The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was an independent legal body which was established after the abolition of apartheid in order to assist South Africa’s society to achieve a peaceful transition. Based on the two main concepts of healing and forgiveness, the TRC accomplished its goal by three committees: The Human Rights Violations Committee, The Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee and The Amnesty Committee. The participants who were identified as the victims of racial injustice and gross human rights violations would speak of their miserable experiences in the public hearing and be heard with dignity; the perpetrators of violations could apply for amnesty which would be granted by passing the testimony and the public hearing. Apparently, the public hearings provided the victims with the opportunities to release their tortured memories of the past and smooth their hatred for the dark history; the amnesty would give impunity to and forgiveness for the perpetrators who were manipulated by political motives. For years, the TRC has been seen as the most effective and successful justice which healed the hatred within South African people and encouraged them to move forward. Many scholars and politicians believe that the TRC established the peaceful foundation for the future development of South Africa. However, when we read cases such as that of a mother who recalled the memory of the death of her own son, and who might watch the killer of her son walk freely outside, how could we affirm that the TRC only contributed to positive effects on South African people? Thus, this paper will base on the pursuit of the question: What criticisms have been made of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa?
As the first pr...
... middle of paper ...
...titude towards the effort of the TRC. The criticisms of the TRC mainly revealed the concern of whether the TRC could be adopted by individual South African people. The public hearings of gross human rights violations make an ambiguous effort at healing individual victims and subtly placed pressure on the victims to forgive the perpetrators who killed their loved one. The amnesty process sacrificed the victims‘ sense of justice to illustrate the big improvement of Ubuntu in South Africa. What’s more, the South Africa also did not perceive TRC to effectively relieve the intense conflict between black and white groups. South African, as the most multicultural, multilingual, and multiethnic countries in the world, had a unique condition of the road of solving the issue from the bloody and dark history of apartheid. The contribution of the TRC still needs a further study.
A gesture that formerly connoted weakness grows to represent moral strength and provides a crucial step towards potential reconciliation. Within his text, Philpott expresses wholehearted belief in the power of apology stating, “Few acts undo the legitimacy of a crime more effectively than a perpetrator’s renunciation of it” (Philpott 205). Philpott describes the practice of apology as, “When a perpetrator apologizes, he condemns his own role in the political injustice and thus helps to defeat its standing victory from one angle. Yet, the victim retains his own freedom to decide how he will respond to the perpetrator and thus retains a measure of control over whether the standing victory of the injustice is defeated” (Philpott 264). Philosophically, the idea of apology within restorative justice and reconciliation could mark a reaffirmation of the fundamental moral principles of the community, promote national reconciliation, strengthen a principle of transnational cooperation and contribute to the improvement of international law and diplomatic relations. Following an apology, a relationship becomes possible between the perpetrator and the victim, which in turn creates the potential for a less hostile environment for the community, and marks a society’s affirmation of a set of virtues in contradistinction to a past of
For many victims of violence, human rights advocates and many others affected by human rights violations, amnesties represent the basest of pragmatic accommodations with former despots, murderers, and torturers. At first thought, amnesties do not give the impression of working at the victim’s favor but for the benefit of political leaders, elites and the perpetrators themselves. When societies accept amnesty, victims assume a position of forgetting the past actions of military and political power for the concept of forgiveness. Rights such as truth and justice are sacrificed for political stability. Where amnesties deny victims their rights to truth, justice, and reparations, they can potentially aggravate the victims’ suffering by shrouding the impunity cast by a blanket amnesty and denying victims full recognition of their suffering. The choice for transitional governments addressing past crimes is often framed in a false dichotomy: peace verses justice. This however, is not the case.
Stewart, M. (2011). The space between the steps: reckoning in an area of reconciliation. Contemporary Justice Review, 14(1), 43-63. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/10282580.2011.541076
It starts with remembering events where human rights were violated. Many people went missing while they in police detention. The stories would be that the people would commit suicide, which the black community did not believe. Steve Biko, who was the founder of black conscious movement, was said to have banged his head on the wall. They drove him to Pretoria when he was already near an emergency treatment and naked to make the matters worse. When people questioned it, it was completely ignored by the officers. The judicial system was corrupted and was unfair to the black community. The Nuremberg trial wasn’t helpful, it caused lost of being that could have gone to education and housing, evidence never survived, and cabinet minister and commissioner of police would lie. With Tutu being in the chair of commision, the people now tell their stories and not be afraid.
The third source that I will be using for my paper is by Mark R Amstutz. In this book he describes in great detail about transitional justice, political forgiveness, and cases in different countries, mainly Argentina, Chile, Northern Ireland, and South Africa. He especially dedicated chapters on retributive justice and the limits of forgiveness in Argentina, and the quest for reconciliation through truth telling in Chile. He argues that forgiveness is an essential part of politics when dealing with the collective wrongdoing of military regime and believes that a combination knowing the truth, victims getting an public apology, repentance and compensation and ultimately forgiveness and the lifting of deserved penalties will bring reconciliation
...f South African language and culture, acknowledgement of the racial oppression in South Africa, past and present, that it was wrong and positive action is required to make it right, and finally that all South Africans are legitimate and enjoy full moral equality (“About – DA”). In order for all this to be possible, the state must ensure it does not compromise the freedom of the individual (“About – DA”).
Apartheid, as occurred in South Africa, highlights how dignity—while something individuals recognize as being inherent to us as humans—can be stripped away through legal means, and then normalized in society, both on a national and international level. This essay will examine the context in which Apartheid occurred and the human right violations during this period under the National Party regime. Expanding off this analysis, I will review how effect South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was in reestablishing the dignity of victims, and stabilizing the long dichotic socioeconomic
Wemmers (1996) highlights that an effective criminal justice system also protects human rights. Victims are gradually being seen as the notable possessors of such rights that lead to reviews in our domestic system and also by international bodies. The protection of said rights, such as in South Africa where less express definitions between ‘victim’ and ‘human’ rights are being made by policy m...
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is an indication that South African citizens are ready to confront their past, as both sides of the separation explain their, “version of the truth to the merciless area of the
Coster, P., & Woolf, A. (Eds.).(2011). World book: South Africa’s Anti-Apartheid Movement, (pp. 56-57). Arcturus Publishers: Chicago.
SAHRC. (n.d.). About the SAHRC. Retrieved May 2, 2014, from South African Human Rights Commision: http://www.sahrc.org.za/home/index.php?ipkContentID=1
Of course there is a challenge in implementing justice. Whether it’s a corrupt justice system, a fragile peace transition, large numbers of perpetrators or victims, and legal impediments such as amnesty laws. People can get justice through fair trials, truth seeking and fact finding, reparations, institutional reform, or memorialization. These mechanisms can be implemented by the national government, United Nations, international organizations or civil society. In order for these mechanisms to be successful they must be victim- centric, pragmatic, empowering, and work in the path of rebuilding trust relationships. Also, to emphasize the balance and for choosing the best strategy for justice, it is necessary to:
It can be easily stated that the apartheid movement bestowed cruel and unusual punishments upon the people of South Africa, in order to execute its purpose. However, apartheid could have not been carried out if they were not individuals who believed in its principles. In order to understand the National parties ideologies regarding the issue of apartheid, it is essential to acknowledge the history of Boer soc...
Mr. Nelson Mandela as peace maker struggle to reinstate the apartheid rule of South Africa with multi-racial democracy, During
I was treated well in prison; security guards grew a certain respect for me. I decided not to waste my time, so I informed my cellmates about the apartheid, and their horrible laws. They listened attentively, and wanted to help, so together we organized hunger strikes and protests. After 27 years, on February 11, 1990 I was released from jail. I could’ve got out of jail in 1985, P.W. Botha offered me a release but only if I would stop the armed conflict. Without a doubt, I chose to stay in prison because I believed that the right thing to do was to put an end to apartheid. P.W. Botha was an evil man, he committed to state terrorism and to thwart black majority rule. He had a stroke in 1989 and Frederick Willem replaced Botha. Frederick on the other hand, was the complete opposite of Botha. He set me free from jail.”