For All Its Flaws

There can be no doubt about the importance of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as an experiment in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. The question, of course, is to what extent has it been, or will it be, successful in building peace? It is obviously far too early for a comprehensive and final assessment. Yet some of the lessons we ought to learn from the process are becoming clear.

This article aims to identify some of these lessons. It does so by formulating three basic dilemmas the TRC has had to deal with and by drawing lessons from the TRC's grappling with these dilemmas. The dilemmas are:

1. How to meet the need for truth without sacrificing or neglecting the need for justice, peace and mercy...

John Paul Lederach has identified four concepts that stand in paradoxical tension with each other, but that create in their midst the space called 'reconciliation'. These concepts are Truth, Mercy, Peace and Justice. Each of these concepts represents vital needs that have to be satisfied in order to bring about reconciliation. "Truth is the longing for acknowledgement of wrong and the validation of painful loss and experiences, but it is coupled with Mercy, which articulates the need for acceptance, letting go, and a new beginning. Justice represents the search for individual and group rights, for social restructuring, and restitution, but it is linked with Peace which underscores the need for interdependence, well-being, and security."

A process aimed at reconciliation, therefore, should seek to satisfy all these needs in spite of the fact that they seem to be pulling in opposite directions. Within the South African context the need for truth should be seen against the background of the secrecy and distortion that the public had been subjected to for many decades. Families need to know what exactly happened to their loved ones, and the public needs to know what happened to the trust it granted its leaders. It is inconceivable that reconciliation can take place if this need for truth has not been met sufficiently. Reconciliation cannot be built on a lie or a cover-up of the truth. On the other hand there is a strong realisation that retribution and revenge which may follow on the disclosure of truth may damage a fragile peace. Thus some form of amnesty is necessary. Truth, therefore, needs to be balanced by mercy.

The need for justice is obvious in the light of the serious injustice done to people. Justice has the twofold meaning of restitution and retribution. The TRC has committed itself to some form of restitution, albeit symbolic. The aspect of retribution, however, has been sacrificed for the sake of truth and, especially, peace. For the sake of peace, murderers will be set free.

Thus the paradoxical tension between peace and justice became an incompatibility. Instead of staying within the tension and finding a balance, one of the poles was abandoned - justice was subordinated to peace. If, however, justice - particularly retributive justice - were maintained, not only would peace have been threatened, but also truth. In the face of possible retribution, very few people would have come forward willingly to tell their stories.

What is interesting is that resistance to this state of affairs seems to be limited only to some of the families of victims and smaller political groupings. As yet there has been no broad-based movement in South Africa to resist this decision. For most South Africans, the trade-off was acceptable.

An alternative to the TRC process which has been propagated with some vigour is that of a general amnesty. For example, the Afrikaans daily Die Burger has from the start of this process argued in favour of a general amnesty and has been scathing in its criticism of the TRC. General amnesty, however, means an exclusive emphasis on mercy, with a disregard for both truth and justice. The argument that this will best serve peace and thus ensure reconciliation is, however, unconvincing. It is based either on the assumption that amnesia and a cover-up are the most effective cure for trauma and deep-seated anger, or on a denial of the extent of that trauma and anger.

However uneasy one may feel with the trade-off between justice and peace, there is no convincing alternative. The only way to bring justice back into the equation is to place greater emphasis on restitution as an aspect of justice. It is still uncertain what the TRC's restitution committee will be able to deliver, but meaningful acts of restitution should go a long way towards restoring the precious balance between the four paradoxical preconditions to reconciliation.

2. How to conduct a transparent and public process, but at the same time create a safe space for parties to disclose uncomfortable information...

The TRC process has had to be transparent and public. It is about national reconciliation. It is about truth. No secret process behind closed doors could possibly achieve national reconciliation and unveil the truth. Yet, by being public and transparent, the TRC has opened itself to political manipulation. Some political parties played this game with more skill than others, but all played the game.

The dilemma created by this situation is that while conducting the public process, the TRC at the same time seeks to make reconciliation possible. It wants to encourage victims to share their stories and talk about their pain. It wants perpetrators to talk about their deeds and explain why they resorted to such extreme measures. It wants to encourage openness, mutual understanding, and forgiveness. For that to happen, a safe emotional (and physical) space is necessary. Participants should feel safe to talk and share. A vital characteristic of such a safe space is the effort put into ensuring that participants have been heard and understood correctly and adequately. It should allow expression of concern, of regret, of mutual understanding, and of forgiveness.

An additional tension in this respect is the tension between the emotional needs of victims and those of perpetrators. Victims have the need to tell their stories again and again and to receive the assurance on a continuous basis that they are being taken seriously. That is how their healing takes place. The perpetrator, on the other hand, suffers acute embarrassment at having to make public confessions. Even though there is also healing for them in opening up, the basic instinct of the perpetrator is to have it done with and close the books. An important part of the skill of the facilitator of a safe space is the ability to keep the perpetrators in the process and to help them to understand that the ongoing requests for apologies are not made with the intent to embarrass, but are expressions of the need for healing.

The process of inner healing that the TRC is aiming at, therefore, requires time and continuous attention. The image of people opening their emotional wounds to the glare of television lights for a fleeting moment - to be left afterwards to deal with the opened wounds on their own - is not comforting.

The tension between the need for transparency and the need for a safe space is inevitable and inescapable. Yet if one had the assurance that the TRC would provide an ongoing service to those who have been so brave to open their wounds or admit their mistakes, it would be easier to live with the tension.

3. How to conduct the process in an impartial way and at the same time stay true to deeply held values and commitments...

The TRC has to deal with a horrible past. It has to deal with the deep injury and insult caused by apartheid, with horrendous tales of torture and murder, with stories of full-grown men turning blazing guns on defenceless women and children, of innocent people falling victim to the frenzy of traumatised mobs, and with the calm and reasonable justifications and denials offered by seasoned politicians.

The TRC is composed of South Africans. It is not conceivable that this task could or should have been done by impartial outsiders. That was never a contentious issue. Yet as South Africans the members of the TRC are as subject to the gravitational pull of their own particular background as are all other South Africans. As in all situations of serious polarisation and conflict, different perceptions were created by different and separate experiences of the situation. And in polarised situations perceptions have the power of sacred truth. Thus the dilemma: how does a group of South Africans, shaped by their own personal histories and perceptions, manage to deal with such emotionally loaded issues in an impartial way ? How does one deal with morally repulsive issues in a way that makes reconciliation possible, but at the same time leaves one's own values intact?

One way of addressing this dilemma is to give careful consideration to the composition of the group of facilitators, in this case the members of the TRC. Ideally the group should represent a balance between perceptions. The group should create a middle ground (its own safe space) where perceptions can be shared and mutual understanding fostered. From the basis of a reconciled centre the group should then set out to facilitate the greater process.

In South Africa three groups have to reconcile in order to create stability and peace, namely those represented by the ANC, the old National Party (NP) - and parties to its right - and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). It was essential that all three of these groups should have felt comfortable with the composition of the TRC. This did not mean that all three of these parties should have been comfortable with all of the commissioners, but that each party should have felt that amongst the commissioners there were sufficient persons in whom they had trust and who would do justice to their specific perception. The NP's discomfort with the composition of the TRC and the IFP's rejection of it from the start, inter alia because of its composition, should have set off alarms.

At times the TRC was rescued purely by the charisma of its chairperson. Processes like these should, however, depend on more than the charisma of individuals. The court case the NP threatened the TRC with can possibly be seen as an attempt by the NP to save face and score political points with its own constituency. However, it is at the same time an indication of a serious flaw in the process. The TRC did not convince parties crucial to the reconciliation process that their stories would be safe with them.

In summary, therefore, some of the lessons that stand out are:

• More care should have been taken to ensure that all the relevant parties felt comfortable with the composition of the TRC;
• The aspect of restitution remains a crucial outstanding element of the reconciliation process;
• Much more is needed in order to facilitate actual healing between victims and perpetrators.

Andries Odendaal is senior researcher on the Saamspan Project at CCR, which works to empower people in rural communities with conflict resolution skills.

CONTENTS    HOME