Issued by: Truth and Reconciliation Commission
3 March 1998
Beyond Racism:
Brazil, South Africa and the United States in the 21st Century
By : Dr Alex Boraine
Introductory comments relating to previous meetings in USA and Brazil.
1. The short answer to the above question is - Yes! I think that from my experiences in the Commission truth telling can promote reconciliation.
What is abundantly clear is that truth telling has a better chance of promoting reconciliation than lies, deceit and denial. No genuine reconciliation is possible if we build on this foundation. Amnesia may be comforting, but in the end it will prevent reconciliation rather than promoting it.
There are a number of questions that flow from the original question and I want to turn to these now.
2. What Kind of Truth Telling?
a) Factual or forensic truth?
The Act which governs the work of the TRC requires us to prepare a comprehensive report which sets out its activities and findings based on factual and objective information and evidence collected or received by it or placed at its disposal [Section 4(e)].
This mandate operates at two levels. Firstly, findings at an individual level. The Commission is required to make findings on particular incidents with regard to specific people - concerning what happened to whom, where, when and how and who was involved. In order to fulfil this mandate the Commission adopted an inclusive policy of verification and corroboration to ensure that findings were based on accurate and factual information.
In the second place, the Commission is responsible for findings on contexts, causes and patterns of violations. It is this search for patterns underlying gross human rights violations which engages the Commission at a very broad and deep level.
Whilst the Commission, through its Investigative Unit, through its data base, through its research, has attempted to do the above with the highest degree of efficiency possible, there are always limits in the search for truth and even in truth telling.
Michael Ignatieff's words are pertinent:
All that a truth commission can achieve is to reduce the number of lies that can be circulated unchallenged in public discourse. In Argentina, its work has made it impossible to claim, for example, that the military did not throw half-dead victims in the sea from helicopters. In Chile, it is no longer permissible to assert in public that the Pinochet regime did not dispatch thousands of entirely inn'cmnt people. (From Articles of Faith', Index on Censorship, 5, 1996, p113)
It follows, of course, that in the South African context it really is no longer possible for so many people to claim that they did not know. It has become impossible to claim that the practice of torture by state security forces was not systematic and widespread, to claim that only a few rotten eggs' or bad apples' committed gross violations of human rights. It is also true that it is impossible to claim any longer that the accounts of gross human rights violations in ANC camps are merely the consequence of state disinformation.
b) Personal and/or Narrative Truth
Through the telling of their own stories, both victims and perpetrators have given meaning to their multi-layered experiences of the South African story. Through the media these personal truths have been communicated to the broader public. Oral tradition has been a central feature of the Commission's process. Explicit in the Act is an affirmation relating to the healing potential of truth telling.
One of the objectives of the TRC is to restore the human and civil dignity of victims by granting them an opportunity to relate their own accounts of the violations of which they are the victims.
It is important to underline that the stories we have listened to don't come to us as arguments or claims as if in a court of law. They were often heart-wrenching, conveying unique insights into the pain of our past. To listen to one man relate how his wife and baby were cruelly murdered is much more powerful than all the statistics in the world, and gives insight into the conflicts of the past.
By facilitating the telling of stories' the Commission didn't only help to uncover the existing facts about past abuses but has assisted in the creation of narrative truth'. This enabled the TRC to contribute to the process of reconciliation by ensuring that the silence relating to individual subjective experiences has at last been broken. The Commission is about the task of restoring memory and humanity'. (Antjie Krog in Boraine et al. 1995:118)
A great deal of this material will be captured in the Commission's Final Report, but together with the Report must be seen the transcripts of hearings, individual statements, a mountain of press clippings and video material.
c) Social or Dialogical' Truth?
Judge Albie Sachs, even before the Commission began its work, talked about microscope truth' and dialogue truth'. The first is factual, verifiable and can be documented and proved. Dialogue truth, on the other hand, is social truth, truth of experience that is established through interaction, discussion and debate. (Albie Sachs in Boraine et al. 1995:105)
People from all walks of life were invited to the TRC process including the faith community, the SADF, NGOs, the media, the legal and health sectors and political parties - and obviously the wider South Africa through the media and public scrutiny.
What I am emphasising here is that the process of acquiring the truth is almost as important as the establishing of the truth. This process of dialogue points to a promoting of transparency, democracy and participation as a basis of affirming human dignity and integrity.
d) Healing and Restorative Truth
The Act requires the Commission to look back to the past and to look to the future. The truth which the TRC is required to establish must contribute to the reparation of the damage inflicted and to the prevention of it every happening again in the future. But for healing to be a possibility, knowledge in itself is not enough. Knowledge must be accompanied by acknowledgement. In other words, the accepting of accountability. To acknowledge publicly that thousands of South Africans have paid a very high price for the attainment of democracy affirms the human dignity of the victims and survivors and is an integral part of the healing of the South African society.
3. Inclusive Truth Telling
The TRC has a specific and limited mandate. But its attempt to help restore the moral order must be seen in the context of social and economic transformation. They are two sides of a single coin. Further, truth telling is a critical part of this transformation challenging myths, half truths, denials and lies. It is when we listen to ordinary people telling of their experiences under apartheid that one is able to understand the magnitude and the horror of a system which damaged and destroyed so many over so long a time. It also reminds us forcibly of the maldistribution of assets and the frightening legacy of baggage which makes transformation so enormously problematic.
This means that it isn't a question of laying the blame on the military, the police, the politicians, the liberation movements, but also on the beneficiaries of apartheid, who are very largely white. Political accountability is important, but apartheid could never have survived without being buttressed by those who benefited from it. One of the perpetrators who has appeared before us, a former security police spy, Major Craig Williamson, makes the point baldly:
Our weapons, ammunition, uniforms, vehicles, radios and other equipment were all developed and provided by industry. Our finances and banking were done by bankers who even gave us covert credit cards for covert operations. Our chaplains prayed for our victory and our universities educated us in war. Our propaganda was carried by the media and our political masters were voted back into power time after time with ever increasing majorities.
(In a memorandum submitted to the TRC at the Armed Forces hearing in Cape Town on 9 October 1997)
Professor Sampie Terreblanche has advocated a wealth tax' as a possible way of the beneficiaries of apartheid making a positive contribution to transformation. At present there is a debate as to whether this financial commitment should be voluntary or whether the state, by regulation or by statute, should make it compulsory. The German model which took place very soon after 1945 is often quoted in this regard.
4. Contrasts in Truth Telling
In an article written by Babu Ayindo a contrast is made between the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda being held in Arusha, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. The writer observes that in the Tribunal witnesses were brought into a foreign world where legal representatives were dressed in western attire, the proceedings were formal and followed the tradition, both in procedure and in dress, of a court of law. He compares this with the Commission where he states that witnesses are received and he or she is accompanied throughout the proceedings, where there is time and space to weep and lament'.
The second observation he makes is that it is almost as if the witness at the Tribunal is on trial rather than telling his story. The story must be consistent with that which he told the investigators. The witness has to restrict himself to what he saw and heard and not what he felt. There is little opportunity for the witness to embark on a journey of recovery. The witness desperately needs to know why his wife, father, daughter, son was maimed or killed. Answers to such questions, which are vital in 2-vhe healing process, are not what a tribunal or a court of law deas with. He argues further that whilst he has a respect for history he believes that a fixation with the past will not foster a healthy future for Rwanda. In his view the trial is stubbornly focused on the past.
He continues that in his experience, the South African TRC seems more focused on the future so that the dark history illuminates the present and guides the future'. He concludes that the TRC, despite its apparent lack of comprehensive recovery programme for apartheid victims and occasional theatrics, serves as a more assured path for the restoration of relationships and the peace of posterity'.
I could add that if punishment is the last word, it is difficult to know how reconciliation can be achieved. Perhaps the greatest distinction of all is that the tribunal focuses on retributive justice whilst the TRC seeks restorative justice where there is room for truth, repentance, forgiveness and even mercy.
5. Truth and Reconciliation
That South Africa is a deeply divided society and that the dead hand of racism still has all of us in its grasp cannot be denied. Reconciliation is not only a moral imperative but it is a practical necessity if we are to live in peace and stability in the future. There are deep scars on the body politic as well as on many individuals. We need to acknowledge the wounds but have to go beyond this truth to a possibility of the wounds being cleansed and closed and the victims being restored.
It must be stressed as strongly as possible that reconciliation comes at a price. It is never cheap, it is always costly and it is always painful. A Dutch visitor to the TRC said, It would not have been even remotely decent for a non-Jewish person to have suggested to Jews that they ought to become reconciled to the Germans immediately after World War II'. In other words, it is quite wrong for the Commission, or anyone else, to demand that those who have suffered so deeply must forgive. To hold out forgiveness as a choice and as a possibility is something quite different. To demand forgiveness too soon is to defile holy ground.
I must immediately add that I have been sometimes almost overwhelmed by expressions of remarkable magnanimity and generosity shown by those who have suffered so horrendously.
Whilst never taking this outpouring of generosity for granted and never confusing it with forgetting, it would be equally wrong not to acknowledge it and to say that we have had people who are seeking to forego bitterness, who are renouncing resentment, who are moving beyond old pain and hurt and in so doing have become victors and survivors rather than passive victims.
The TRC has assured that South Africa will not deny its past but it also doesn't want South Africa to be paralysed by its past and be captive to it. The goal of reconciliation through truth telling is one possibility, but the Commission on its own cannot bring about the reconciliation we all long for. Reconciliation is many faceted, will take place on many levels involving many initiatives and in seeking for it there will be many mistakes and many tears and it will certainly take many many years. A start has been mae bt we have a very long way to go.