Reconciliation Is Possible: Focus on South Africa

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Reconciliation
Reconciliation and justice
A third party in reconciliation
Challenges in reconciliation
Reconciliation and Conservation of memory
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Reconciliation has been used in conflict resolution. It has been used to come up with a solution to issues underlying conflicts as well as alter the relationship of the perpetrator from resentment and hostility to harmony and friendship. The South African Model of reconciliation is one example that has motivated countries to constitute reconciliation commissions around the world.

The South African Government of National Unity set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to help deal with the human rights abuses and violence that happened during the apartheid regime, especially from 1st march 1960; the whole of South Africa suffered from these abuses during this period. Moreover, after emerging from a period of repression, South Africa had to confront the issue of deep economic, political, and social divisions which have significant social overlay; Storey (1997) argues that in the wake of democracy, countries have to account for the past human rights abuses. The South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission was set up as a court-like body to hear cases of anybody who felt was a victim of violence as well as receive testimonies of perpetrators of this violence; the perpetrators could request amnesty from persecution. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission which was commissioned by the then South African president, Nelson Mandela, was set up by the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act No. 34 of 1995. This dissertation will discuss the components that make reconciliation possible in considering the South Africa case.

Reconciliation

The reconciliation process in South Africa as a conflict handling mechanism shows that the following elements are important:

Honest acknowledgment of the harm/injury each party has inflicted on the other.
Sincere regrets and remorse for the injury done.
Readiness to apologize for one’s role in inflicting the injury.
d) Readiness of the conflicting parties to ‘let go’ of the anger and bitterness.
e) Commitment by the offender not to repeat the injury.
f) Sincere effort to redress past grievances that caused the conflict.
g) Entering into a new mutually enriching relationship.

Reconciliation is achieved when these processes bring a new relationship. The essence of reconciliation is the voluntary initiative of the conflict parties to acknowledge their responsibility and guilt. The interactions that transpire between the parties are not only meant to communicate one’s grievances against the actions of the adversary, but also to engage in self-reflection about one’s role and behavior in the dynamic of the conflict, and to construct new positive relationships.

The notion of reconciliation was for a long time almost exclusively associated with religion. Storey (1997) suggests that the ideas behind reconciliation have religious roots. It is a critical theological notion in all the Abrahamic faiths and is particularly important to Evangelical Christians as part of their building a personal relationship with God. Therefore, reconciliation includes at least four critical components – truth, justice, mercy, and peace (Storey, 1997). A more politically focused interpretation of reconciliation depicts forgiveness and hope as a means of launching a new beginning by rebuilding social, political, and economic structures on a national level. The need for reconciliation grows out of the pragmatic, political realities of any conflict resolution process.

Reconciliation and justice

Some people argue that reconciliation is not appropriate because it is too soft on the criminal conduct of offenders, and might even encourage it. Further, they argue that punishment should come before reconciliation. Lynn (2000) agrees that an attempt at reconciliation without addressing the injustice in the situation is certainly a mockery of the suffering of the victim. The central question in reconciliation is not whether justice is done, but rather how one goes about doing it in ways that can also promote future harmonious and positive relationships. Identifying ways in which offenders are assisted to redress the material and emotional damage they have inflicted through self-reflection, acknowledgment of responsibility, remorse, and compensation is an important step towards establishing an environment of reconciliation. This kind of approach known as restorative justice brings us closer to justice while enhancing the possibilities for reconciliation. In this way, a process and an environment are created where the offenders take the responsibility to acknowledge their offense and get motivated to change the situation and relationship positively and durably instead of keeping on denying their guilt until it is proven to them by the judicial process.

Reconciliations insist on the humanity of enemies even in their commission of dehumanizing deeds and values the justice that restores political community above the justice that destroys it.

A third party in reconciliation

The government should be the initiator for reconciliation. To have s successful reconciliation it is significant to have teams of locals from both sides of the divide. South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was chaired by a black clergyman, while its vice president was a white pastor. Both were outspoken opponents of apartheid, but they made certain to include whites who had been supporters of the old regime until quite near its end. The one exception to this rule is the role that NGOs can play in peacebuilding.

Challenges in reconciliation

How to deal with the past is often a major issue for processes of peacebuilding, particularly in situations of democratic transition, where citizens who have suffered violent, irreparable loss due to the exactions of authoritarian forces begin to gain a voice, however tenuous and small at the outset, in the affairs of the state. For instance, impunity constitutes a grave practical problem for the construction of democratic institutions, since the persistence of impunity – in this case, in the form of amnesties for gross violations of human rights or in the form of a de facto refusal to prosecute perpetrators of past abuses – is generally an indication of a continuing lack of independence of the judiciary concerning other power groups. At the same time, many fear that full-fledged prosecution of those responsible for the past violations would compromise not only the possibilities of transition to democracy but also the possibilities of national reconciliation.

Reconciliation and Conservation of memory

Attempting reconciliation while conserving the memory of the past is an apparent paradox of democratic transitions that in the name of national reconciliation and the stability of the democratic transition itself, many social and political actors often agree to strike a bargain of sorts, allowing perpetrators of past abuses to go unsanctioned in the interest of ensuring their compliance with the process of transition.

Conclusion

In several instances, the commissions for reconciliation have been able to go as far as obtaining voluntary acknowledgment of guilt by offenders. But they have not gone far enough to get them to demonstrate sincere remorse or take active steps to compensate and repair the relationship about their victims. Moreover, even though reconciliation mostly involves people talking to each other, it is not easy to achieve. Rather it is among the most difficult things people are ever called on to do emotionally. Victims have to forgive oppressors. The perpetrators of crimes against humanity have to admit their guilt and, with it, their arrogance.

Truth commissions have been used ostensibly to allow for the truth to be told without necessarily engaging in legal actions which would risk alienating certain reluctant allies of peace and democracy. They have often been accompanied by different forms of amnesty for the perpetrators of abuse of rights and political power. These experiences have contributed to conciliating the desires for justice, memory, and reconciliation.

References

Desmond, T (1996): The rainbow people of God, 1^st Edn. Image Books.

Amy. A 1999, Two nations of discourse: mapping racial ideologies in post-apartheid South Africa.

Neville A 2005, The Moment of Manoeurve’: Race, Ethnicity, and Nation in Post-apartheid South Africa. 248-250, Duke University Press.

Anthony, E & Rupert, T 1999, South Africa: The Failure of Ethno territorial Politics.

Lynn, M 2000, Trauma culture: remembering and forgetting in New South Africa, Springer, New York.

Mark, O 1995, Building Democracy in the New South Africa: Civil Society, Citizenship, and Political Ideology, ROAPE Publications.

Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (2006): Survivors’ Perceptions of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Suggestions for the Final Report.

Storey, P. (1997): A Different Kind of Justice: Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa. The Christian Century. 2007.

Barrow, Greg (1998). South Africans reconciled? Special Report. BBC. 2007.

Kenneth, B. (1978): Stable Peace Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Reid, F. & Hoffmann, D. Long Night’s Journey Into Day. 2007. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!