Kofi Annan Foundation Reconciliation Study

Kofi Annan Opening the Symposium

In 2017 Interpeace and the Kofi Annan Foundation launched a joint project on reconciliation that aims to contribute to the current debates on reconciliation by identifying innovations and lessons that can inspire national and international actors engaged or willing to engage in reconciliation efforts, as well as shedding light on how such efforts can best be supported by international actors. Grainne Kelly and myself were contracted by the Kofi Annan Foundation to write a case study for the large research project, as well as contribute to a high-level symposium convened by Mr Kofi Annan aimed at capturing lessons on experiences of reconciliation and provide guidelines on how to design and implement reconciliation processes. Over 2017 Grainne Kelly and I worked on research to inform their report (high level interviews with policymakers). A draft Northern Ireland case study was submitted to the Kofi Annan Foundation in the summer of 2017 and then presented to a high-level symposium in October 2017 in Bogota, Colombia. Kofi Annan opened the symposium on reconciliation in Bogota, Colombia. Grainne Kelly presented her and my research on reconciliation and its challenges in Northern Ireland. You can see more about the event here: http://www.kofiannanfoundation.org/building-lasting-peace/reconciliation-symposium/

Reconciliation in Northern Ireland

My with Grainne Kelly continued in 2017 focused on the concept of reconciliation. In 2017 they spoke at two high-level events in Northern Ireland. The first with The Executive Office and staff as they consider the role of reconciliation in the draft Programme for Government and Together: Building a United Community (TBUC). They participants and delivered the keynote address at a further seminar at the “Together: Building a United Community Engagement Forum” on 15 June 2017, with the Executive Office (TEO) and over 160 community practitioners, policymakers and academics that took place at the Girdwood Community Hub.

Ambivalence as a goal of reconciliation

Speaking at the Sigmund Freud University in Berlin on 12 January 2016 at 7pm.

My topic "Ambivalence as a goal of reconciliation".  This is very much a core theme of my book "Transforming Societies After Political Violence: Truth, Reconciliation and Mental Health".

Venue is Sigmund Freud PrivatUniversität, Campus Tempelhof, Berlin.

For more details visit click here.

Reconciliation

Duncan Morrow in the US Institute of Peace Insight Newsletter (Fall 2014) noted “Reconciliation,” according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, means “to make friendly again after an estrangement” and “to make acquiescent or contentedly submissive to something previously disagreeable”….. Classical peacemaking focuses on the first definition, with its emphasis on mutual friendship and the making of new relationships on all sides. Politics … has often seen reconciliation in the second sense, as something the loser in a conflict must do to come to terms with reality.”

There is a view, as outlined by Morrow above, that reconciliation aims at rebuilding fractured relationships after a conflict. This objective is pursued through dialogue, sharing stories, mediation, or other peacebuilding activities that convene individuals, groups, or communities. The purpose of such activity is to foster those deep and lasting connections across the society considered essential to sustainable peace.

It is challenging to think of political entities engaging in such work, as the Morrow quotation indirectly implies. In politics, claims Morrow, reconciliation has a harder edge and reconciliation is more about the loser becoming “contentedly submissive” with the victor after a conflict ends.

Relationships at all levels matter following political conflict, as they determine whether and how the progress to peace and stability will be made. In a divided society, building a new road is never simply a technical task—it invariably requires negotiation and discussion about the benefits for each actor. Inevitably, harms due to past violence, even in the most mundane of policy decisions, will surface during that process.

Reconciliation is not about a simple decision to cooperate, or designing processes so former adversaries can work together with the long-term aspiration that deeper connections will follow. This could result in a forgive-and-forget mentality or, if Morrow is right, an approach akin to getting on with “negative peace” in a resigned manner. This approach is not conducive to long-term stability or what I understand reconciliation to be.

In the short-term, coexistence and cooperation might be all that is possible. However, if lasting peace is to be guaranteed, we cannot avoid addressing relationships in a deliberate and strategic way. Justice, apology, reparations, acknowledgement, and healing are part of this process— issues that are not separate from reconciliation but central to it.

Published by Brandon Hamber in US Institute of Peace Insight Newsletter (Fall 2014), click the link to also see  alerie Rosoux's Response to my comments and other articles on reconciliation in the edition.

Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Paradise Lost or Pragmatism?

The recent journal of Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13(1) has just been published. It contains a number of articles on the theme of forgiveness. I wrote a commentary on the various pieces entitled Forgiveness and Reconciliation: Paradise Lost or Pragmatism?. Click here to download it.

Exporting reconciliation or reality TV

For South Africans, tuning into the BBC recently was like turning on a time machine as viewers across the UK were exposed to Archbishop Desmond Tutu facilitating dialogue between victims and those that harmed them. This time, however, the focus was on the Northern Ireland conflict, and not South Africa, and it made for riveting television as victims came face to face with those that had killed. The series, entitled Facing the Truth, has received mixed reactions. The meetings were a bold move and they may have been helpful for individual victims. They provide some hope for the future. But we have to ask what other messages the programmes convey.

The programmes are not a truth commission but a dialogue, although the central idea leans heavily on the South African experience. It draws on the idea of publicly airing grievances as a way of addressing the past as championed by the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). There are differences, however. The South African TRC’s primary focus was on outlining the causes, nature and extent of the conflict. It was not about victims meeting perpetrators, although this happened on occasion. Such meetings and the TRC were part of a more extensive political process. This has left me wondering: Is Northern Ireland trying to walk before it can crawl, or are high-profile encounters needed to move the process forward? Currently, the peace process in Northern Ireland is stalled. Given this context, the programmes might get people talking and re-engaged with resolving the conflict. The courage shown by participants in the programme can demonstrate what is possible, despite the dense fog of political dilly-dallying.

However, focusing on the victims can also inadvertently suggest that it is the responsibility of victims to reconcile, rather than wider society, as the first step to change, thus burdening victims with another liability. Some victims could feel pressured to forgive or perpetrators feel coerced into expressing remorse they don’t really feel. Airing the programmes in a political vacuum has other problems. The programmes’ focus is the stories of those directly affected or acting in the conflict. There is no context provided or debate about the causes of the conflict. Emotive television of this type also invariably draws one to the plight of the victims. This is important, but conflict resolution is not only about feeling the hurt of victims and sympathising with them. It demands that everyone across society recognise their own capacity for wrongdoing at the same time. Some in South Africa and Northern Ireland still feel self-righteous because they never acted violently. But political conflict is caused not merely by gunmen, but by political contexts that foster this behaviour. This does not exonerate indivi-dual responsibility or mean that all are equally responsible, but it demands that we ask how we supported the situation including tacit acceptance of violence, turning a blind eye to the pain of the other or through continuing to vote along ethnic, religious or racial lines. No one is uninvolved or neutral in protracted political conflict. Resolving conflict requires a public debate on levels of complicity and guilt, not only recognition of the hurt caused or confessions from direct actors. In South Africa we are still grappling with this.The media can foster this complicated debate, but this demands something more subtle than eerie music and darkly lit forums where victims and perpetrators meet. Let’s hope these programmes are a first step in this direction, or has Tutu’s noble desire to bring out the humanity of even hardened perpetrators intersected with TV producers’ ideas for lurid television leaving the international audience with a one-dimensional view of South Africa. The limited reconciliation achieved in South Africa was not a miracle nor was it only the cumulative product of important individual gestures. It was mainly the result of hard work and political compromise – a less attractive but important lesson worth exporting.

This article by Brandon Hamber was published on Polity and in the Engineering News on 17 March 2006 as part of the column "Look South". Copyright Brandon Hamber.

What is reconciliation?

The "Community Reconciliation in Northern Ireland", a Democratic Dialogue project, explores how the term 'reconciliation' is conceptualised within a range of community organisations and local authorities and how this understanding is translated into practical strategies for action in engaging various sectors of Northern Ireland society. We have just started to publish some of the papers from the project. They may be of general interest as myself and Grainne Kelly have attempted to define reconciliation in them. The papers are available on the Project Section of the site. Or you can download the paper, A Working Definition of Reconciliation, directly by clicking here. Longer reports are due in the coming months.

A truth commission for Northern Ireland?

This week the BBC has been focusing on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. The most startling thing about this debate has been how issues have been narrowed before genuine discussion has started. Concepts like truth and justice have been bandied about as if they were mutually exclusive and as if they meant the same to everyone.

The South African model has been used as a benchmark for discussion, with little recognition of what it was about. The other twenty or so truth commissions, in societies as diverse as Ghana, Peru, Argentina, Chile and Sierra Leone, have meanwhile been ignored.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, it seems we all should have an opinion on whether there should be a truth commission for Northern Ireland. Ground work already done on these issues has been neglected, and more measured approaches circumvented.

Debate on this issue is vital, and the more the better. But some key points have been lost in the media circus.

First, dealing with decades of conflict is long-term, complex and time-consuming. It cannot be summed up in a few interviews or emails. It will not entail a single approach or model. International lessons suggest it takes decades. We should not look for any quick fixes.

We should not rush into opinions on different methods before we have agreed that remembering, acknowledgement, truth and justice are important issues for victims and society at large. We must interrogate what we mean by these terms and debate our different perspectives.

The past can only be dealt with if all concerned enter the debate in an inclusive way, aimed at entrenching peace. We should not underestimate the importance of getting this right, ensuring that the discussion is aimed at reconciliation and not point-scoring.

If we do not first agree the underlying principles, all discussion will be contorted and subject to political wrangling. This will ultimately result in mechanisms that will continue the conflict by different means, rather than finding ways constructively to resolve it.

The most extensive consultation on this issue to date has been carried out by the Healing Through Remembering Project. This sought to document possible mechanisms and realisable options for how remembering should occur, so that healing could take place for all those affected. This took two years of discussion.

Importantly, this consultation was run by a board reflecting a range of very diverse backgrounds. The project received over 100 written submissions and recorded thousands of hits on its website.

Many submissions endorsed the value of remembering and spoke of the importance of finding ways to move society forward. But others expressed concerns about the potential pitfalls. The idea of remembering also evoked an emotional response, indicative of much hurt and unresolved pain. The project’s recommendations include a focus on truth recovery, but extend well beyond it.

This is the second point: dealing with the past needs to be seen as wider than a truth-recovery process. Any such mechanism should run alongside other initiatives, such as storytelling, a living museum about the conflict, an annual day of reflection and a network of commemoration projects. Many community projects are also part of the picture.

In the same vein, although victims are central in dealing with the past, thorough engagement demands a focus on the entire society. This is vital when considering the issue of responsibility for the hurts suffered.

It was pointed out in several of the submissions that the need to revisit the past was not confined to those who saw themselves as primarily involved in the conflict: politicians, victims and those who carried out violent acts. For any collective remembering to be helpful it needs to engage the entire society and particularly those who saw themselves as ‘uninvolved'. The whole society has a responsibility to deal with the past.

Thirdly, the Healing Through Remembering Project does recommend that a formal truth-recovery process should be given careful consideration, though only as one part of dealing with the past. But it stipulates that an important first step is a process of acknowledgement, by all, of acts of commission and/or omission.

Political parties, the British and Irish states, republican and loyalist paramilitaries and other institutions would all need fully to acknowledge the extent of their particular culpability. In fact, we should all consider what we have done and have not done to prevent loss of life. Sincere acknowledgment is the key foundation for exploring truth recovery in an even-tempered, self-effacing and responsible manner.

Published by Brandon Hamber, 11 June 2003

Brandon Hamber works as an independent consultant to the Healing Through Remembering Project and is a research associate of Democratic Dialogue in Belfast.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Final Report

South African Parliament 27 February 2003 13:16

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report is expected to be handed to President Thabo Mbeki next month and will be immediately tabled in Parliament, National Assembly Speaker Dr Frene Ginwala said on Thursday.

The report was due to have been handed over last year, but was delayed after court action by the Inkatha Freedom Party. An out of court settlement was reached earlier this year, which will see the IFP disputing some of the TRC's findings and stating its case in a separate annexure.

Ginwala told the National Assembly's programme committee that Mbeki had indicated he would be available on April 15 and 16 for parliamentary business and that a debate on the TRC report should be provisionally scheduled for then.

Last week, Justice Minister Penuell Maduna said the issue of those who had failed to apply for amnesty from the TRC would have to be confronted soon and that parties should deal it during the debate on the report.

The government has also said it is unable to move on reparations for victims of gross human rights abuses until the report is tabled and debated. The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation on Wednesday criticised Finance Minister Trevor Manuel for failing to make provision for reparations in his 2003 Budget.

"It is deeply disappointing that there is no relief in sight to ease painful memories. We expected this budget to bring closure to this matter," the Institute said in a statement.

"Instead it reinforces a sense of inadequate acknowledgement of those that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) declared to be victims of gross human rights violations." Late last year, the government reported it had made reparation payments of R50-million to 18 000 people for harm they suffered under apartheid, as an interim measure in line with recommendations by the TRC. - Sapa

Past Imperfect: Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland and Societies in Transition

Past Imperfect: Dealing with the Past in Northern Ireland and Societies in Transition, edited by Brandon Hamber is now available free online.

Past Imperfect was published in 1998 by INCORE/UU: Derry/Londonderry, Northern Ireland. ISBN 0 9533305-4-0.

This publication brings together the papers presented at the 'Dealing with the Past: Reconciliation Processes and Peace Building' Conference and draws on the ideas of the participants to further the debate about dealing with, or perhaps not dealing with, the past in Northern Ireland. Includes chapters on South Africa, Northern Ireland and Guatamala.

Download the Book (Zipped File)

Contributors

Sir Kenneth Bloomfield was educated at the Royal Belfast Academical Institution (of which he is a governor) and St Peter's College, Oxford, where he read Modern History. He was appointed Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service on 1 December 1984. In that capacity he was the most senior advisor to successive Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and other Ministers on a wide range of issues. He retired from his position in April 1991. Sir Kenneth received a Knighthood in the 1987 Birthday Honours List. In December 1997 he was asked by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to head the Northern Ireland Victims Commission. His report entitled We Will Remember Them was published in April 1998.

Mary Burton was born Marie Macdiarmid Ingouville in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She moved to South Africa in 1961 when she married a South African, and became a South African citizen in 1994. She has been active in human rights organisations since 1965, including the women's anti-apartheid organisation, the Black Sash. Mary Burton served as national president of the Black Sash from 1986 to 1990 and is now a trustee. She was Provincial Electoral Officer for the Western Cape Province in the 1994 general elections in South Africa. In 1995 she was appointed to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and served on its Human Rights Violations Committee.

Mario Roberto Cabrera holds a Masters of Public Health and is also a physician. Presently he is the Psychological Restoration Area Co-ordinator for the Human Rights Office of the Archbishop of Guatemala working on The Recovery of the Historic Memory Project (REMHI) in Guatemala. Roberto Cabrera works on designing, planning and implementing the psychosocial component of the project.

Marie Smyth currently co-ordinates the Cost of the Troubles Study, an investigation on the experiences and effects of Northern Ireland's Troubles on the population of Northern Ireland. She also teaches at Smith College in Massachusetts. She has taught for ten years at the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland, and has researched and written on issues such as segregation, mixed marriage, women's roles, life in enclaves in Northern Ireland, and the social, economic and political effects of violence and low intensity conflict. She has written widely on the psychological and physical cost of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

Brandon Hamber is a Clinical Psychologist and works at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation in Johannesburg, South Africa. He co-ordinates the Transition and Reconciliation Unit at the Centre and has co-ordinated the Centre's work focusing on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission over the last three years. He is a visiting fellow (1997/1998) at the Initiative on Conflict Resolution and Ethnicity (INCORE) in Northern Ireland, where he holds the Tip O'Neill Fellowship. His work at INCORE focuses on countries coming out of violence and strategies for dealing with the past.

Appendices
1. Summary of the recommendations of the Bloomfield Report
2. Dealing with the past in Northern Ireland: questions and issues to consider
3. Dealing with the past reading material
4. Dealing with the past Internet resources

Download the Book (Zipped File)

What is this thing called Reconciliation?

Brandon Hamber & Hugo van der Merwe

Shortly after PW Botha was yet again bustled into the courtroom in George the phone at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation began ringing journalists wanting to get another angle on the story. Predictably, as with so many Truth Commission controversies before, the interviews tend to end with the same question, "Do you think the TRC has damaged or furthered the reconciliation process by its actions?" A question that simply does not have a short answer.

One of the reasons for this is that reconciliation is a complex and relatively new term for South Africans, and indeed for the world. Furthermore, despite the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) popularising the term, the TRC has not provided the country with a clear definition of what it really means. A uniform and populist understanding of reconciliation still appears to be a long way off. The result is that very seldom is anyone in South Africa talking about the same thing when they refer to reconciliation. Equally so, the final outcome of a so-called reconciled South Africa means different things to different people.

On the whole, most people would probably agree that reconciliation embodies some positive connotations about coming together and healing past conflicts. Most people would probably also say that they are in favour of reconciliation, but competing understandings of the term are seldom debated or spelled-out clearly. Given this lack of clarity we have attempted to differentiate some of the ways that people talk about reconciliation in South Africa. We have isolated five ways in which people have defined reconciliation, albeit conscious or not.

Photo by Tommy Fogelberg / Unsplash

The first of these is what can be termed the non-racial ideology of reconciliation. The non-racial ideology essentially defines reconciliation as dissolving the racial identities arising from the policies of the past. Within this model people with racist attitudes (particularly whites) are seen to largely carry the blame for past divisions and conflicts. They are urged to acknowledge their past so that they can become part of a new society. This ideology implores the TRC to advocate a vision of a new "rainbow" society and to convert people through confession and acknowledgement into non-racial citizens within a harmoniously integrated social setting.

The second understanding of reconciliation is an ideology based on an intercommunal understanding. This model sees the divisions of the past as fundamentally a consequence of the fact that South Africa is made up of separate communities with different cultures and histories. The process of reconciliation is then about bridging the divides of the past. This ideology highlights the need for improved communication and better understanding between groups, thus leading to greater co-operation and co-existence at the individual and political level. This ideology does not necessarily see a place for allocating (or admitting) guilt or changing one's identity; if anything identities are often reified. From this perspective the TRC is considered to be a facilitator that can improve communication and mutual tolerance of diversity.

A third notion is the strong religious ideology of reconciliation. This ideology is based on the teachings of various churches and places emphasis on honesty and forgiveness. This ideological position emphasises the re-discovering of a new conscience of individuals and society through moral reflection, repentance, confession and rebirth. Only by re-awakening the conscience can we rediscover our common humanity. The TRC is seen as a body that can confront people with the evil of their deeds and, in essence, challenge them to repent and not repeat atrocities. This perspective runs the risk of mistakenly equating forgiveness of past enemies with reconciliation.

Another ideology is the human rights approach. From this perspective, reconciliation is seen as a process which can only be achieved by regulating social interaction through the rule of law and preventing certain forms of violations of rights from happening again. To promote reconciliation through this ideology one has to condemn inappropriate behaviour, irrespective of who is responsible, and discourage people from repeating these offences through setting up appropriate institutional and social safeguards. The TRC's role is seen as a body that can build a human rights culture through bringing atrocities to public awareness. The TRC is also seen as a body that can strengthen human rights in the country by making recommendations regarding the prevention of future abuses.

A final ideology is the understanding of reconciliation as a form of community building. Reconciliation at this level is generally concerned with individual relationships rather than with broad and abstract values of co-existence and national political tolerance. This ideology would see the conflicts of the past as having broken down the network of interdependent relationships in communities. Reconciliation in this context requires the clearing up of mistrust between previously conflicting parties and rebuilding personal bonds at the local level. The TRC should, according to this framework, facilitate a public airing of allegations and suspicions and then help facilitate the reconstruction of interpersonal relationships through creating space for direct interventions like conflict resolution initiatives.

These five ideologies of reconciliation can and often do co-exist quite comfortably. However, the ideology one adopts and there are probably many more has during the process of the TRC been at the core of conflict between different groups.

For example, the TRC's, and the ANC's, dominant approach to reconciliation has placed an emphasis on the need for nation-building through non-racialism. This has emphasised acknowledgement of past atrocities. Although well meaning, this ideology has resulted in a vision of unity that has, at times, denied the expression of internal conflicts. The expression of conflict is often seen as a betrayal rather than a challenge to find common ground. A good example of this was the initial negativity from the TRC toward the families who challenged the TRC's amnesty provision in the Constitutional Court.

The National Party, on the other hand, has generally adopted an intercommunal notion of reconciliation. Using this understanding they have emphasised mutual co-existence, but without placing prominence on the acknowledgement of past wrongdoing. Their definition of reconciliation has, at times, come dangerously close to slipping back into the old policies of separation. Consequently any push from the TRC or others toward a more non-racial model has been experienced as a "witch-hunt", as the non-racial model holds whites accountable for most past abuses. This approach, at least to the NP, is seen as contradictory to its notion of reconciliation and has prompted them to say the TRC is biased against them.

The TRC, particularly in its initial phases, also added a strong religious overtone to their non-racial emphasis. This resulted in the TRC highlighting forgiveness and truth-telling above all else. This approach has been criticised for being too lenient on perpetrators. The TRC has, according to these criticisms, bent over backwards to get the perpetrators to come forward and confess only then to let them off. Several non-government organisations (NGOs) and political parties (the PAC particularly) would have viewed the extension of the amnesty cut-off dates in this light.

Non-government organisations (NGOs) and victim groups have tended to opt for a more community building and human rights approach to the TRC. They have been critical of the TRC for failing to address reconciliation at the community level where the legacy of past conflicts still leaves many communities internally divided despite the TRC holding hearings and visiting the area. These criticisms are valid in that follow-up services to meet the needs of victims have not always been forthcoming. The TRC has countered these criticisms by saying that the reconciliation model they were mandated to carry-out did not stress, at least in the legislation, victim-support and conflict resolution directly.

The reality is, in fact, that the TRC has adopted most of the ideologies of reconciliation outlined above at different times. The non-racial notion of reconciliation has been, perhaps rightly, the most consistent on the agenda of the TRC. However, the sporadic dominance of, alternatively a more human rights driven approach and the religious approach have also been present. In addition, some Commissioners have opted for the less ambitious notion of reconciliation in which co-existence is given prime importance. The need for acknowledgement has, however, always been accentuated to a greater degree than the more conservative approach to co-existence adopted by the NP.

Despite these perhaps inevitable inconsistencies, the TRC does seem to have adopted a specific pattern toward the reconciliation process. They have generally first emphasised the need for acknowledgement, repentance and apology before adopting any legal or human rights strategy. In the absence of a holistic definition of reconciliation, mixed messages have come out of the TRC at times. This has given certain individuals too much space to manipulate the TRC process.

The charges brought against PW Botha for not obeying his subpoena is a case in point. Initially the TRC adopted a soft approach embodied by the religious and non-racial ideologies to reconciliation. They requested his co-operation with hopeful anticipation of his acknowledgement and an apology for atrocities committed under his leadership. Although this is a commendable example of tolerance for a man who headed a government that undoubtedly committed a range of abuses, it simply provided him with the space to avoid interacting with the TRC.

Then when the TRC, correctly in our opinion, adopted a more legal or human rights approach through court action against PW Botha he used the inconsistency of their approach as a weapon against them. As the TRC has seldom used the legal route and has largely adopted the religious and non-racial ideological approaches toward alleged perpetrators, PW Botha was given ammunition to "call foul" saying that the TRC was biased and specifically targeting him. Even now it is not clear as to whether the TRC is going through with the court battle for the purpose of extracting an expression of remorse and an apology from him or whether they plan to use the court process to unequivocally demonstrate the need for accountability. Either way the TRC remains in a difficult predicament. It appears that PW Botha will never admit to any wrongdoing and equally so it will be difficult to demonstrate the need for accountability through his case when so many perpetrators have been granted amnesty before him and walk free in our society.

Many of these difficulties are not the fault of the TRC alone. The TRC was handed a difficult task forged on compromise and any legislated process could never fully anticipate the "subtleties" of these competing notions of reconciliation. However, the real danger is that, as the TRC moves to closure, we continue to assume that all South Africans share a common understanding of the term. Consensus on a clearer definition than what has been used over the last few years will serve to avert conflict over who is, or who is not, committed to reconciliation. This will be critical once the TRC has ended and its hegemonic ideologies of reconciliation are no longer present.

A shift in emphasis will also be necessary in which reconciliation work is moved out of the realm of the strictly political. An approach that takes the interests of local communities more seriously will prove to be critical. This will address victims' criticisms that the TRC has been about a political rather than victim-centered process and that the TRC's approach to reconciliation has favoured perpetrators.

In addition, we will have to confront some of the more difficult questions raised by the reconciliation process South Africa adopted through the TRC. Over the last three years trials against alleged perpetrators have largely been seen as counter to the non-racial and religious ideologies implicit in the TRC. However, with the end of the TRC in sight, we have to ask the question of whether bringing charges against alleged perpetrators who did not apply for amnesty should be seen in this way. It could be argued that such trials are a component of a more holistic approach to reconciliation in which a strong human rights framework is added to the non-racial and religious ideologies of reconciliation that the TRC has championed. The human rights approach of trying the guilty is internationally accepted as a method for re-establishing the rule of law which the granting of amnesty has invariably undermined.

Perhaps it is only additional prosecutions, a greater emphasis on facilitating local community reconciliation and the delivery of reparations to victims that will serve to help integrate and complete South Africa's complex reconciliation puzzle.

Published by Brandon Hamber  and Hugo van der Merwe in Reconciliation in Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1998.

Brandon Hamber is a Research Associate and Consultant and Hugo van der Merwe a Project Manager in the Transition and Reconciliation Programme at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.