Truth and Reconciliation Committee Flashcards
Reasons for the TRC
1994: Apartheid Collapsed
South Africa was a deeply divided society
Nelson Mandela (new leader of democratic South Africa) debated how to deal with the past
Thousands of freedom fighters and activists were killed, tortured, imprisoned (leading to their families to deal with mental, physical, and economic trauma)
Various forms of justice
Parliament debated how to deal with the past and face the future
they came up with two options
Retributive Justice (1st Option)
Retributive punishment for criminal behaviour Nuremberg Trials (after WW2)
Nazi leaders were accused for their crime against humanity
When found guilty they were hung ,imprisoned for a long period
Restorative Justice (reconciliation by addressing injustices of the past -TRC) (2nd Option)
Chile: General Pinochet guilty of serious abuses of human rights of opponents
1990 Civilian rule was restored, their task was to “explore” the truth
Reparation and Reconciliation Committee
Provide compensation to victims
South Africa decided to follow Chile’s example (focus on reconciliation rather than revenge)
The work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
The Reconciliation Act of 1995:
Establishing the truth behind politically motivated gross human rights violations
Granting Amnesty if pre-set conditions were met
A platform for ‘victims’ stories to be heard
TRC hearings
Involves both sides being invited
Testimonies were identified- political leaders refused- PW Botha
Aims of the TRC
Obtaining truth from human rights violators
Closure and healing to South Africans (victims)
Made suggestions- Compensation for victims
Main Aim= establishing a culture of human rights (Suffering and injustices of the past should not occur again)
Nature of the TRC hearing
In every province of South Africa:
Listen to the stories: e.g. how political activists were murdered/ how people of colour were tortured
Including those for and against apartheid
Mixture of evidence
“Headline” cases (Murder of Steve Biko and Bishop Mass)
Ordinary cases: civilian victims
What people wanted
Some people wanted:
Revenge
Others compensation
Some wanted closure (wanted to know what happened to their family members)
Positive Aspects of the TRC
Helped with healing
21000 victims stated their cases
Families could forgive offenders
Murders of political activists were solved (closure for families)
Liberation movements were held accountable: crimes and atrocities
Archbishop Desmond Tutu said: “Need overall picture of the past then healing and reconciliation could start
Negative Aspects of the TRC
The TRC only looked at a specific period: March 1960-May 1994
It ignored the early period of apartheid
TRC was restricted to acts that were politically motivated
The truth was never conveyed to the full extent. Did not deeply describe the horrors of the apartheid government
Some leaders refused to appear e.g. P.W. Botha
Not everyone was happy with reparations
Amnesty
Amnesty was given only if the following conditions were met:
The crimes were politically motivated
the person seeking amnesty disclosed (told) the whole truth
Problems with Amnesty
lack of evidence: the truth was not fully disclosed
Those seeking amnesty were not always sincere or show remorse for the crime they committed
Speaking about past atrocities lead to greater anger and conflict
Only 849 pf the 7112 who applied were successful
Reparations
The issue of reparations was controversial (does it really help?)
A Reparations Committee was established- Investigated all stories that were told
For a number of cases: some kind of financial or material reparations were awarded for the suffering and loss of victims and their families
TRC Report (1)
The TRC completed its reports in 1998 after nearly three years of hearings
Findings about NP government: it concluded that P. W. Botha’s government had moved from a policy of repression to killing its opponents. It was also responsible for torture, arson (setting fire), abduction and sabotage
Findings about “Third Force”: the report also criticized De Klerk for the activities of the “Third Force” which had tried to disrupt the negotiations
TRC Report (2)
Findings about the ANC:
It also criticized the ANC for civilian causalities in MK operations, for the torture and executions that happened in ANC camps in exile, and for the use of violence against its opponents 9such as members Inkatha, Urban Councillors and Rural headmen)
ANC was unhappy that the TRC did not distinguish between action of apartheid and liberation movements
Response of political parties on the work of the TRC
ANC criticized the TRC:
TRC was impartial
The ANC wanted the TRC to critique the NP government for “Third Force” activists
Gross human-right violations committed by the SADF in South West Africa (Namibia) were not dealt with
The National Party criticized the TRC:
Felt that the TRC was biased against the TRC and claimed that it was a ‘witch hunt’
De Klerk claimed that the report emphasized revenge
Certain senior leaders of the ANC refused to apply for amnesty
De Klerk took legal action to prevent the publication of information that involved him in “Third Force” activity
Inkatha Freedom Party criticized the TRC
The IFP felt that the TRC was biased
The TRC wanted to humiliate offenders
IFP wanted the ANC to apologize for the violence in Natal and the leap-up to the 1994 elections
