The Tensions of Transition

In transitions from authoritarian rule to democracy, the goals of peace, justice, truth and reconciliation are all regarded as paramount. It is a mistake, however, to view them as absolute and intrinsically complementary. In certain respects they may be in conflict with each other and may have to be compromised to some extent.

Structural accommodation

Where ethnic, racial or religious diversity is a source of intense animosity, long-term stability might be achieved through the physical separation of antagonistic groups. If this is not feasible, stability is most likely to be assured through structural arrangements which accommodate, simultaneously, the aspirations of the majority and the fears of the minority. In contrast to majoritarianism, structural accommodation incorporates inclusivity and diversity in the constitution, the form of government, the political system and state institutions.

The necessity for accommodation derives from the premise that outright victory by any one group is unattainable or undesirable, and that sustainable peace consequently depends on reaching a settlement acceptable to all parties. To a greater or lesser extent, depending on demographics and the balance of power, all parties therefore have to compromise their positions.

In essence, they have to view the question of governance, security and rights in the light of their opponent's interests and fears, rather than exclusively from the perspective of their own constituency. It is tempting to depict this shift as moving from a 'win-lose' to a 'win-win' approach. Yet because all sides have to make compromises, accommodation is better understood as a set of 'win/lose-win/lose' solutions.

The resolution of the primary national conflict may thus generate a range of secondary conflicts as various constituencies object to the concessions made by their leaders. One of the greatest tensions in this regard is between peace and justice.

Peace and justice

The principal objective of efforts to prevent and resolve crises in Africa is the establishment of peace with justice. In the terminology coined by Johan Galtung, it is necessary to pursue the attainment of both 'negative peace', defined as the absence of violence, and 'positive peace', defined as the presence of political and socio-economic justice.

Galtung's distinction indicates that the absence of violence and the presence of justice are distinct phenomena. This has relevance for strategy since the two states are achieved through different processes. Whereas the former requires peacemaking and peacekeeping, the latter entails a range of measures which comprise peacebuilding.

Galtung's analysis also suggests a causal relationship between the two states. The absence of positive peace often leads to the absence of negative peace. Injustice might not lead to endemic violence Ð but if it does, long-term stability depends on addressing the underlying causes to the satisfaction of disaffected communities.

Of course the ending of civil wars is considerably more complicated in practice than suggested by this idealised approach. Even where the antagonists have an interest in reaching a settlement, they will have significantly different perspectives on political and socio-economic justice in a new dispensation.

Further, the imperatives of peace and justice may be in conflict where groups or leaders responsible for acts of repression have to be embraced in the new order because of their popular support or capacity to resist a settlement. A related debate concerns the alternatives of prosecution and indemnity in respect of past violations of human rights. While prosecution would conform to the principle of justice and meet the needs of abused communities and individuals, reconciliation will rarely be achieved if key figures are at risk of imprisonment.

A similar problem arises from truth commissions which pressure members of the former regime to disclose and seek forgiveness for the atrocities they committed or sanctioned. Because this process revives deep hurt and exposes the perpetrators, it is more likely to heighten tension than promote reconciliation.

In addressing the issue of reconciliation, it is important to be clear on who exactly is to be reconciled. Different processes are required if reconciliation is sought, for example, at national level, within the armed forces, in a local community or between an offender and the victim. At the national level, it is probably best secured by forging common values regarding rights and governance in the future than by recalling the past.

The tensions which transitional societies experience in relation to peace, justice, reconciliation and truth should be viewed as dilemmas which can be resolved only by local actors; the compromises they reach will necessarily differ from case to case. Outsiders who enter the debate with hard-line positions do a disservice to this process.

The most important lesson from South Africa's transition to democracy lies less in the details of accomodation than in the fact that the national settlement was forged by local actors. While the international community played a variety of roles before, during and after the elections of April 1994, at all stages the process was fully owned by South Africans.

Laurie Nathan is executive director of CCR. This article is drawn from work-in-progress on South Africa's contribution to peace initiatives in Africa.

CONTENTS    HOME