Graeme's Archive Papers

This is an archive site

If you have not yet done so, please e-mail Graeme at graeme@codrington.biz now to tell him that you are using his paper.

A Discussion of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, in the light of Christian Evangelical Theology.

(A paper by Graeme Codrington in part fulfilment of the requirements for a Christian Ethics course at the Baptist Theological College of South Africa.)

1. Introduction

An integral part of South Africa’s change from an oppressive State to a democracy has been the issue of dealing with the past. In 1961, after 60 years of passive resistance, the African National Congress (ANC) declared "war", in that they took up an armed struggle via MK, their military wing. In the 1980’s, this armed struggle was broadened to include civilian targets and a wide-ranging terror campaign that attempted to destabilise the country and make it ungovernable, although this seems to have been more psychological than real in its actual effects. On the other side, the National Party dominated government imposed repressive laws, and through various states of emergency, attempted to stabilise the country, protect itself from the perceived threat of communism and destroy the military wing of the ANC, PAC and other such Liberation Movements. This state of "civil war" was broken in the early 1990’s by a negotiated settlement between the major parties, which resulted in multi-party elections, and the acceptance of an Interim Constitution in 1993.

 

The final paragraphs of this Interim Constitution allow for the formation of a body that would look into the bloody history of our country, with the objective of dealing with past hurts as a precursor to future reconciliation. Thus was born the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

 

The aim of this paper is to attempt to give evangelical Christians within South Africa a framework within which to answer some serious ethical questions regarding the task, objectives, workings, results and nature of the TRC. This paper will therefore not attempt a full disclosure and analysis of the TRC, nor comment on its preliminary success or failure, nor its political nature or extent. Other limitations on the scope of the paper will be explicitly stated in the body of the paper. It is also written for a reader with limited exposure to the TRC. For this reason, and in order to facilitate this objective, this paper makes extensive use of quotations from the various Acts of Parliament, legal writings and documents of people intimately involved in the TRC process.

 

2. The Structure and Context of the TRC

South Africa is not the first country to embark on such a project. After the Second World War, there were war trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo (cf. de Gruchy 1993:4f.). This is not necessarily an exact parallel, however, as it is not the victors of an armed struggle who are judging the vanquished in South Afrca. Rather, it is as a collective nation, on the basis of a negotiated settlement, that we are attempting to come to terms with our past. Thus, our situation more accurately reflects that of Latin American countries (such as Chile, Guatemala and Argentina), who have also had Truth Commissions in recent years. The following extract from the Explanatory Memorandum to the Parliamentary Bill (1995) explains the significance of the fact that other countries have gone through this process before us:

• established by an official investigation unit using fair procedures;
• fully and unreservedly acknowledged by the perpetrators;
• made known to the public, together with the identity of the planners, perpetrators and victims

However, South Africa’s approach is unique in world history, in a number of ways. Borraine (1996) has pointed out five unique factors of the South African TRC model: (i) "that from the very outset the process leading to the actual promulgation of the Act as well as the appointment of the commissioners has been as open and as transparent and as democratic as possible", by means of negotiated parameters involving all the interested parties of the present and former governments; (ii) the TRC was established by a Parliamentary Act, and given very specific parameters (which arose out of the negotiation process described in (i) above), as opposed to being appointed by some external body or by a Prime Minister or President; (iii) "the proceedings of the Commission and all the Committees will be open to the public" (Explanatory Memorandum to the Parliamentary Bill, 1995); (iv) "a further departure from the norm was the decision to publish the names not only of the victims and some details of the human rights violations suffered by them, but also the publication of the names of perpetrators" (Borraine 1996); and, (v) since the Commission is established by government, it "has powers of subpoena and of search and seizure" (Borraine 1996), which greatly enhances it’s effectiveness with reluctant witnesses.

Thus, "the South African Truth Commission is taking this further as a largescale public and democratic project, in fact in many ways an unprecedented pioneering moral and political project of interest to the whole world. So in a sense the Truth Commission is at the cutting edge of moral and political issues in the world today, and that I'm sure is why the world is watching us" (du Toit in A public discussion on the Just War Debate and Reconciliation, nd).

Before discussing some of these "moral and political issues" in detail, it may be useful to the reader to have some background to the TRC, its parameters and tasks.

1. The Interim Constitution, 1993 and the Constitution, 1995

The starting point of the TRC, in legal terms, was the final few paragraphs of the Interim Constitution adopted by Parliament in 1993, which states:

A number of important issues need to be highlighted:

• the country is seen to be in transition from one state to another, with this Constitution providing part of that "bridge between the past" and the future.
• national unity is at the heart of the reconciliation process. It is seen not merely on an individual basis, but at a social level as well. This is highlighted by the use of the concept of ubuntu, specifically stated in the Constitution. This is a uniquely African concept of society.
• Amnesty will be at the heart of such reconciliation.
• The entire Constitution was phrased within a religious concept of asking God for His blessing. This was controversially removed from the final Constitution in 1995. Whether this was in the Constitution or not, however, due to the diverse nature of religions within South Africa, the mere reference to God cannot be taken as signifying a belief in Christian doctrines and foundations.

When the final Constitution of 1995 was adopted, provision was made for the continuing work of the TRC, which was only established in 1995. Schedule 6, paragraph 22 of the Constitution of 1995 says:

2. The Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, as Amended, 1997

2. The Objectives and Tasks of the TRC

The Explanatory Memorandum to the Parliamentary Bill, (1995) states clearly that the objective of the TRC is to "bring about unity and reconciliation by providing for the investigation and full disclosure of gross violations of human rights committed in the past. It is based on the principle that reconciliation depends on forgiveness and that forgiveness can only take place if gross violations of human rights are fully disclosed. What is, therefore, envisaged is reconciliation through a process of national healing".

In his preamble to the presentation of the Bill in Parliament, Dullah Omar, the Minister of Justice, adds the following:

• establishing as complete a picture as possible of the causes, nature and extent of the gross violations of human rights which were committed during the period from 1 March 1960 to the cut-off date including the antecedents, circumstances, factors and context of such violations, as well as the perspectives of the victims and the motives and perspectives of the persons responsible for committing such violations, by conducting investigations and holding hearings;

• facilitating the granting of amnesty to persons who make full disclosure of all the relevant facts relating to acts associated with a political objective and which comply with the requirements of the Act (Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act);

• establishing and making known the fate or whereabouts of victims and restoring the human and civil dignity of such victims by granting them an opportunity to relate their own accounts of the violations of which they are the victims, and recommending reparation measures in respect of them;

• compiling a report providing as comprehensive an account as possible of the activities and findings of the Commission and containing recommendations of measures to prevent the future violations of human rights (1995).

1. The TRC Committees

In order to achieve the objectives stated above, a number of committees make up the TRC, each having a specific task. Before looking briefly at these committees, it should be noted that the TRC, in all its committees and functionaries is required to be politically neutral. Section 36 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Bill, as Amended (1997), states the following:

36. (1) The Commission, its commissioners and every member of its staff shall function without political or other bias or interference and shall, unless this Act expressly otherwise provides, be independent and separate from any party, government, administration, or any other functionary or body directly or indirectly representing the interests of any such entity.

 

2. Committee on Human Rights Violations

The most public of the committees is the Committee on Human Rights Violations, which has met in session around the country. The purpose of this committee is to discover the causes and exact actions of human rights abuses, and allow both perpetrators and victims to express their views on each event. "A gross violation of human rights is defined as the killing, abduction, torture or severe ill-treatment of any person by someone acting with a political objective. It includes, among others, the planning of such acts and attempts to commit them" (Explanatory Memorandum to the Parliamentary Bill, 1995). It is not within the scope of this paper to discuss the fact that only gross abuses are eligible for TRC attention, which leaves many thousands of people with legitimate grievances without a national, formal body to turn to. The church’s involvement in making this process available at a local level will be discussed below.

 

3. Committee on Amnesty

Providing that a number of preconditions are met, anyone who believes that they may have committed a gross violation of human rights may apply for amnesty. Their case will be heard in public, unless the Commission decides that this may endanger them personally. A discussion of the grounds for amnesty is discussed below. Perpetrators granted amnesty would be totally immune from all future prosecutions for those acts covered by the amnesty. Additionally, any evidence produced by any witness which is self-incriminating will not be admissible in a court of law in South Africa. These stipulations were put in place to encourage people to seek amnesty. This committee works closely with the previous one, in order to allow both perpetrators and victims to speak, and to publicly disclose all the details of events.

 

4. Committee on Reparation and Rehabilitation of Victims

In the preamble to introducing the TRC Bill to Parliament, Dullah Omar stated: "I could have gone to Parliament and produced an amnesty law - but this would have been to ignore the victims of violence entirely. We recognised that we could not forgive perpetrators unless we attempt also to restore the honour and dignity of the victims and give effect to reparation" (1995). This committee has the task of recommending to the President how victims are to be assisted. This financial reparation will be funded out of a "President’s Fund". Although this committee has the ability to make urgent interim recommendations, it is envisaged that the bulk of its work will be completed only after the work of the above two committees is completed.

 

5. Investigative Units

In order to facilitate the gathering of evidence, investigative units and special task groups may be established at any time.

 

6. The TRC’s Final Report

The TRC must report to the fullest extent possible all of its findings from all of its committees. It reports directly to Parliament, except for the recommendations of the Reparations Committee, which reports to the President, who then will make recommendations to Parliament. It was originally intended that the TRC be completed it’s proceedings by January 1998, this deadline has been extended by six months in order to facilitate the processing of all of the submissions. The TRC will present proposals to the Government, but "the decision on whether to implement [the proposals] or not rest[s] entirely with the Government…. [Desmond Tutu said] ‘they remain proposals and will be considered fully by Parliament and the Government when the commission’s final report is presented next year’" (Brand, The Star, p. 1).

Although a key part of the report will be recommendations to Parliament regarding reparation, another stated objective of this final report is to make recommendations regarding the future, in order to ensure that human rights abuses do not occur again in our country. This is an essential part of the TRC’s mandate.

2. The Limits of the TRC

As stated above, on of the unique features of the South African model of TRC is that the TRC does not define its own parameters, but is very specifically controlled by an Act of Parliament. In addition to these legal limits imposed upon it, most people realise that the TRC is not able to resolve all conflict and usher in an era of peace, no matter how effectively the Commissioners are in doing their assigned tasks. Referring to the document quoted above, Justice in Transition - an Explanatory Booklet on the Role of the TRC, Verwoerd (1997) says:

The Minister of Justice’s introduction also makes it clear that the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, which provides specifically for the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), is but "a pathway", "a stepping stone". The main pathway towards the "historic bridge" away from Apartheid injustices and towards a democratic SA "with development opportunities for all" is the comprehensive (and rather ambitious) Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP). Other stepping stones are provided by the Land Claims Court and a number of institutions supporting constitutional democracy, such as the Public Protector, the Human Rights, Gender, Youth and Electoral Commissions, and the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

 

Thus, the TRC is simply one mechanism amongst many which is attempting to heal the wounds of the past, in order to create a solid foundation for the future.

 

3. Analysis of the Effectiveness of the TRC to November 1997

It is beyond the scope of this paper to make more any comments regarding the effectiveness of the TRC to date (5 November 1997). The most important reason for this is that the TRC has not completed its tasks, and since its main task is to make a comprehensive report to Parliament, it is only on the basis of this report that it’s true effectiveness will be judged. Having said this, however, the following section will make some comments on the effectiveness of the Commission, from the perspective of an interested, and reasonably informed, onlooker.

 

4. Evangelical Responses to Issues Raised by the TRC Process

The TRC process raises many moral and political issues. This section of this paper attempts to deal with some of these issues, and the section provides a broad framework for a Christian response, both individually and collectively.

 

1. The Just War

James 4:1-2 reminds us that war is a result of sin in the world. The concept of a just war is not that war is an acceptable option, but rather that when war is the only option available, that there is some method by which it can be morally defensible. This is not to say that even a just war is perfectly just and fair. As Sigg puts it in A public discussion on the Just War Debate and Reconciliation (nd):

And to me just war means the terrible presumption that some human beings like you and me justly made war and that other human beings, like you and me, justly were killed. It would mean the terrible presumption that there are today the justly living and the justly dead. This of course is morally absolutely unacceptable, and in terms of reconciliation, death being the ultimate negation of life, there will obviously be no reconciliation between the living and the dead…. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to me, is a unique opportunity to define what was just and what was not…. and not hide behind concepts of just war.

 

The concept of a just war was developed by Scholastic theologians in medieval times, on the basis laid by Augustine, and stated explicitly by Aquinas (cf. Culver 1980:32). The Reformers also upheld the concept, such as when Luther, although he deplored war, "reminded the emperor that it was his duty to defend his realm against the Turks" (Culver 1980:33). Of course pacifism has also been part of the Christian tradition. However, the intention of this section is to examine the concept of a just war in order to analyse the situation which the TRC must adjudicate. My intention is simply to outline the justification for a just war, and to show that the former State government and the Liberation Movements in South Africa could possibly find (and certainly have claimed) justification for their past actions with this concept.

 

There are two main parts to the theory, both of which are vital to an assessment of war. The first is the just cause for war. Holmes (1995:521) states that the rules that govern going to war (jus ad bellum) are:

1. The cause of the war must be just, and the only just cause is defence against violent aggression.

2. The intent must be justifiable, and the only just intention is to restore a just peace to all.

3. War must be the very last resort amongst other means to settle the conflict.

4. The war must be waged by a properly established and recognise authority.

 

Carey (1985:175) and Kidner (1985:108) phrase these slightly differently, although in complete agreement in principle, and add to further conditions:

5. The principle of proportional violence must be adhered to.

6. There must be a reasonable prospect of victory.

 

The usual way of distinguishing a just war from an unjust one is to look at who is the aggressor and who the defender. This will mean that "even if both sides participate in the same war, even if both sides commit similar acts of shooting, bombing and killing, morally speaking they cannot be equated" (du Toit in A public discussion on the Just War Debate and Reconciliation, nd). It is not the intention of this paper to discuss the merits of the concept of a just war.

 

The simple application of this first concept to South Africa is that the State was the aggressor and the Liberation Movements the defender. But it is not as simple as that. Strictly speaking, the ANC was the aggressor when it called for armed resistance, and it may be questioned whether they had exhausted all other means. On the other hand, they were reacting to global condemnation of apartheid, after 60 years of passive resistance had failed. I raise these issues simply to highlight the fact that the judging of this issue of what was just and what was not is most likely to be effective on an case by case basis, rather than as a blanket statement. This is the approach of the TRC, for which it must be commended.

 

The second aspect of the just war theory is that of justice in war (jus in bello). This has to do with methods used. "There are also a set of basic criteria and principles for what may or may not be done in the course of war and of violent conflicts whether your cause is just or not…. the fundamental principle of justice in war is the distinction between combatants and non-combatants" (du Toit in A public discussion on the Just War Debate and Reconciliation, nd).

 

Again, in a South African situation, this is extremely difficult to do. Could those whites who voted the NP back into power for so many years be considered combatants? In a war that relies heavily on public perception, propaganda and information, can the disseminators of such information (such as journalists, newspapers and the SABC) be considered combatants? Were the politicians and Liberation Movement leaders, who developed strategies and gave orders combatants? Where to draw the line in modern warfare is often a very difficult task. Certainly, "terrorism is completely rejectable, terrorism is a crime against humanity because it strikes at the defenceless" (Viljoen, in A public discussion on the Just War Debate and Reconciliation, nd), but is it only the Liberation Movements that can be accused of targeting the defenceless? Once again, these questions can only be answered on a case by case basis, which is the approach of the TRC. However, on this second aspect of the just war concept, the TRC must tread more carefully.

 

The basis of deciding whether an act fits within the definition of the second concept of the just war, the Norgaard Principles (article 20, in particular) are applied. "These principles provide that the gravity of the act and whether there is a proportional relationship between the act and the political objective must be considered in any application for amnesty or indemnity. The result of this ‘proportionality’ test is that the perpetrators truly heinous, cold blooded crimes may not qualify for amnesty" (Camerer, 1997).

 

"So if the just war doctrines are invoked in the Truth Commission in context in terms of just cause only, as I am afraid they mainly are, as if this may absolve participants from the constraints and limitations of justice in war, then that amounts to a fundamental misunderstanding and distortion of the just war tradition" (du Toit in A public discussion on the Just War Debate and Reconciliation, nd). Thus, in cases such as the St. James’ Church massacre, the murder of Amy Biehl and the amnesty requests of Eugene de Kok and Brian Mitchell, it is debatable whether the just war concept can be strictly applied, and still achieve the objectives of the TRC.

 

It is true that the just war theory does not hold up to modern day methods of war. Nuclear weaponry, in particular, has highlighted the weaknesses of this model, since nuclear war does not differentiate between soldier and civilian, and also challenges the fourth principle of proportional force (cf. Haarsma 1984:16). We have also seen how the use of information in modern warfare severely changes the makeup of that war. Thus, it appears that although the concept of a just war is a framework to be used by the TRC, it has taken the correct approach by dealing with each case individually, and questioning not only the actions of perpetrators themselves, but the causes and motives behind those actions, including looking at those who issued orders and created strategies.

 

It is interesting to note, in passing, that the TRC Act does not refer to war, but rather to "conflicts and divisions of the past". In this way, they have effectively side stepped the "letter of the law" of the just war concept, while still being able to apply it’s principles.

 

2. Amnesty

The problem with granting amnesty is that it can be seen to be letting the guilty go unpunished. The South American model of TRC’s has been to grant general amnesty to perpetrators of human rights abuses, without requiring full and public disclosure. Borraine (1996) states that:

South Africa has attempted to avoid the problem of a general amnesty in the following way:

 

Firstly, amnesty has to be applied for on an individual basis - there is no blanket amnesty.

 

Secondly, applicants for amnesty must complete a prescribed form which is published in the Government Gazette and which calls for very detailed information relating to specific human rights violations;

 

Thirdly, applicants must make a "full disclosure" of their human rights violations in order to qualify for amnesty;

 

Fourthly, in most instances applicants will appear before the Amnesty Committee and these hearings will be open to the public.

 

Fifthly, there is a time limit set in terms of the Act. Only those gross human rights violations committed between the period of 1960 to 1993 will be considered for amnesty. Secondly, there is a 12 month period during which amnesty applications may be made, from the time of the promulgation of the Act, which was in December 1995, and a cut-off point on 15 December 1996.

 

Finally, there is a list of criteria laid down in the Act which will determine whether or not the applicant for amnesty will be successful.

 

Section 20 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Bill, as Amended, 1997, states the following:

20. (1) If the Committee, after considering an application for amnesty, is satisfied that

 

(a) the application complies with the requirements of this Act;

 

(b) the act, omission or offence to which the application relates is an act associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflicts of the past in accordance with the provisions of subsections (2) and (3); and

 

(c) the applicant has made a full disclosure of all relevant facts, it shall grant amnesty in respect of that act, omission or offence.

 

Subsection 2 of section 20 deals with who may apply, and then sub section 3 further outlines what may qualify or disqualify a person from being considered for amnesty:

(3) Whether a particular act, omission or offence contemplated in subsection (2) is an act associated with a political objective, shall be decided with reference to the following criteria:

 

(a) The motive of the person who committed the act, omission or offence;

 

(b) the context in which the act, omission or offence took place, and in particular whether the act, omission or offence was committed in the course of or as part of a political uprising, disturbance or event, or in reaction thereto;

 

(c) the legal and factual nature of the act, omission or offence, including the gravity of the act, omission or offence;

 

(d) the object or objective of the act, omission or offence, and in particular whether the act, omission or offence was primarily directed at a political opponent or State property or personnel or against private property or individuals;

 

(e) whether the act, omission or offence was committed in the execution of an order of, or on behalf of, or with the approval of, the organisation, institution, liberation movement or body of which the person who committed the act was a member, an agent or a supporter; and

 

(f) the relationship between the act, omission or offence and the political objective pursued, and in particular the directness and proximity of the relationship and the proportionality of the act, omission or offence to the objective pursued, but does not include any act, omission or offence committed by any person referred to in subsection (2) who acted-

 

(i) for personal gain: Provided that an act, omission or offence by any person who acted and received money or anything of value as an informer of the State or a former state, political organisation or liberation movement, shall not be excluded only on the grounds of that person having received money or anything of value for his or her information; or

 

(ii) out of personal malice, ill-will or spite, directed against the victim of the acts committed.

 

All the parties involved in the Government of National Unity had to "agree in terms of the Record of Understanding of September 1992 to the second Indemnity Act. This indemnified many ANC operatives including killers like McBride as well as Barend Strydom because the strict Norgaard Principles did not apply. The TRC Act says that in considering amnesty applications TRC Commissioners shall apply the Norgaard Principles but also take into account the criteria which applied in the Second Indemnity Act" (Camerer 1997). By pointing this out, the NP is showing what we saw above - that the principles of a just war do not apply easily to every situation.

 

The Azanian People’s Organisation took the TRC and the President to the Constitutional Court on the matter of amnesty. The Court ruled against them, upholding the concept of amnesty, even for the State. It is outside the scope of this paper to deal with the legal implications of this ruling. Suffice it to say that amnesty is seen in the South African concept as the best way of dealing with a bad situation, and attempting to prohibit future human rights abuses.

 

Verwoerd (1997) reminds us that the granting of amnesty was a necessary precondition to the negotiated settlement reached at the Kempton Park, World Trade Centre negotiations. Thus, although on an individual level, amnesty may be not be just, at a social and national level, it was the only method of a peaceful ending to the civil tension within the country. Is this sort of trade off between individual and social justice ever an option for Christians? It would be naïve to believe that Christians have never had to deal with this. Scripture does often give examples of putting the national good above the good of an individual. This occurred frequently among the kings of Israel, as God punished them and removed them from their positions, in order to bring about justice for the nation. However, in doing so, we must never forget that Scripture holds each individual personally responsible for their own sins.

 

This is an aspect of reconciliation that the TRC will never be able to deal with, and is a crucial part of a Christian witness in our land. Without true repentance (a concept not required at the TRC), there can be no forgiveness of sin by God, and without a reconciliation to God, no one will be truly reconciled to fellow human beings.

 

3. Justice

"On the one hand it is constantly emphasized that the TRC is a victim-driven process. A central goal is also the strengthening of the rule of law and a culture of human rights in post-Apartheid South Africa. On the other hand, perpetrators can apply for amnesty, violators of human rights are apparently not being punished (at least not in proportion to their crimes)" (Verwoerd 1997). Thus, Verwoerd summarises the problem. How can justice be done, and be seen to be done, when perpetrators walk free?

 

For South Africa, as in many other countries, the central tension is between the politics of compromise and the radical notion of justice….Another way of stating the tension is to distinguish between retributive justice on the one hand and a prudential focus on the common good and future injustice on the other. The former is the Nuremberg model based on the positive duty of successive governments to dispense justice for past crimes. This approach, as an analysis of the Nuremberg trials will reveal, has very real limitations and indeed challenge the very notion of justice itself (Borraine 1996).

 

There are many methods of dealing with this issue conceptually. The first is to define justice in different ways, and create concepts such as "restorative justice" and "transitional justice". "Restorative justice emphasizes harms done to people and the resulting needs. The TRC emphasizes validating and vindicating victims by allowing them to tell their stories and by investigating what happened…. restorative justice also emphasizes obligations that follow from violations" (Zehr 1997). Transitional justice, or "justice to the extent possible" (Zalaquett, quoted by Verwoerd 1997) means that we accept that in a process of crossing the bridge from the past to the future, some compromise of the normal natural laws of morality is necessary.

 

Another approach would be to distinguish between social justice and individual justice. This has been the appeal of Dullah Omar:

We have a nation of victims, and if we are unable to provide complete justice on an individual basis - and we need to try and achieve maximum justice within the framework of reconciliation - it is possible for us... to ensure that there is historical and collective justice for the people of our country. If we achieve that, if we achieve social justice and move in that direction, then those who today feel aggrieved that individual justice has not been done will at least be able to say that our society has achieved what the victims fought for during their lifetimes. And that therefore at that level, one will be able to say that justice has been done (Omar in Rwelamira MR & Werle G (eds) 1996:xii, quoted by Verwoerd 1997).

 

Verwoerd, however, suggests that none of these are viable and moral alternatives, and just skirt the real issue. In his mind, the best method is simple to accept that for the sake of future reconciliation, it is necessary to be unfair and unjust to certain victims, and ask them to assist in the process of reconciliation, by foregoing their moral right to judgement.

Perhaps the best response to this deeply felt opposition to an aspect of the TRC’s work is, firstly, to accept the common definition of (criminal) justice and acknowledge openly that amnesty is unjust…. It can then be made clear, in the second place, that this kind of criticism is misdirected: the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not trying to achieve justice. Guaranteeing amnesty is the price we, unfortunately, have to pay for peace, for the common good, for a negotiated settlement in 1994 which led to a democratic South Africa. Underlying this response is the assumption that justice does not encompass the whole of morality…. The important point is, however, that (criminal) justice is not the only social goal, nor always the ultimate value (Verwoerd 1997).

 

Micah 6:8 may contain a solution to this issue. Here, we are given three requirements in order to please God. The first two seem almost contradictory: to do justice (literal) and to love mercy. However, a correct understanding of these terms reveals that both imply some person in a superior position, delivering those in a weaker position. In other words, "anyone who is in a weaker position due to some misfortune or other should be delivered not reluctantly, but out of a spirit of generosity, grace and loyalty" (Waltke 1988:195). This can be extended to the TRC, where the victims, though physically and emotionally weaker than many of the perpetrators, yet by the nature of the changes in South Africa, have been made morally superior (irrespective of the side on which they formally participated), have the ability to forgive and be part of the healing process. In the same way, by law the TRC is in a strong position, and is able to physically and emotionally lift up the victims. Thus, the TRC, on many levels, as the potential to fulfill this injunctions of God, and ensure that on many different levels, justice is done.

 

4. Guilt

In dealing with issues such as justice, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that only the gross abuses of human rights were actual sins. The United Nations declared apartheid "a crime against humanity". de Gruchy (1993:8f.) makes some helpful distinctions between different categories of guilt: (i) criminal guilt - those who committed acts that were illegal, and should be criminally punished; (ii) political guilt - those who supported the government, either actively or passively - "the only exception among whites would be those who categorically rejected apartheid, struggled against the regime, and who suffered considerably as a result" (1993:9); (iii) moral guilt - that is individual guilt for individual actions, whether they were ordered or not; and, (iv) metaphysical guilt - the guilt of those who stand by and watch injustice.

 

Some Christians have claimed that Rom. 13:1-7 was a justification for their involvement in the upholding of apartheid laws. This does not seem to be a correct exegesis of the passage, as "Paul’s discussion of the relationship between the State and the Christian citizen is rooted in his teaching about social relationships generally set forth in chapter 12.… that the way of love should govern all we say and do…. verse 4 leaves open the door for criticism of the State when it forsakes its role as a servant for good" (Carey 1985:169). 1 Peter 2:13-16 echoes this theme, with the same open door, in verse 16 - that our support of the State should never lead us to stop loving or respecting or supporting fellow human beings.

To obey orders does not discharge the individual from his moral responsibility…. an individual, as the TRC Act says, involved in any conspiracy, incitement to commit acts of violence has a very clear moral responsibility and not only the individual who actually committed these very acts…. Only individual morality will put an end to the logic that has so often prevailed particularly on your continent, namely the logic that the powerful always achieve their happiness by inflicting misery on others (Sigg in A public discussion on the Just War Debate and Reconciliation, nd).

 

Thus, the church has a role to play in proclaiming everyone’s guilt before God, for "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). This is a task that is not within the ambit of the TRC, and needs to be taken up by Christians. In order to encourage full disclosure, it was necessary for the TRC not to require true repentance (although it would be impossible to measure such a thing, even if it were required). This is an area that the church must address.

 

5. Truth

In his introduction to the Chilean TRC’s Report, Pepe Zalaquett says: "Although the truth cannot really in itself dispense justice, it does put an end to many a continued injustice - it does not bring the dead back to life but it brings them out from silence; for the families of the ‘disappeared’ the truth about their fate would mean at last the end to an agonising, endless search" (quoted by Borraine 1996).

Essentially the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is committed to the development of a human rights culture and a respect for the rule of law in South Africa. In attempting to do this, I believe that there is an irreducible minimum and that is a commitment to truth. As Roberto Canas of El Salvador puts it, ‘Unless a society exposes itself to the truth it can harbour no possibility of reconciliation, reunification and trust. For a peace settlement to be solid and durable it must be based on truth’ (Borraine 1996).

 

"For Christians truth is more than just uncovering facts. When Jesus says he is the way, the truth and the life [John 14:6], and that the truth will set you free [John 8:32], he is speaking about a whole new way of life" (Finca 1997:18). It is this concept of truth that the TRC cannot proclaim, and it is this concept of truth that is the church’s responsibility. Without a change of heart, through repentance and salvation, it is impossible for a sinner to truly find truth. Once again, the church finds a role that is complementary to the TRC. The TRC is not a religious body, and can only assist mending political and emotional wounds. It cannot address the deep metaphysical and spiritual wounds of the nation.

 

6. Forgiveness and Forgetting

In his application for amnesty, Clive Derby-Lewis, involved in the murder of Chris Hani, said "I do not expect the Hani family to forgive me, but to understand there was nothing personal in the attack" (quoted in TIME, 150/9, September 1, 1997, Notebook). This does not fit in with the intention of the TRC Act. The TRC’s goal is to aid forgiveness, but "without amnesia". "Time might be a healer but not forgetfulness" (Sigg in A public discussion on the Just War Debate and Reconciliation, nd).

 

We should remember what has happened, so that we can ensure it will never happen again. "Yet there is also an instruction to forget. Forgetting can also be a moral activity. The wonder of the Gospel for Christians it is precisely that God removes our sins from us as far as the east is removed from the west and never again thinks of them" (Smit 1995:13). This promise in Ps. 103:12 is strengthened by Jer. 31:34, where God tells us that He actively chooses to remember our sins no more. There is a place to remember, but this can often be a thin guise for harbouring bitterness and regret. This is not acceptable in God's eyes.

 

7. Reconciliation

Christians should amongst those who can most easily identify with the concept of loving reconciliation. In Luke 6:27-36 and the parallel passage in Matt. 5:38-48, Jesus commands us to love our enemies. We also have experience of being reconciled to God, despite our past failures, on the basis of God’s gracious acceptance of us.

 

Many evangelical authors identify the concept of a holy war in Scripture with the concept of shalom. This Hebrew word does not simply mean peace, but rather to a "realm where chaos is not allowed to enter, and where life can be fostered free from the fear of all which diminishes and destroys" (Hanson 1984:347). This is the environment in which true reconciliation can be nurtured. Up to this present point in time, it seems as if the TRC process has not brought people together in true reconciliation. It has opened up wounds, and often been the place of bitter racial conflict because of this. Additionally, "victims’ stories are often incompletely acknowledged and no reparation has yet been offered; the Reparations and Rehabilitation Committee is mandated to make its recommendations only after the overall picture has been drawn, and then it is unclear whether compensation will be individual or collective" (Zehr 1997). Although this was recently partially addressed, as The Star (23 October 1997) the banner headline reported: "TRC plan to pay apartheid victims R3-bn", there is more to reconciliation than simple reparation. There must be a genuine love for fellow human beings. Evangelical Christians contend that this type of love is only truly possible within the context of love for God.

 

8. Reparation

As seen above, the TRC has made a preliminary report to the President regarding reparation. This was due to mounting pressure from the public, who saw the TRC as favouring perpetrators while doing nothing for the victims.

In the long term, the success of the TRC process may well be judged by what Parliament legislates for the victims. Already, through its proposals for urgent interim relief, our Reparations and Rehabilitation Committee is pointing the way to policies which will address their needs. Its work is already influencing at least one provincial health budget. We also need to pay tribute to the NGOs and the churches, who have rallied to support victims and help us in our work (Tutu, 1996).

 

But the simple legislation of financial aid will not be enough to aid victims. They need ongoing community support, a safe environment to raise their children, education and health, homes and all the other aspects of a decent life. This must be done through the active involvement of all people in South Africa. The Bible is clear and repetitive in its call to minister to the poor, and it is at this level that Christians must respond to the TRC leading.

 

9. Prevention of Future Abuses

Part of the mandate to the TRC is to make recommendations to Parliament regarding the prevention of future abuses. Since this will be final step in the TRC’s process, nothing has yet been forthcoming in this regard. Suffice it to say that the church should be at the forefront of supporting such initiatives for the maintenance of peace, law and order. "Peacemakers risk stepping into moments of conflict to do curative peace work, to heal torn relationships, and even to do a bit of surgery where needed. And they’re also concerned about preventive peacemaking" (Augsburger 1980:137). This initiative for peace is a Scriptural command (e.g. Rom. 12:18; 2 Cor. 13:11; Heb. 12:14).

 

10. Freedom of Conscience

One final issue to be raised relates to certain political parties that have somehow restricted their members from making personal submissions, but have "closed ranks" and forced individuals to state only what is part policy. "I think that individual conscience should be elevated above the service of the state, or other institutions of power, especially for those acts cloaked in legitimacy. This is why I cringe at the thought of political parties who discourage free speech, and instead push a ‘party line’" (Gobodo-Madikazela, 1996). The TRC cannot and must not allow this to occur. Freedom of conscience is the basis of truth in this process, and must be protected by all means.

 

5. Christian Responses to the TRC

In section 4, some guidelines were suggested for Christian responses to the TRC, specifically related to different issues. This section of the paper attempts to outline some further responses, and give a broad framework within which an evangelical ethical response can be made.

 

The first point to make in dealing with a Christian response to the TRC is that "the presence of prominent church people on the TRC as Commissioners and as members of its Committees and especially the presence of … Desmond Tutu, as chairperson, may lead people to feel that the church is well represented on the TRC. But this is not true. They are not there to represent the church" (Maluleke 1997:15). The church, and individual Christians, cannot feel that their role is being fulfilled by the Christians who are Commissioners. There is more to do.

 

Christians must support the TRC in prayer. They must support the TRC by following the TRC events, physically supporting those events, by keeping up-to-date with the TRC process and by ensuring that TRC proposals that affect local areas are implemented. Christians can petition government to correctly implement the proposals that finally come from the TRC. It is still too early in the process to define specifically what these responses should be, but if Christians keep themselves informed, they will be able to react quickly to the findings of the TRC, and provide valuable community leadership for the future.

 

Christians should be in the forefront of support for structures the TRC sets up in place in communities. "The Survivor-Offender Mediation (SOM) program, …which was initiated by Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) worker Carl Stauffer of the Wilgespruit Fellowship Centre, and Brandon Hamber of the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, along with 20 other participating groups, intends to bring together the survivors and offenders of apartheid’s carnage" (Beach 1997). It is this sort of group that Christians should support and initiate.

 

Two points mentioned above bear repeating. As discussed is 4.2. above, the church has a role to play in calling for true repentance. Although we can support amnesty, because of its long-term goals and effects, we cannot stop short of calling for a reconciliation with God, as the basis of reconciliation with fellow human beings. As discussed in 2.4.1. above, there are no formally instituted mechanisms whereby people who have not suffered gross abuses, but have nevertheless suffered can make their grievances public, in an attempt to scourge the past. Churches can play a significant role in this process at a local level, especially if groups of churches get together. Rhema church, under the leadership of Ray McCauley appear to be doing something along these lines with some success. In 2 Cor. 5:18-20, God is said to be a reconciling God, who has given to us the message of reconciliation. Although this is specifically a message of reconciliation of people to God, the rest of NT makes it plain that any reconciliation of a person to God also involves a reconciliation of person to person (see especially Matt. 5:23-24).

 

A prophetic church will oppose any cheap act of amnesty, any attempt to dodge the guilt issue; it will insist on the public telling of the truth so that repentance and reparation may become possible; it will ensure that the history of struggle and suffering will not be forgotten… will help everyone to recognise the nature and extent of their guilt, and confess it in appropriate ways; it will therefore oppose false accusations, scapegoating, and witch-hunts; and it will help the victims of oppression to exercise forgiveness rather than vengeance… will witness not only to the moral demands of truth and justice, but to the redemptive power of the grace of God through which lives can be transformed, new community formed, and hope restored (de Gruchy 1993:13).

 

6. Conclusion

The most critical problem facing the TRC is that it may finish its work, and yet not have achieved its meta-goal of national reconciliation, leading to racial harmony and peace in South Africa. In fact, it is certain that the TRC will not fully achieve all its objectives. In a sinful world that does not require repentance before God, it can only fail. Yet, it will not fail completely. Simply because it is not being undertaken within a specifically Christian context does not mean that Christians should not support it. Within the frameworks laid out above, and notwithstanding some of the moral difficulties discussed above, Christians should support the endeavours of the TRC. However, it is vital that we do not transfer our responsibility for individually working towards reconciliation onto the TRC.

The OT is full of examples of Israel transferring their trust from God to their earthly leaders. This invariably happened in a time of national crisis. Through His prophets, God continually called Israel back to a complete trust in Him alone (e.g. 2 King 17:14; Ps. 20:7, 62:8; Is. 50:10-11). Because Israel did not turn back to God, he pronounced judgement on them (e.g. Hos. 10:13-15). In the NT, we are also called to trust in God, and have no fear for what life may bring us (e.g. Jn. 14:1). As Christians we believe that the only true hope for any future is to be found in God, and we cannot allow our support for the truth and reconciliation process to cloud that view. our responsibility is still to call people to repentance and salvation. As one of the Commissioners has already pointed out, the country is looking to churches to provide dynamic leadership to assist in making the goals of the TRC a reality in everyday life in communities:

If you have not yet done so, please e-mail Graeme at graeme@codrington.biz now to tell him that you are using his paper.