|
|
|
In-Depth:
Justice for a Lawless World? Rights and reconciliation in a new era of international law
|
 Download this in-depth report
Part I 6.36 MB
Part II 2.40 MB
- Professor Noam Chomsky
- ICC Chief Prosecutor Moreno Ocampo
- Samantha Power, Professor of Practice in Human Rights Policy
- Juan Mendez ,President of the International Center for Transitional Justice
- Justice Geoffrey Robertson Q.C.
- Dr Fanie du Toit, Programme Director for Educating for Reconciliation at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation in South Africa
- Abdullah An-Na`im, Ph.D, Charles Howard Candler Professor of Law at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
- Augustin Nkusi, the Director of the Legal Support Unit, National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions, Rwanda
- Benjamin Gumpert, counsel representing Justin Mugenzi, who is currently on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
- Hanny Megally, Director, Middle East and North Africa Program, International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
- Paul van Zyl, Country Programme Director at the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)
- Johnston Busingye, Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice in Rwanda
- Dennis McNamara (Special Adviser on Internal Displacement to the UN’s Emergency Relief Co-ordinator and Director of the OCHA Inter-agency Internal Displacement Division) on the rule of law
IRIN welcomes feedback. Send your messages to feedback. |
|
GLOBAL: Interview with Dr Fanie du Toit
|
Dr Fanie du Toit is Programme Director for Educating for Reconciliation at the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation in South Africa.
The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation was launched in May 2000 and is self-consciously located in post-TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission) South Africa. The Institute is committed to using the insights generated through its work in South Africa to engage in dialogue with other African countries.
QUESTION: How do you educate for reconciliation?
ANSWER: In South Africa there has been a huge transformation of the education system which in the time of apartheid was a deeply idiosyncratic system. It was a top down system, ideologically motivated and [it] furthered racial inequality.
When democracy arrived in 1994, there was a concerted attempt to bring in a whole new curriculum, but that was too ambitious, expected too much of teachers (who were schooled in the old system) and ultimately had to be revised. Now the revised curriculum is being implemented. Within this context, the Institute’s education programme focuses on three areas:
1. The development of the content for the history curriculum. History was traditionally told from a white perspective. History went back no further than 1652, when white settlers arrived. Now we are incorporating archeological evidence predating that, and showing that colonialism was only one turning point, not the only historical point of reference. To this end, we have developed a series of history textbooks for Grades 10-12 called “Turning Points in History”. These have been distributed nationally.
2. We are also empowering teachers. The education system is not delivering as it should. South Africa has one of the highest education budgets in the world yet it is not producing the results. There is a growing realisation that human capacity – specifically at the level of teaching staff – is at the root of the problem. We need therefore to focus on the teachers and ensure we give them sufficient support.
3. We are also producing fresh oral histories and writing them up so that these histories, often of small communities on the edges of society, are not lost and will become an educational resource for the future.
South Africans still live apart. South Africans mix in the formal economy, in public spaces and in education. But nocturnally (and socially) we withdraw. We need to utilise spaces where people do in fact come together. Integration within the education system is not perfect, but it is a very important point of contact between race groups in the country.
Q: The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation has been strongly advocating the payment of reparations to victims of the apartheid regime. Is there not a concern that reparations take money away from a society, which needs investment in infrastructure, and puts it in the hands of certain individuals?
A: This is obviously a concern. There needs to be a balance between development and reparation. And most crucial of all is to wipe out systemic apartheid. But South Africa has enough resources to pay those who suffered most acutely under the apartheid regime. And this is not only a moral stance, but it is expedient too; those people who suffered most are the most likely to want some form of retribution which can then lead to the start of new cycles of violence. Their suffering and pain must be acknowledged, and not only symbolically.
This is a South Africa specific comment that I am making; it is a country of such vast material discrepancies. I am not speaking about reparations in other countries.
The other problem with the reparations is that the TRC did not have the power of implementation. After the handing over of the final TRC report, the government stalled for five years, saying that it had to wait until the amnesty process was over. This resulted in a lot of disgruntled victims; especially as the perpetrators walked free immediately. Also the TRC recommended that between 18,000 and 23,000 Rand be paid to each victim annually for six years. The government then said it would pay only 30,000 Rand in a one-off payment.
Q: Are truth commissions on their own ever enough?
A: No.Truth Commissions alone are never enough. They always have to be part of a bigger transitional process. In transition, you need to achieve a number of things. There is a need to reinstate the rule of law, so that everyone, including the government is subject to the rule of law. And one of the most visble ways to do that is to make the perpetrators accountable.
It is a complicated area. There is an argument for amnesties. If P.W. Botha and F.W. De Klerk had been indicted at the time prior to or during the transition, there may have been a lot more difficulty in moving towards a democracy. Amnesties can serve a positive purpose. But amnesties need also to be conditional on the perpetrator coming clean. And the credible possibility of prosecutions if those conditions are not met is important. If the International Criminal Court (ICC) had been in existence at the time, I would have liked it to be able to say that we are watching carefully to see that the amnesty process is being respected. As it was, the top dogs in South Africa did not bother much with the process and an ICC looking over their shoulder might have provided some additional incentive to come clean.
Transitional justice is the arena where principles and pragmatism clash. But besides a need for shrewd politics, it is also a time to ask what kind of society we are trying to build, and to invest in symbolic acts, such as reparations, to educate the broader society about the values inherent to the new society.
Q: How can you assess the impacts your projects are having on society?
A: There are various forms of assessing impact. We engage in dialogue with other players in this field. We are, for example, holding a conference in April this year looking at the impact of the TRC 10 years on.
Also, we have a national research project called the Reconciliation Barometer. This comprises a questionnaire sent out twice a year nationally to 4,000 individuals - representative of the total population - to assess the state of race relations.
In addition, the Institute also assesses progress in the economy (in areas of growth, education, social development and black economic empowerment) in a project entitled The Transformation Audit.
Q: What weight do you think should be given to the different motivations behind transitional justice: vendetta, retribution, catharsis, healing etc.?
A: You can come at transitional justice in two ways. The human rights standpoint would say that there is not enough justice in transitional justice measures. The political would say that there is too much justice and that we should just move on, as Spain did.
The practitioner of transitional justice has to take both sides into account and reach a compromise. It is not about retribution. It is about facilitating the birth of a new society. There is a need to move on, but it is also important to pause for a moment in order to create avenues through which perpetrators may re-enter the moral community and to acknowledge the price paid by victims.
In criminal cases, alleged perpetrators say as little as possible in order to avoid incriminating themselves; but in truth commissions they are free to speak and so we are more likely to get to the truth about what happened. It is also hugely important for families to find out what happened to their loved ones. Truth commissions also provide a forum for the victims where they are given a voice.
Q: The South African TRC is often held up as the model truth commission. Some truth commissions are obviously less successful; Burundi is having its second in less than 10 years. Why do you think the TRC in South Africa has been more successful?
A: The TRC was not perfect. And there are many things we would change now. But it did help to mediate a peaceful transition from the apartheid regime to democracy. South Africans were presented with a unique opportunity to see the world from the victims’ point of view. For two years there was extensive daily media coverage of the TRC hearings, specifically of the stories of victims. We all heard what happened. As a consequence, there is much less room for revisionist history in South Africa now.
I would say the idea of a conditional amnesty, the fact that the media were on board, the size of the process and the level of international interest all helped make the TRC successful. These factors are not necessarily present in other truth commissions.
We work a lot with other nations sharing experiences. We have had discussions with Burundi, the DRC, Iraq, Colombia, Peru, Morocco and Rwanda. There is a vigorous debate on truth commissions, the TRC and transitional justice especially between African countries as they seek to move towards more stable democracies.
[ENDS]
|
|
|
|
|