How has SA chosen to remember the past?
Unit 1 : The truth and Reconciliation Commission : Reason for TRC
Terrible deeds were done by both the agents of Apartheid and the opponents of that
regime – the past could not be forgotten when a new Democratic SA came about in April-
May 1994.
Thousands had to live and deal with painful histories which often included loss of loved
ones. The country had to confront its past in order to be able to move on.
Desmond Tutu – became Chairperson of TRC
- He said “ that if you don’t know about your country, if you don’t your know
history, you don’t know very much that is important to your life.”
There has to be accountability(being held responsible or answerable for ones actions)
where there is respect for human rights in democracy. In other words, those who do wrong
must be held responsible for it and made to deal with the consequences of their actions.
Alex Boraine – deputy chairperson of TRC said “ for sake of justice, for stability and the
restoration of dignity to victims there must be accountability for the past – this
accountability could be a deterrent(something that discourages or restrains someone from
doing something) to those who might be tempted in the future to engage in gross human
rights violation”
Therefore, there was a need for TRc process and there would be no blanket amnesty(an
amnesty for all those who had committed gross violations of human rights)
The National party wanted blanket amnesty but the Minister of Justice, Dullah Omar,
decided on conditional amnesty
Unit 2 : Various forms of justice: retributive justice and the Nuremberg Trials in post-war
Germany, restorative justice and the TRC hearings
After WWII – Allies put war criminals from defeated countries – Germany and Japan – on
trial in the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. The guilty were either executed or sentenced to
lengthy terms of imprisonment, sometime for life.
Retributive justice – taking revenge on or punishing someone for wrongdoing. Eg. Death
penalty for committing crime of murder.
Reasons why Nuremberg trials were rejected when dealing with human rights violation in
SA :
- Neremberg trials was an example of “victor justice” where victorious
powers were able to put suspected war criminals on trial because they had
won the war. IN SA, there was no clear winner against Apartheid because
Np government still had strong security forces at its disposal – There had to
be a negotiated settlement.
- These security forces had the capacity to launch a strong challenge against
negotiated settlement – their support was needed during the delicate
transition to Democratic SA
- Idea that there would be no mass retribution was part of the negotiated
settlement. The interim constitution provided for the granting of amnesty in
the interests of reconciliation.
- The cost of prosecuting all those that were suspected of gross human rights
violation would have been very high where there were so many other needs
like housing, education and health.
- Lack of evidence made it difficult to establish guilt of the accused “beyond a
reasonable doubt” as required by the law.
- Lastly and most importantly, such trials would have a negative effect on
reconciliation among South Africans of all colours. Reconcilliation was
desperately needed after 5 decades of Apartheid.
South Africa chose a 3rd way, between Numerberg trials and blanket amnesty.
Conditional Amnesty – based on perpetrators(someone guilty of an illegal or evil act) telling
the whole truth of their crimes against human rights.
It was based on the African value o Ubuntu.
“A person is a person through other people” meaning, it is only by recognizing the humanity
in other people that become fully human ourselves. When we show our humanity by
accepting and respecting the humanity of others, we earn the right to have our own
humanity accepted and respected by others.
Applying this value means that process of amnesty has to recognize the humanity of both
victim and perpetrator
From this comes the idea of restorative justice which aims to restore the balance in society
by considering the needs of both victim and perpetrator.
2.1 TRC Hearings
Hearings too different forms :
Hearing into gross human rights violations
- Held in front of Truth Commissioners
- Victim and survivors came forward and testified about their experiences.
Briefers sat next to them and comforted them when needed. Witnesses
could also have a relative sit with them and spoke any language they chose.
This meant that a translator had to translate their testimony to English,
followed by others who translated from English to the other SA languages.
This made it possible for everyone to follow the trials.
Amnesty hearings :
- Held before amnesty committee that was chaired by judges appointed by
the President
- Applicants testified about the acts in which they were applying for amnesty
and were allowed legal representation. They were subject to cross-
examination by lawyers representing victims and survivors, or by the victims
or survivors themselves. Witnesses could be subpoenaed(legally required to
give evidence) by the TR. Committee was completely dependent on the TRC
as a whole in its decision making.
Special hearings:
- Held into account of certain institutions under Apartheid – the legal
profession., health care sector and business sector, religious communities,
trade unions, media, armed forces and the prison services. Chemical and
biological warfare also investigated. As well as how young and women were
affected by Apartheid.
Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee
- Met privately to discuss and make recommendations to the TRC as a whole
and then to parliament and on how victims and survivors should be helped
to re-establish their lives(rehabilitation). It also looked at what
reparations(compensation) the government should pay to victims and
survivors and their families for what they have suffered.
Three types of hearings – human rights violations, amnesty and institutions were public and
widely covered daily via television, radio and newspaper.
Unit 3 : The debates concerning TRC
3.1 Positive aspects: the TRC as an instrument of reconciliation
TRC set up in terms of Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act.
TRC established in pursuit of national unity, the well being of all South African citizens and
peace required reconciliation between the people of South Africa and the reconstruction of
society.
TRC had to strive to help achieve reconciliation among the people of SA.
To what extent was reconciliation achieved?
Some have written that reconciliation is a process and not an event. No organization could
achieve reconciliation overnight. It would be a long term process – lasting several
generations.
It can be argued that TRC helped to bring about some measure of reconciliation :
- Some victims of gross human rights violation and their family members
were able to forgive the perpetrators when they showed remorse for what
they had done.
- Amy Biehl’s parents and Ginn Fourie whose daughter was attacked on the
Heidelberg tavern – established organizations devouted to the cachieving
reconciliation between the oppressed and the oppressors.
- The telling of victims and survivors stories provided some healing for many
people
- Closure was brough to many survivors when perpetrators told the whole
truth.
- This applied when new information helped to find the remains of dead
victims so that a proper burial or a blessing ceremony could be possible
Many were still not ready to forgive. It was not the intention of the TRC commission to force
people to forgive but to create an opportunity where this could take place for those that
were able and ready to do so.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu felt that it was also important that the leaders of major political
parties make a symbolic act of atonement(making up for the wrong done) at the site of
major atrocity by their parties supporters – no one would agree to do this.
3.2 Amnesty provisions and problems with amnesty
Granting of amnesty by TRC was under the following conditions :
- People seeking amnesty had to make full disclosure of all relevant facts
relating to the act for which amnesty was being sought
- There must have been a political motive for the act
- The act must have been in proportion to the motive(known as the principle
of proportionality)
A gross violation of human rights was defined as killing, abduction, torture or severe ill-
treatment.
Amnesty consisted of lawyers and chaired by a judge.
Witnesses, victims, survivors, perpetrators represented by lawyers. Cross examinations
could take place.
Applicant did not need to show remorse(sorrow for the act committed) – remorse could be
faked.
Most applicants did express remorse and asked for forgiveness from their victims.
Most said the process helped them - others refused to grant forgiveness to perpetrators.
Victims and their families had the right toe oppose amnesty but had no right to veto.
Many argued that amnesty meant there would be no justice.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu asked “So is amnesty being given at the expense of justice being
done?”
Several answers to this :
- Almost all hearings were public – perpetrators were publicly exposed for
human right violations they committed. This led to very serious personal
consequences for them – such as break up of marriages when the spouse
was not aware of the actions of their partners and were suddenly
confronted with a side they did not know about.
- Applicants had to admit guilt for criminal wrongdoings or amnesty would
not be granted – policemen who applied for amnesty for Biko’s death, after
they claimed that they had to use force against him because he attacked
them first.
- Perpetrators were encouraged to appear before the TRC because they knew
they would not face criminal or civil(relating to private claims for damages)
prosecution in a court of law if they received amnesty. Far fewer
perpetrators would have come forward and less of the truth would have
been revealed if this promise was not made.
- Some reparations were paid to victims - even if some felt they were far too
small
Amnesty was not granted easily:
- 7116 applied for amnesty
- 1167 were granted it
3.3 Focus on human rights of 1980s and ignoring institutional violence and the human
rights abused of Apartheid
TRC hearings focused of :
- Victims and perpetrator of human rights violations
- Armed forces
- Prison services
- Legal profession
- Health services
- Business
- Religious communities
- Media
- Trade union
- How women and young people were affected by Apartheid
Some argued that it did not pay enough attention to the day-to-day institutional violence
that the oppressed under apartheid were subjected to:
- The Pass Laws
- Forced removals
- Racial discrimination in education, housing, economic opportunities, health
and sporting facilities
They argued that TRC focused on “Extraordinary” violence rather than “ordinary” violence
imposed on millions.
Defenders of TRC would argue that this was not part of the mandate(official instructions)
and that they had more than enough to cope with as it was.
3.4 Reparations
Third committee of TRC was the Reparation and RehabilitationCommittee
Aim – to find ways to help victims of human rights violation to get on with their lives.
- It did not aim to fully compensate victims as it felt one could not be
compensated for the loss of a loved one
Alex Boraine argued that one of the main source of reparation was for people to be able to
tell their story and to know the truth of what happened to loved ones.
TRC was victim friendly and asked every victim what they wanted the commission to do for
them.
Some said :
- They wanted to know the truth – to break the silence
- They wanted to know where the bodies where buried – to give them a
decent funeral
- They wanted to know why people had done these terrible things to them
and their families
- Some talked about memorials or naming a school after a young boy was
killed
- Others talked about peace park where they could go to be quiet and to
mourn
- Others talks about assistance in education
- Due to ill health - Some wanted a guarantee of treatment for physical,
mental and spiritual problems
Few people asked for money – TRC felt some monetary reparation was called for – eg. If the
family lost their breadwinners
October 1998 – TRC asked government for
- urgent interim relief for families of victims – R2000.00 per victim
- individual reparation grants – R23 000.00 per year for 6 years – 20 000
victims who had come forward
government was vey slow to pay – must remember that funds were badly needed for other
purposed like housing, health, education, water and electricity
April 2003 – President Mbeki – agreed to pay once off amount of R30 000.00 to about
17 000 individual victims
Must remember that those that were granted amnesty received immediate relief from
criminal and civil damages whereas victims had to wait up to 7 years for offer of relief.
Journalist, Antjie Krog, called issue of reparation “the TRC’s single biggest failure”
May 2011 – government announced it would make payment to the educational and health
needs of victims and their children that were identified by the TRC
Unit 4: responses of political parties and reasons for the responses of the TRC and the
final report
National party – FW De Klerk – believed TRC favored the liberation movements like ANC.
He apologised for Apartheid but denied any knowledge of or responsibility for gross human
rights violation committed by security forces.
However, security operatives that specialized in assassinating political opponents said that
their political superiors had known of their illegal actions.
They testified that words like “eliminate” which meant to kill in security-force orders.
NP minister admitted they didn’t want to know
De Klerk took the TRC to court to prevent publication of findings that he knew beforehand
of the bombing of Khotso House(headquarters of SA Council of Churches).
KZn – worst province for political violence.
IFP – Buthelezi claimed although his supporters had been drawn into political violence, he
himself did not orchestrate a single act of violence against a single victim of political
violence. TRC found IFP was responsible for systematic gross violation of human rights and
Buthelezi and Minister of KZN Police was personally responsible.
ANC maintained
- it fought a just war against Apartheid and discrimination
- civilians who had been killed were caught in the cross fire
Mac Maharaj, senior ANC leader – apoligised to civilians for such death
TRC found ANC guilty of a number of gross human rights violations with the country and
beyond the borders – training camps in Angola, Zambia and Mozambique
TRC found UDF (ANC allie) guilty of gross human rights violation – necklace killings(petrol
filled tyre placed around the victims head and set alight)
ANC took TRC to court to prevent publication of findings against it – Cape high court
rejected its case.
Clear that not one of the major parties were prepared to take responsibility for their roles in
gross human right violations.
Also clear that TRC tried to be even-handed(fair) in its findings about responsibility and
gross human right violations.
4.1 National Party
May 1997 – FW De Klerk – apologised for Apartheid but denied responsibility for any human
rights violation committed in its name by security forces.
He stressed that he did not know of any illegal actions but Desmond Tutu said that he had
told him of such actions at the time that they happened.
Lack of evidence made it difficult to tell whether he was telling the truth.
We do know that many documents were shredded by government agencies before NP
handed the power over
Alex Boraine comments – Policies of NP created a climate which made it possible for some
of the worst offences and beyond the law practices to take place during 1980s.
Former Commissioner of Police – General Johan van der Merwe – was more forthcoming in
his testimony – said security policemen had approval of the Minister in charge to carry out
illegal actions. Words like illuminate, destroy, eradicate, to wipe out, resulted in deaths.
Leon Wessel, former deputy minister – testified that “it was not that we did not know, we
didn’t want to know. We didn’t talk about it, we whispered it in the corridors of the
Parliament”
TRC report submitted 28 October 1998 – found De Klerk had know about the bombings on
Khotso House and that it was authorized by former President PW Botha himself
De Klerk had not made full disclosure of gross human rights violations committed by
members of government – and was therefore an accessory to (legally responsible for ) gross
human rights violation and morally accountable for concealing this from the country.
De Klerk went to high court te prevent publication of findings against him – court upheld his
request in the interim(until the matter has been finally resolved) – meant the page
concerned had to be removed overnight and replaced with another page with a black
square to cover its findings(protective page had to be put on either side of the new page
because the ink had not yet dried properly
4.2 Inkatha Freedom Party
Between 1985 – 1994 – KZn worst area for political violence – with IFP on one side and
UDF/ANC on the other.
18000 – 20000 people were killed
Half of the cases of human rights violation came from KZN to TRC
More people were killed by IFP, ANC and UDF combined than by SA police
SA police and army supported and trained IFP paramilitary force(force that behaves in the
same way as an official military force) – they were trained not just for justice but for attack.
March-April 1990 – single worst political atrocity – 2000 people killed and 20 000 homeless
in IFP attacks against ANC communities around Pietermaritzburg.
SA police assisted IFP in these attacks - known as seven day war
1997 – IFP leader – Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi gave evidence to TRC :
- he was critical of TRC
- he regarded TRC as biased against IFP and in favour of ANC
- called killings against more than 400 IFP leaders and thousands of its
supporters a “crime against humanity”
- stated his own deep conviction that violence is evil and must not be used
for political purposes
- he said he knew IFP members and supporters were drawn into violence but
added he was sorry to South Africa for this violence because “although I
have not orchestrated one single act of violence, against one single victim of
the political violence that has cost us co many lives, as the leader of the IFP,
I know that the buck stops right in front of me”
TRC found IFP guilty for gross violations of human rights – systematic pattern of abuse
which entailed detailed planning on part of the organization – Chief Buthelezi was held
personally accountable.
4.3 African national Congress
1998 – TRC found ANC guilty of a number of gross human violations within and beyond the
country. – training camps in Angola, Zambia and Mozambique.
UDF was also found guilty
Necklace killing – <I explained above>
ANC took TRC to high court to prevent publication of findings – Cape high Court dismissed
application with costs.
President Mandela came in defence of TRC – declared although ANC had been fighting a
just war, it had committed gross violations of human rights - no once can deny it as some
people had died in their own camps.
ANC admitted to executing 34 people in its camps
Alex Boraine argued that not all acts of war could be regarded as morally or legally
legitimate even where the cause is just – there could be no double standards in effort to
develop a culture of human rights. It is right to condemn violence and human rights
violation when it comes from the state or from those that fought for liberation of our
country.
Timothy Tebogo “chief” Seremane – known as Kenneth Mahamba – was executed at Quatro
Camp in Angola by ANC military tribunal court – ANC presented evidence to TRC that
Kenneth was a SA security police and alleged to have passed on information to the
Apartheid security forces which resulted in the SADF attack on ANC’s camps in 1979
Unit 5 : Remembering the past : memorials
Memorials are a way to remember the past – to commemorate the past in one way or
another – through physical structures or memorials.
Three reasons why our past is important to us :
First – the past is part of who we are. We cannot imagine ourselves without our past.
Nations is what it is because of its past.
Second – our past, present and future are linked to each other. Past continues to influence
the present and our future.
Third – we want to learn from the past. Many agree with Santayana’s statement” Those who
forget the past ae condemned to repeat it’. We understand that we cannot afford to ignore
the many lessons the past is able to teach us.
Robbin Island – 10km north of Cape Town.
Used for many purposes over the years :
- first used by passing sailors for food and as a post office
- used by Durch East India Company as place of imprisonment for both
Khoikhoi and Dutch people who did not abide by their strict rules –
prisoners included political opponents of the Company in Dutch East Indies
- early 1800s – Robben island was under British rule but was still used as a
prison for criminal and political prisoners -like Xhosa leaders that were
taken captive in frontier wars and other Africans who resisted British rule in
SA
- 1840s – came to be used as a place to isolate people who were socially
undesirable – the mentally sick, the very poor and the incurably ill especially
lepers
- During WWII it was used as a military base from which to protect Cape
Town and the Cape sea-route between Europe and the East
- From 1960 – became prison again for criminal and political prisoners –
maximum security prison for political prisoners
5.1 How is the struggle against Apartheid remembered on Robben Island?
It was declared a United nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural organization(UNESCO)
World heritage site in 1999.
Nomination Committee said : Robben island has come to represent an outstanding symbol
of triumph(victory) of the human spirit over enormous adversity(bad fortune) and hardship.
It symbolizes the rebirth of democracy in SA.
People who visit the island come away with many impressions :
First :
- The tremendous suffering of political prisoners.
- Disturbing to see how small the cells were – 2m x 2m
- Cement floor – has a bare mattress and blankets, small bedside table and a
bucket for bodily waste
- Prisoners had to empty and clean the buckets and put them back in the cell
- Mandela lived for 18 years in a cell like this
Second :
- Contrast between this dull, cramped world and the broad sweep and colour
of the Cape Peninsula
- Prisoners were within view and almost within reach of the beauty of Cape
Town – Table Mountain, Lion’s head, Signal hill – so near yet so far
Third :
- Cruelty of the harsh and meaningless ways in which these talented and
passionate men who had so much to contribute were forced to spend their
time.
- During day – prisoners allowed into a small grim courtyard – worked at
chiselling stones
- Worked in a limestone quarry - where the harsh light damaged their eyes –
Nelson Mandela had to have eye surgery after his release
- They spent a great deal of time transporting it from one end of the quarry
to the other – just to keep them busy
They used a cave above the quarry as a toilet and sometimes as a classroom to discuss
politics
Diet - very limited
- Coloured and Indians allowed more food and greater variety than black
prisoners
Political leaders were only allowed one letter and one visit a month – other permitted 3
letters and a visit.
They were allowed to speak in only English or Afrikaans so warders could follow the
conversation.
Later changed when new Commandant asked the warders to learn African languages
Many visitors response would be first of horror at the cruelty and deprivation the prisoners
suffered but secondly admiration for their remarkable strength and amazement at the
forgiving spirit with which people like Mandela emerged from the prison.
There is a sense of enormous strength of human spirit under the terrible conditions and the
ultimate triumph of good over evil.
The wonderful camaraderie that existed among the men despite their political differences –
enabled them to survive on the island.
