South Africa
THEME = JUSTICE
The two year life of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation
Commission (TRC) is fast coming to an end. 15 December 1997 is the
official closing date. The Amnesty sub-committee will have to
continue into 1998, given the volume of applications still to be
processed.
As the TRC comes to an end, it is shrouded in a number of
controversies. Not least is a challenge in the courts by the
National Party. Ironically, it was this Party that insisted amnesty
should be granted and who were therefore the initiators of the
Commission, back in December 1993. In fact the interim constitution
would not have been signed had the amnesty provision not been
included. In a nutshell, the NP argue that the Commission is biased
against their Party. They want the Vice-Chairperson, Alex
Boraine removed, and Archbishop Tutu to apologise to
F.W. De Klerk for the rigorous way he challenged him during the
NP's second submission to the TRC. Most believe this is sour
grapes. The NP have given only tepid support to the TRC. Their
absurd claims indicate the case may be used for political ends,
such as an attempt to rescue their degenerating social profile.
What most people want, is for the NP to apologise to the nation and
to take responsibility for its role in past human rights
abuses.
Perception is a strange thing. Like it or not, South Africans
perceive issues, realities and situations very differently. A clear
example of this, was seen at the Magnus Malan trial for the
KwaMakhutha massacre, where eleven, mainly women and children were
killed. A former Military Intelligence officer said of the
incident: "The operation was a success, but the wrong people
were killed during the course of the operation." More recently
at an amnesty hearing one, of those convicted in the killing of the
American human rights activist, Amy Biehl, when asked why he
did it, explained that she was killed because of the land.
(Note: The Anzanian People's Liberation Army (APLA), the
armed wing of the Pan African Congress (PAC), have as their
primary political objective, the return of African land to
Africans. They maintain that by Africans they mean those who
identify themselves as such, but in reality, most membes of the
PAC are black, and many of APLA's attacks have been
targetted at white people such as Amy Biehl, a USA volunteer
in Cape Town.)
There is not one perception of our past, but rather a kaleidoscope
of opinion and perception. If we do not perceive the past in more
or less the same way, then it is unlikely that we will perceive the
healing of that past in the same way. In this regard an objective
understanding of what really did happen would help to dispel
conflicting perceptions, and move towards one acceptable history.
The report that will be presented to President Mandela at
the end of the TRC, process could play this role, by becoming the
official history of the period 1960 to 1994.
To date, over 12,000 people have come forward to tell their story
to the TRC. The vast majority of these have only submitted written
statements, while relatively few have had the opportunity to
testify at a public human rights violations hearing. They have
poured their hearts out, recounting with grief the agony of losing
a loved one, or of being tortured, or having lost all their worldly
possessions in a bombing... the list goes on. In one sense, these
hearings have played a very important role. For the first
time, the pain of the victims and survivors has been officially
acknowledged. The process has allowed for some healing to take
place.
However, it has not been enough. These people expect some
kind of follow up. To-date, no policy of restitution or
rehabilitation has been agreed upon by the TRC. This remains a
tragedy. Victims and survivors expect some form of compensation for
their suffering and loss. Recommendations will be made by the TRC
to the government, on possible avenues of restitution and
rehabilitation of victims and survivors. However, it may be too
little, too late. These people feel let down. They leave hearings
with the impression that this will be their first and last contact
with the TRC. They feel cheated.
The amnesty hearings are proving the most challenging to the TRC.
It must be recalled that for a person to be granted amnesty, they
must prove that: 1) What they did, was for a political motive; 2)
That it happened within the dates of the TRC mandate; 3) They must
give full disclosure. The TRC has received close on 7,000
applications. So far the sub-committee on amnesty has dealt with
1,700 applications. Public hearings have been held in 67
applications, of which 17 have been turned down and 50 granted. The
sub-committee has further granted 23 amnesties in chambers (behind
closed doors), and refused 1,648 after consideration in chambers.
What is clear is that, like the human rights violations hearings,
only a few applications will be heard in public.
By far the most high profile amnesty application to-date, has been
that of Clive Derby-Lewis, the former Conservative Party MP,
and Janusz Walus, the Polish immigrant who shot and killed
Chris Hani, Secretary General of the SA Communist Party and
popular heir apparent to Nelson Mandela. This case, more
than any other, has focused the nation's attention on the amnesty
procedures. After ten days of hearings, it was clear that there was
not full disclosure about the conspiracy to kill Hani. This is the
first criterion for amnesty. Secondly, the Conservative Party does
not and did not embrace a policy of political assassination.These
two factors alone are enough to reject the applications.
For many South Africans the amnesty requirements are flawed. At
no stage did these two applicants say they were sorry, nor
do they have to. Like it or not, contrition cannot be forced. You
are either contrite or you are not. But restitution of some kind
can be forced. The amnesty hearings offer a golden
opportunity to impose some form of penance on the perpetrators.
It is important for the victim to see that the perpetrator does not
walk away scot-free, and for the perpetrator himself to realise
that there is a price to be paid for wrong doing. This would be an
attempt to bring some form of individual justice into the equation,
something that is totally lacking at the moment. We could go a step
further and create a voluntary "shame tax" where civil
society could contribute to the victims and survivors as an act of
solidarity and reconciliation. However, these would have to be
post-TRC recommendations. They do not fall within the present
requirements of the Act.
As we come to the end of the life of the TRC, we are confronted
with a mixed bag. Certainly, some truth has been unearthed, and
particularly for victims and survivors this is important.
Some of the horror of the apartheid years has been laid bare, and
it is not a pretty sight. At the same time, one must say that
very little reconciliation has occurred. Perhaps this was
too much to ask of the TRC, and will have to be a recommendation
for the way forward in the future. South Africa needs a body to
carry the process forward into the arena of reconciliation. In
other words, where the work of the TRC ends, a new challenge
arises.
As we step out of the wreckage of the past, we are confronted with
the reality of a country fast becoming a moral wasteland. The post-
TRC period must help us as a nation, to acknowledge that within
these borders, there are many things in our past that were wrong
and should never be allowed to happen again. Put simply, we have to
restore a sense of right and wrong in our country. The culture of
impunity must go. Apartheid and its consequences have almost
destroyed traditional African values and indeed religious values
that guided communities. Now as a nation we find ourselves with no
common moral heritage, no common moral foundation on which we can
build our economy, our society and even our new democracy.
As the TRC draws to a close, it is ideally placed to launch a
campaign to introduce a new era in morality for the common good of
our country. We need a structure that will build on the TRC and
begin to move into the very difficult field of reconciliation.
There is no quick fix for reconciliation. It will take time, but it
is imperative that we acknowledge the need and do something about
it. Let us seize the moment for fear of being found wanting
END