The Truth and Reconciliation Commission: South Africa=20 can learn important lessons from the 15 truth=20 commissions around the world during the past two=20
Eddie Koch and Gaye Davis
WHEN the Mothers of Plaza De Mayo gather at 3pm every=20 Thursday to bang pots in the centre of Buenos Aires,=20 they highlight a paradox that marks the 15 truth=20 commissions that have operated around the world since=20 1974. Each commission was driven by the need for=20 collective healing in a country riven by past=20 atrocities. But many left behind a class of victims who=20 continue to live in the shadow of poverty and unsolved=20
Instead of applying the balm of truth — a Russian=20 saying says injustice is to have an eye gouged out, to=20 look away is to lose both — many commissions have=20 rather served the narrow interests of ruling parties,=20 who use evidence of past atrocities to discredit=20 political rivals. It is a prospect we may face in South=20
Strategic compromises during negotiations that led to=20 last year’s freedom elections also meant amnesty being=20 guaranteed to the perpetrators of apartheid crimes.=20 They will have to confess if they want pardon, but once=20 amnesty is granted, there will be no further sanction:=20 no trials or civil claims, nor will they lose their=20
Many have criticised the apparent special treatment=20 this affords those responsible for past atrocities.=20 “What about the victims?” they ask. An answer is slowly=20 emerging as we move towards the truth commission’s=20 establishment — and it is one that has won the=20 admiration of those involved in the truth machines that=20 have run in Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America=20 over the past two decades.
It is that South Africa’s truth commission will afford=20 meaningful relief to victims and survivors because, for=20 the first time in recent history, ordinary men and=20 women have the power to make the apparatus work to=20 their advantage.
“Experiences in Argentina (where the mothers protest=20 every week because they still do not know what happened=20 to their children who disappeared under military rule),=20 Chile and El Salvador show that the restorative and=20 healing powers of truth processes can be a myth,” says=20 Paul van Zyl of the Centre for the Study of Violence=20 and Reconciliation in Johannesburg.
“In most other countries, victims’ groups emerged as a=20 result of weaknesses in their truth commissions. The=20 survivors are often disempowered and frustrated after=20 being put through a legalistic process by hack-handed=20 lawyers that only reinvokes the pain.
“Experts from these countries who visit here are=20 astounded by a major difference. In South Africa,=20 victims’ groups were set up before the truth commission=20 and have the opportunity to influence the way it=20
Around the country, a network of survivors” groups has=20 already begun to form, preparing those who want to tell=20 their stories before the commission for what to expect=20 and ensuring that their needs and interests are=20 promoted. It is a healing process in itself.
Organisations involved include the Trauma Centre for=20 Victims of Violence, in Cape Town, with its counselling=20 services for victims; the Johannesburg-based Khulumani=20 Support Group, set up to encourage survivors to make=20 effective use of the commission; the Centre for the=20 Study of Violence and Reconciliation, which runs=20 workshops to inform people of the impact the commission=20 may have on their lives; the Association of Victims of=20 Unsolved Apartheid Atrocities, which is demanding legal=20 action against the people who murdered activists like=20 Griffiths Mxenge and Matthew Goniwe in the 1980s; and=20 Justice in Transition, which has run seminars and=20 distributed pamphlets telling people how to use the=20
Scores of paralegal personnel and mental-health=20 professionals are being mobilised to brief victims=20 before they go before the commission and, more=20 importantly, says Van Zyl, to debrief them afterwards=20 so they don’t suffer the anxiety and sense of=20 worthlessness victims in other countries have=20 experienced after going through the truth mill.
A coalition of about 30 human rights groups is building=20 a computerised database recording thousands of=20 incidents and naming names that survivors will have=20 access to and that can be used to cross-check amnesty=20 applicants’ testimony, to ensure they reveal all.
These organisations have already shown a robustness, a=20 legacy of their opposition to apartheid, that sees them=20 exercise real power over the truth process. The=20 political deal struck in cabinet that allowed for=20 amnesty hearings to be in secret was overturned after=20 human rights organisations threatened to withhold their=20 crucial co-operation if it went ahead.
“The truth commission could be a psychologically=20 healing process by aiding a much-needed truth recovery,=20 giving survivors the space to recount past abuses and=20 by providing some form of reparation,” says Brandon=20 Hamber, a researcher at the Centre for the Study of=20 Violence and Reconciliation.
“Nevertheless, lessons — particularly from Latin=20 America — teach us that establishing a truth=20 commission is not sufficient in itself to meet these=20 psychological needs. The commission does run the danger=20 of being overly involved in legal and political issues=20 at the expense of key psychological aspects of=20
But he notes the country has a “remarkably strong”=20 network of human rights organisations pushing the=20 Justice Ministry to back “a range of non-government=20 psychological structures and strategies that will run=20 parallel to the commission”. Hamber says these should=20
* Training for a network of mental-health=20 professionals to offer counselling backing up the=20 therapeutic effects that victims, if properly=20 supported, may get from having their stories heard;
* Training for fieldworkers, investigators and other=20 commission staffers so that they deal with victims with=20 due sensitivity and can refer people for professional=20 help where needed;
* Pre-testimony briefing and debriefing so victims=20 feel confident giving evidence and can better deal with=20 revisiting fraught emotional terrain.
ANC MP Willie Hofmeyr, a member of the justice=20 committee in the National Assembly, acknowledges the=20 commission is the product of a strategic compromise=20 during the negotiations that led to last year’s freedom=20
“As a result, the commission generally extinguishes the=20 right of victims to make civil claims against members=20 of the security forces who apply for amnesty. The=20 negotiated agreement also ensured that all civil=20 servants would keep their jobs for five years — so we=20 have a situation in some parts of the country where=20 victims of torture live around the corner from a police=20 station where the torturer is now the commanding=20 officer,” says Hofmeyr.
He says most ANC members — bar those whose own human=20 rights violations or collaboration with the security=20 forces may be uncovered — want the commission to be=20 the instrument that will redress the imbalances that=20 arose from the pre-election settlement, and he agrees=20 that the country’s vibrant civil rights movement will=20 play a key role in ensuring this.
“It is very important that there should now be a focus=20 on the victims — that they have an opportunity to say=20 what happened to them and that there be government=20 recognition of this, after all the denial of the past – – and that there be the understanding that perpetrators=20 will not get off scot-free, that at least they are=20 named and they say what they did.
“Another aspect is the possibility of reconciling=20 perpetrators and victims face-to-face. There are a=20 significant number of people deeply and genuinely=20 sorry, who would welcome the opportunity provided by=20 the commission to come to terms with their own=20
Alex Boraine of Justice in Transition says this effect=20 was apparent even before the truth commission was=20 legislated into existence. Security force operatives,=20 fearing colleagues coming forward would identify them,=20 have already testified before the Goldstone Commission=20 or gone to the media in the hope of bolstering their=20 appeals for pardon.=20
‘Although the amnesty provisions have been criticised,=20 it is important to remember they do involve a measure=20 of punishment. The security forces wanted a blanket=20 amnesty, but our commission is different to most others=20 in that it demands disclosure on an individual basis.
“In acknowledging that they were part of an inhumane=20 act, these people may well experience a measure of=20 healing themselves.”
A comparative survey of the world’s 15 truth=20 commissions, published by the American Human Rights=20 Quarterly last year, says most were fatally flawed by=20 the lack of any popular discussion about their scope=20 and methods of operation. South Africa offers the=20 “first example of a process officially opened to=20 encourage public debate and input on the terms of a=20 truth commission”, it says.
# Keeping cats out of the canary cage
NGOs’ involvement from the start has helped mould the=20 process, offering the best chance for the truth=20 commission to achieve its aims — so that the mothers=20 of our own “disappeared” don’t have to bang pots.
Gaye Davis
FORMER security policeman Paul Erasmus says he has had=20 calls from between 30 and 40 ex-colleagues since he=20 decided to come clean about his past — all of them=20 inquiring about taking the same route.
“I tell them to contact the ministry of justice or the=20 Mail & Guardian and make a statement,” he said this=20 week. “For me, it’s been a catharsis. I don’t take=20 anti-depressants any more. I’ve got my life back.”
But, while Erasmus can now “look people in the eye and=20 say, yes … I’m Mr Dirty Tricks,” getting his life=20 back almost cost him his wife Linda and their two=20
Her threat to divorce him was founded not in her no=20 longer loving him, but in the effects of being under a=20 witness protection programme that was hopelessly=20 ineffective, saw serious breaches of their security and=20 was generally a source of stress rather than succour.
Erasmus and his family spent 17 months under the=20 programme, first set up by the Goldstone Commission and=20 then taken over by the department of justice. He=20 related their experience in Pretoria this week, at an=20 Idasa workshop to look at formulating fresh witness=20 protection policy.
Describing broken undertakings, “appalling”=20 administration and being forced to compromise his=20 safety by drawing on his bank account after spending=20 nine days in London without money, Erasmus told the=20 M&G: “I did those terrible things. Why should my wife=20 and children also suffer?”
A new, comprehensive and effective witness protection=20 programme is a burning priority if the Truth and=20 Reconciliation Commission is to work properly. Without=20 one, witnesses may be reluctant to come forward.
South Africa’s rudimentary witness protection, laid=20 down by the Criminal Procedure Act, provides for little=20 more than a witness being detained. Using either the=20 police or the Department of Correctional Services=20 wasn’t an option for Goldstone witnesses, and a=20 programme was hastily devised. When it was handed over=20 to the Department of Justice, officials found=20 themselves “thrown in at the deep end”, said Transvaal=20 deputy attorney-general Antoinette de Jager.
Lacking in experience, faced with an unpredictable=20 spate of problems no one could have foreseen, officials=20 were also burdened by legislation which did not provide=20 the flexibility to ease their task. Witnesses like=20 Erasmus, on the other hand, complained when=20 undertakings given by Goldstone Commission staffers=20 weren’t acknowledged by Department of Justice=20
At issue are a new regulatory framework for an=20 effective, comprehensive programme run by people with=20 experience and a range of skills, as well as support=20 and service structures for witnesses and their=20 families. Without an effective programme, witnesses=20 will be reluctant to come forward.
A new programme, located within the ministry of justice=20 but possibly headed by a civilian and with an=20 independent budget, will not only serve politically=20 motivated offenders but also witnesses where ordinary=20 crime is involved.
De Jager told the M&G: “The cost will be huge and there=20 are very big moral dilemmas in terms of making a=20 distinction between witnesses who are also accomplices=20 and innocent bystanders intimidated by gangs and=20 syndicates, whom we are unable to protect.”
# How the commission will work
Gaye Davis
ONE certainty about the Truth and Reconciliation=20 Commission: its potential for sowing division equals=20 the promise it holds for healing. Another is that it=20 will develop its own dynamic, with unpredictable=20
The Promotion of National Reconciliation and Unity Act=20 provides the framework which must still be fleshed with=20 detail. What is clear so far is that whether the=20 commission becomes an instrument of reconciliation or=20 reopens wounds barely healed will depend on how the=20 process is managed.
This is one reason for emerging consensus that,=20 whatever the cost in terms of delay, potential=20 commissioners should undergo public interviews. The=20 decision lies with President Nelson Mandela, but the=20 feeling is that locking the public out of the process=20 will damage the commission’s legitimacy.
Another debate is whether the commission should operate=20 as a single body roving the country, or a centrally co- ordinated operation with regional bases. Again, there=20 is growing agreement the latter option will be the=20
“NGOs will be in place to monitor and help drive the=20 process and offer support to victims. Investigative=20 teams will operate on known terrain and there will be=20 access to regional databases,” says Paul van Zyl, a=20 researcher at the Centre for the Study of Violence and=20 Reconciliation (CSVR).
A more complex issue is reparations. “Most people who=20 have worked on the process are convinced it would be a=20 disaster if reparations are driven by monetary=20 compensation,” says ANC MP Willie Hofmeyr, a member of=20 the National Assembly’s justice committee.
“We just don’t have the money. Also, the truth=20 commission will focus only on gross human rights=20 violations. We could face a dangerous backlash in=20 communities where activists and their families are=20 compensated and nothing is done for ordinary people who=20 also suffered under apartheid.”
Hofmeyr sees people’s dignity being restored by=20 official recognition of what they went through and by=20 erecting monuments or re-naming schools and hospitals=20 after people and incidents. He sees material=20 compensation limited to pensions, bursaries and similar=20
“People want different things,” says Brandon Hamber, a=20 CSVR researcher in psychological services. “Some want a=20 proper funeral. Others want the perpetrator brought to=20 book. What is important is creating an environment=20 where people can express their anger over perpetrators=20 getting amnesty.”
The commission will work through three committees and=20 can set up sub-committees in various regions. Hearings=20 will be open, but commissioners can decide to bar=20 certain details being published, in the interests of=20
The Committee on Human Rights Violations will hear=20 victims’ stories of injuries suffered. It must=20 establish whether violations were planned, by whom and=20 for what reason.
Chaired by a judge, the Committee on Amnesty will=20 consider politically motivated acts committed between=20 March 1 1960 and December 5 1993. Amnesty will bring=20 protection from civil or criminal action and will only=20 be granted for acts admitted to, details of which will=20 be published. Victims will attend hearings and the=20 Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation must decide=20 how victims should be compensated.
The commission will sit for 18 months, though Mandela=20 can extend this by six months. He must receive its=20 final report within three months of the commission=20 completing its work — after which it will be made=20 known to the nation.