South Africa talks about reconciliation,=20 but Rwanda wants its political criminals=20 behind bars. David Goodman reports
WHILE the Truth and Reconciliation=20 Commission busies itself with doling out=20 amnesty to apartheid killers, justice=20 officials at another end of Africa are=20 pursuing a decidedly different approach to=20 settling old scores. Rwandan officials=20 visiting South Africa this week agree that=20 reconciliation would be nice. But they=20 prefer justice, thank you – reconciliation=20 can wait.=20
A delegation of high-level Rwandan=20 government officials spent much of last=20 week visiting with the truth commission in=20 Cape Town in an effort to learn about South=20 Africa’s approach to dealing with its=20 sordid past. Both the South Africans and=20 the Rwandans involved in the meeting were=20 simultaneously intrigued and disturbed by=20 the other’s approach. =20
The Rwandan government’s insistence on=20 ”justice first” in dealing with the past=20 touches a raw nerve for South Africans.=20 President Nelson Mandela and Archbishop=20 Tutu have thrown their considerable moral=20 authority behind the notion that the truth=20 commission process -which sacrifices=20 justice for the sake of reconciliation and=20 learning the truth – is the only way to=20 close the book on South Africa’s dark past.=20 Witnesses at truth commission hearings who=20 break from this script – refusing to=20 forgive their tormentors and instead=20 demanding that perpetrators be prosecuted -=20 are often greeted with flummoxed silence by=20 the truth commissioners. The impression is=20 that by refusing to forgive, a victim has=20 done something ”wrong”.=20
It is into this moral minefield that the=20 Rwandans waded last week. They barely=20 suspected that their eminently sensible=20 approach – whereby criminals go to jail,=20 just like everywhere else – could be so=20 controversial. But this route has been=20 largely foreclosed in South Africa. The=20 consequences of South Africa’s approach=20 have not been felt so acutely until now, as=20 killers are starting to go free.
Even truth commissioners are starting to=20 doubt the reconciliation through truth=20 equation. ”When I heard that Brian Mitchell=20 was granted amnesty, I found it a very,=20 very bitter pill to swallow,” admits truth=20 commissioner Wendy Orr. She notes: ”Finally=20 we had in front of us a real idea of what=20 amnesty is: this man, who killed 11 people,=20 was walking free … It sticks in your gut=20 that people literally get away with=20 murder.”
Orr reflects: ”Intellectually, I understand=20 why amnesty was part of the negotiated=20 settlement. But still, deep down in very=20 many of us, there is some belief that=20 perhaps this is not justice … Perhaps=20 some of these people do deserve to be=20 prosecuted.”
How will the South African process promote=20 reconciliation? The commission tackled this=20 issue at a workshop held at the University=20 of Cape Town (UCT) on January 24 that was=20 attended by the Rwandans. Professor Mahmood=20 Mamdani, director of the UCT Centre for=20 African Studies, challenged: ”Can=20 reconciliation happen so cheaply as it is=20 supposed to happen in South Africa? Isn’t=20 justice a prerequisite of reconciliation?”=20 Noting that no-one could have predicted the=20 Rwandan genocide, Mamdani cautioned, ”There=20 is nothing inevitable about=20 reconciliation.”
A look at Rwanda’s approach hints at what=20 works about justice, and what doesn’t.=20
Rwanda experienced the hell that South=20 Africa was spared. From April 6 to July 17=20 1994, a genocide of unprecedented ferocity=20 was carried out in the tiny central African=20 nation. It is estimated that 500000 to 1- million people were killed in just over=20 three months – by the higher figure, that’s=20 10000 people slaughtered a day. =20
”The rate of death exceeds anything that=20 happened in Nazi Germany,” explains=20 Madeline Morris, a professor of=20 international law at Duke University in the=20 US and currently justice adviser to Rwandan=20 President Bizimunga. ”And the killings were=20 done with crude instruments – machetes and=20 clubs. So we know there had to be a lot of=20 perpetrators.”=20
Rwanda has no plans to create a truth=20 commission. ”We don’t really need truth – =20 we know who did what,” says Charles=20 Murigande, Rwandan Minister of Transport=20 and Communication who was part of the=20 delegation to South Africa.=20
”In our country the killings were done in=20 broad daylight,” Murigande recounts. ”The=20 genocidal killers would start at 8am and go=20 till 4pm killing people. Then they would go=20 have a drink, go to sleep, and do this=20 again the next morning.” =20
The former mathematics professor explains:=20 ”Unlike in South Africa or Latin America -=20 where there were secret death squads -=20 people here know what has happened. So=20 simply telling Rwandans the truth and then=20 giving people amnesty – that would not be=20 very useful. The situations [in South=20 Africa and Rwanda] are different, that is=20 why the approach can not be completely=20 similar.” =20
The Rwandan government has opted for old- fashioned justice in dealing with the=20 perpetrators of genocide: criminals will be=20 prosecuted. The present government has the=20 luxury of not having to compromise with its=20 enemies; such are the perks of winning an=20 outright military victory, as the Rwandan=20 Patriotic Front (RPF) did in July 1994. But=20 the present RPF government has found that=20 meting out justice has raised a host of=20 moral and logistical quandaries.=20
Morris notes that there are presently about=20 90000 people languishing in Rwandan jails,=20 many of them ”in unspeakable conditions”.=20 Most of these prisoners were jailed by RPF=20 soldiers in July 1994 for allegedly=20 participating in mass killings. Few of=20 these prisoners have even been tried.=20
Under Rwandan law, convicted murderers can=20 be sentenced to death. Morris says that if=20 even half of the current prisoners were=20 found guilty of murder – a reasonable=20 assumption, she claims – the Rwandan=20 government would now be faced with=20 executing 45000 people. ”It wouldn’t=20 contribute to reconciliation to have mass=20 executions,” she observes dryly.=20
So the Rwandans devised a ”genocide law”=20 that was passed last September. Under the=20 new law, perpetrators are divided into four=20 categories. Category one is reserved for=20 the most culpable perpetrators: the=20 political and military leaders and the most=20 zealous killers. Category two is for all=20 other crimes that resulted in death, while=20 category three is for assault, and category=20 four is for property crimes such as=20 looting. In a controversial move, the=20 government decided that only category one=20 crimes would carry the death penalty, and=20 they published the names of 1900 suspected=20 category one perpetrators in December. Any=20 perpetrator whose name is not on that list=20 qualifies as a lesser criminal, and is=20 spared the death sentence. =20
Category two crimes carry a life sentence,=20 but there’s a way out of jail: if a=20 category two criminal confesses, names his=20 accomplices, and apologises to his victims,=20 he can serve as little as seven years. Due=20 to severe prison overcrowding, category=20 three and four criminals will likely serve=20 no jail time. Thus the masses of Rwanda’s=20 genocidal killers will be spared the fate=20 of their victims.=20
Although the Rwandan government is loathe=20 to admit it, the penalty reductions are=20 tantamount to a partial amnesty. Morris=20 acknowledges that ”the survivor population=20 was against this law. They want a large=20 number of category one prosecutions.”=20 Echoing the realpolitik logic of South=20 Africa, she says the concession was made=20 ”to break the cycle of violence and …=20 avoid a conflagration”.=20
What about reconciliation? ”In Rwanda, the=20 word is just not mentioned, it’s not used.=20 They just talk about justice and=20 reparation,” says Orr, who visited Rwanda=20 with a commission delegation in October. =20
UCT’s Mamdani has visited Rwanda several=20 times to examine their post-genocide=20 judicial process. He reflects, ”Rwanda can=20 learn here that a preoccupation with=20 justice which lacks a long-term objective=20 of co-existing as members of the same=20 political community is not going to lead to=20 reconciliation. It’s more likely to lead to=20 revenge.=20
”South Africa has to learn from Rwanda that=20 reconciliation without a measure of justice=20 is not durable,” Mamdani adds. But there is=20 more to justice than just prosecuting a=20 small clique of burly Afrikaner security=20 policemen. =20
Mamdani contends that justice must extend=20 to the socio-economic realm, and that=20 whites must understand that they were=20 ”beneficiaries of apartheid” and now must=20 make ”meaningful gestures to … level the=20 playing field”. The Reconstruction and=20 Development Programme was a start in that=20 direction, but he notes with concern that=20 ”it now looks like a promise which isn’t=20 going to be fulfilled”.=20
”Some measure of justice might be a=20 prerequisite for reconciliation,” Mamdani=20 insists. ”South Africa can learn from=20 Rwanda that truth is no substitute for=20 justice.”
David Goodman is an American journalist and=20 the author of a forthcoming book about=20 South Africa’s post-apartheid=20 transformation