More and Less

There is so much to be said about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), much of it impossible to articulate; on the other hand, much has been said already. This strange creature we have created - a political compromise - is both more and less than we anticipated. As the TRC grapples with the past, South Africans grapple with the TRC process. What does it all mean? What has it done to us, collectively and as individuals?

The commission winds up its more than two-year lifespan, and issues its voluminous report next June. This special issue of Track Two looks at the TRC from a conflict resolution perspective, posing two basic questions: What was missing from the process? And, what next?

On the more tangible level, as both Andries Odendaal (p. 4) and Ampie Muller (p. 16) write, the TRC missed the mark in its lack of representativeness, or perceived lack of representativeness. Both the National Party (and parties further to its right) and the Inkatha Freedom Party - major political players - felt unsafe with the commission as constituted, some even branding it a 'witch hunt'.

Others have criticised the TRC for its lack of psychological support for 'deponents' - testifiers, statement givers and amnesty applicants - and staff, both during and in the projected aftermath of the commission (see Tom Winslow and Trudy de Ridder's articles, p. 24 and p. 30). The commission has come under fire, perhaps prematurely, for its reparations policy being inadequate.

More abstractly, many would say that justice is missing from the TRC process. As Laurie Nathan (p. 3) and others in this issue argue, the TRC is caught within the tensions between truth, reconciliation, peace and justice - seemingly irreconciliable tensions. It has been a series of trade-offs, with amnesty being the biggest trade-off of all. The families of Steve Biko, Chris Hani, the Cradock Four and many others have been understandably sceptical that justice is being served without due prosecution of their loved ones' assassins.

As Russel Botman observes (p. 17), one of the TRC's greatest omissions is its failure to deal with the country's economic injustice. For many South Africans, the TRC has done nothing to heal tensions around their deprivation (see Chris Spies' article, p. 11).

Reconciliation and healing, to some degree, are also absent. As Winslow, de Ridder and others argue, reconciliation at national level has generally taken precedence over reconciliation between, and the healing of, individuals. How do we even measure reconciliation - and find a common definition of what it means?

Truth has been elusive. The 'complete picture' of gross human rights violations committed in South Africa between March 1, 1960 and the national elections of April 1994 is far from complete. Many 'perpetrators' have been faulted for their incomplete disclosures. Many have declined to testify. Many stories will not be heard - at least not by the commission. Will absolute truth emerge from the TRC, or a plurality of truths?

So, what next, when the TRC finishes its run by the middle of next year? Where and how do we - the various people and institutions of South African society - take up where the TRC leaves off? How do we use this process to continue our transformation?

This is what this issue of track two tries to answer, from the points of view of conflict resolution practitioners, journalists, psychologists and other healers, theologians, academics, politicians and communities. Like it or not, the TRC has affected all of us profoundly. It may take years to know how to use its learnings.

Melissa Baumann,
Editor

CONTENTS    HOME