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.

Crime's worst horror is all in the mind

Crime has over the past few years dominated headlines in South Africa. But although the crime rate has risen over the past decade, the media's extensive coverage has created a skewed picture of it. Based on the reporting, most South Africans subscribe to the view that crime continues to spiral out of control. According to recent police statistics, however, the crime rate has been falling.

The statistics are debatable. It is probably more accurate to argue that crime is stabilising, making now a good time to examine some of our perceptions of it. We should not underestimate the impact and extent of violent crime. It has taken, and continues to take, its toll on our society. In almost all cases involving violent crimes in the home, post-traumatic symptoms follow. These can leave a person feeling powerless and out of control. People may experience nightmares, painful feelings and intrusive thoughts about the trauma. Most victims are left with a lingering sense of dread and a fear that they will be victimised again. Feelings of sadness, irritability, guilt and anger are common. Revenge fantasies are also typical. Although they are a normal response, they may be disturbing, especially to those who consider themselves to be nonviolent.

No community in South Africa has remained untouched by violence. In addition, very few people have been left unscathed by violence committed during the damaging apartheid years. It is therefore possible to argue that, at least on some levels, the entire population may be suffering from a collective post-traumatic response. This may explain the public's desire to take revenge on criminals, as well as their high levels of anxiety and guilt.

Revenge fantasies and revengeful acts are clearly reflected in the public's demand for more violent policing of criminals, in the rise of self-administered justice and in the wide public support for the death penalty. There is a risk that victims of violence who are not supported and treated may themselves become perpetrators of violence. The tragic aspect here is that, in most cases, victims turn their anger against friends and family rather than against the assailant. Rather than decrease the crime rate, however, revenge attacks on suspected criminals serve to continue the cycle of violence.

Olga Ernst, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Ongoing fear, anxiety and obsession about possible victimisation are common re- actions to trauma. These may be exacerbated by unresolved feelings of distress and uneasiness created by many years of political and social violence. This, coupled with high levels of violence, could be contributing to growing feelings of anxiety in the population. It is this anxiety that can cause people who have not personally been victims to exaggerate the danger they face. It may explain why people feel that nothing is being done to curb increasing crime, even if this is not the case. Self-blame and guilt are also common in people who have suffered a trauma. Victims may wonder why they were targeted. In almost all situations, they feel they could have done something different to prevent the trauma from happening. This guilt is often made worse by friends blaming the victim for, typically, driving or walking in the wrong place or wearing the wrong clothes. 

If untreated, guilt and self-blame may lead victims to create a range of fictitious reasons to explain their victimisation. For example, many people in South Africa mistakenly believe their race is the main reason they have been victimised. Clearly, as we all seek to give our experiences meaning, it is difficult to accept that victims of criminal violence are largely chosen at random - although some communities, especially poorer ones, may be more affected by, or susceptible to, criminal violence. 

Flaws in the criminal justice system serve only to intensify these feelings. Insensitive and judgmental behaviour by police also discourages victims from reporting crime. This is particularly true for child victims and victims of domestic violence and rape. Under-reporting makes matters worse because, without accurate information, it is difficult for the authorities to figure out which areas need priority intervention. Under-reporting may also be reinforced by the fact that only the most gruesome crimes reach the newspapers or are discussed by South Africans. The result is a belief that all crime is violent and that violence is committed only by unknown assailants in the pursuit of a quick buck. This blurring means that common crimes in South African homes, like wife battery and child abuse, are concealed.

It is clear that we need unambiguous information about the extent of crime and the areas most severely affected. Obviously, we also need to improve the justice system. Equally pressing is the need to continue to treat the post-traumatic effects of past and present violence because its impact clouds our judgment and creates many misperceptions about crime. Perhaps, as the rate stabilises, we should all step back briefly and reassess our own beliefs about crime. This is not to say that we should abandon our fight against it or be soft on the perpetrators but, until we come to terms with the trauma of living in a violent society, a culture of fear, anxiety and anger is likely to prevail.

It is this situation, understandable and realistic as it is on some levels, that makes us see the violence in our society as spinning increasingly out of control, even when it is not. In the long run, this fuels a sense of helplessness in the society - in turn, psychologically empowering the criminals and preventing us from finding creative solutions.

Originally published by Brandon Hamber and Sharon Lewis, Sunday Times, 1 March 1998

Brandon Hamber and Sharon Lewis are both Clinical Psychologists.

 

Black in town

Review on an Exhibition by Clifford Charles and Samson Mnisi

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission has breathed life into an ever present yet often concealed reality of decades of repression and violence. As a result all South Africans are confronted daily with having to integrate a troubled past and violent present into their own personal narratives. The Black in Town exhibition at Number 11 Diagonal Street externalises one such narrative or personal journey. For me, this journey (which is implicit in the work), starts with a graphic piece shaped around a blood-stained TPA Baragwanath blanket that was used by Samson Mnisi, one of the artists, when he was shot. From there, the display moves through the corporate office space where it is housed, embodying all the ambivalence of the old and the new, the healing and the damage and the visible and the hidden in South Africa.

In my opinion, the so-called reconciliation process taking place in South Africa is an inherently contradictory one. This contradiction is most present in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which demands a necessary scrutiny of the past so that healing can occur but at the same time defines the safe parameters within which this can happen. Thus, to some degree, denying personalised elements of healing and ritual. Similarly, the exhibition is housed within the boundaries of corporate South Africa on the 13th floor of a modern office block that overlooks the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. This captures the complexity required in having to heal past wounds within old spaces - spaces that cannot be torn down yet remain laden with destructive wishes and painful memories. As the exhibition weaves intricate patterns of the past and present and differing ways of healing wounds, so too the traders whose stalls surround the Stock Exchange are constant reminders of a new South Africa that is pregnant with irony, concealed oppression and both positive and negative change.

Most of the pieces in the work consist of rich layers of material often coated with wax. These layers upon layers of material peppered with intricate markings and scratches capture the complex nature of psychological healing. Always present in any healing process is the internal tension between the will to uncover and deal with painful memories and the human desire to cover-up and try and forget. At times, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has forced the belief that it is better to uncover the truth and relive the pain at all costs. In contrast, the exhibition Black in Town, in my opinion, captures more of the ambivalence and depth of the healing process. This is reinforced by the highly personalised markings on all the pieces that point to the individual nature of psychological restoration.

The array of perplexing work is marked with religious and other symbols, smells in different rooms and the use of music and varying materials. For me the exhibition captures the essence of psychological healing, a process that is always laden with an integration of elements we all carry through an ever changing culture and from generation to generation. It demonstrates a personal journey that transcends politics, texts and institutions like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that have been created to facilitate memory and rehabilitation. Like a scar, a scab or a band-aid - all fraught with complex images of their relationship to healing - the exhibition Black in Town captures the realistic contradictions of healing wounds in a South Africa in transition.

Published by Brandon Hamber who is the former Manager of the Transition and Reconciliation Unit at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation Commission.

Truth: The road to reconciliation?

At the public hearings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) hangs a banner, "Truth the Road to Reconciliation". These words encapsulate one of the principal paths South Africans have taken to deal with their dark past. To this end, the TRC has the express purpose of facilitating a truth recovery process through public hearings and statement-taking. Since its inception in December 1995, the TRC has aimed to give voice to the experiences of victims, witnesses and perpetrators, intent on uncovering as complete a picture as possible of the causes, nature and extent of past abuses. Thereafter, the TRC aims to make amends to victims through the granting of reparations and rehabilitative measures.

As part of its reconciliatory function, the TRC is also responsible for the granting of amnesty, which means that perpetrators of gross violations of human rights who meet TRC criteria are free from prosecution and all liability then falls away. To receive amnesty, perpetrators must have committed politically-motivated crimes and fully disclosed all the information concerning their actions. At the end of its term of office in March 1998, the TRC will document all of its findings in a comprehensive report, making recommendations aimed at preventing such large-scale abuse from ever occurring again.

To date, the TRC has taken some 10,000 statements from survivors or families of victims of murder, attempted murder, "disappearance" and torture. A number of representative cases have been selected for public hearings based on these statements. Sixty-five such hearings, at which victims have told their stories to the nation, have been held thus far. The TRC has also received a staggering 5,400 amnesty applications. Although time is running out, only 50 findings have been made, of which roughly 70 percent have resulted in situations where perpetrators of gross violations of human rights have been granted amnesty.

In evaluating the process, it is clear that providing space for victims to tell their stories has been of much use. It is the first time that many South Africans have been able to do so to a sympathetic ear. Furthermore, their cases have been referred to the 60-odd national investigators of the TRC Investigation Unit for thorough investigation. In the past, often due to police complicity, most people were turned away from police stations, particularly when their cases were of a political nature.

Despite the success of the hearings, the actual psychological impact of giving public voice to trauma has had varying consequences for victims. For some, it has been the final leg of a personal healing journey while for others, it has only been the first step. Throughout the TRC process, there has often been a simplistic assumption that catharsis through telling one's story is sufficient for emotional healing. This is only partially true. For many, although public acknowledgement of their suffering may have restored their dignity and taken away feelings of guilt, psychological healing remains far off and of a highly personalised matter. Such healing usually requires ongoing support from professionals, community groups, relatives and other support structures like religious bodies. The individual follow-up of victims by the TRC has not been as extensive as was hoped. Undoubtedly, the emotional needs of many victims remain insufficiently addressed.

© 1997 - 2022 Zapiro (All Rights Reserved). 
Originally published in The Sowetan in 1997. 
Printed/Used with permission. 
More Zapiro cartoons at www.zapiro.com

Regarding reparations or compensation for victims, the TRC is only responsible for drawing up policy as reparations will be steered by the government following the TRC-mandated period. The hearings have revealed that the needs of survivors and families of victims are varied. Some people simply want a tombstone to commemorate the death of a loved one, others want financial assistance due to the loss of a bread winner, while some demand that the perpetrator be punished. On a psychological level, reparations can serve for survivors as a symbol representing that they have come to terms with a trauma. On a purely practical level though, the sheer number of victims needing reparation makes the idea of individualised reparation difficult to imagine. Nonetheless, the government remains obligated to offer victims some form of compensation for their suffering because the granting of amnesty to perpetrators has denied victims the possibility of a civil claim.

In addition to possibly offering individualised reparation, the TRC will also make recommendations about symbolic ways of remembering the past. A memorial dedicated to those who lost their lives fighting against apartheid, perhaps similar to the Vietnam War Memorial, is certainly a possibility.

The amnesty granting function of the TRC remains most controversial. Political analysts argue that amnesty is necessary to ensure a peaceful resolution in South Africa and that large-scale prosecutions are simply not possible given the inefficiencies of the criminal justice system. For survivors and families of victims, it remains difficult to see perpetrators walk free yet the South African model is a significant improvement to that of other countries, though, as amnesty is not automatic or blanket. Perpetrators have to qualify for amnesty, specifically needing to make a full, public confession. This means that for many people, the truth about the past will finally be known.

However, despite the value of knowing the truth as implied by the TRC slogan, truth alone does not always lead to reconciliation. Some victims may be satisfied by knowing the facts, particularly in the case of a "disappearance" but for others, truth may heighten anger and calls for justice rather than leading to feelings of reconciliation. There is also the constant threat of a perpetuated cycle of revenge once the truth is out. Thus, survivors and families of victims need to accept their anger as legitimate without feeling they are expected to forgive perpetrators. Community-based groups provide some victim support as outlets for frustrations. In contrast, the TRC has at times failed to provide adequate space for victims to vent their anger.

Even if the compromise of amnesty had to be made for pragmatic reasons, the TRC has failed to make it explicit that the Commission is of the opinion that it was an "evil" compromise. This may have devastating effects. It can leave victims feeling that the TRC favours perpetrators over themselves. This perception is further heightened by the sense that at present it appears as though perpetrators have more to gain by receiving amnesty than victims have through reparation. Reparation seems distant as it will only occur once the TRC is over and their is no guarantee of what form it will take. A further problem is that no matter what form of reparation is offered, it can never bring back a loved one. Coming to terms with the past psychologically can only in part be addressed by a reparations policy.

The road to reconciliation in South Africa remains a thorny one. Undoubtedly, the TRC has helped smooth the path. The value of publicly revisiting the sad and brutal days of apartheid has opened the eyes of many, having partially developed a collective history for South Africans and allowed victims to evolve a new meaning for their suffering. However, individual processes of forgiveness and reconciliation may not always intersect with the collective process offered by the TRC at this time.

It is a mistake to assume that storytelling equates with healing and that truth alone will lead to reconciliation. Truth does not ensure transformation. Much work remains to be done to actively engage with the offending institutions like the security forces to secure lasting change. Simply knowing the truth is no guarantee that a human rights culture will permeate their future operations. Perhaps most basically, the new government has the difficulty of delivering real economic change because all the truth in the world will never address the multiple effects and miseries created by ongoing poverty.

This article was published in Cantilevers: Building Bridges for Peace, Vol. 3, 1997. At the time, Brandon Hamber was the Manager of the Transition and Reconciliation Unit at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

A Triad of Oppression: Violence, Women and Poverty

Noreen Callaghan, Brandon Hamber & Spiwe Takura

NGO Matters: Poverty Special, South African NGO Coalition, August 1997

Violence against women and poverty literally go hand in hand. It is unfortunately true that a high proportion of all women in South Africa suffer an inordinate number of beatings, rape and emotional abuse. However, being poor increases that risk of exposure to violence enormously.

There is growing evidence that living in impoverished conditions increases a woman's risk to all types of violence. Murder rates worldwide, as an example, are found to be highest in areas where poverty is the most prevalent. This is not to say that there is always a direct relationship between poverty and violence - but poverty is an important factor that needs to be considered when trying to understand the rates and distribution of violence against women.

Women's vulnerability derives not only from the threat of direct violence. They have been the historic victims of political and economic exclusion and have suffered the ravages of patriarchy, sexism and discriminatory practices that have kept them outside of social, political and economic power structures. In addition, socio-cultural conditioning has resulted in the fact that women and girls are often prepared for marriage and child-rearing but not for the job market.

This economic vulnerability limits their chances to change their situation when confronted with violence. Poverty-stricken women, and particularly those in rural areas, are often financially dependent, have limited access to employment and are unsupported mothers who must fulfil the role of caregiver. As a result they have few alternatives and options if they wish to leave a violent situation or community. On top of this, in most impoverished areas in South Africa, women have limited access to health, education, social, psychological and legal services.

The result is that there is evidence to show that African women, who are undoubtedly the poorest sector of our society, are more than ten times likely to experience an incidence of violence compared to their white counterparts. Recent South African police statistics also show that levels of rape are often highest in provinces which are economically less developed.

The reasons for this relationship between violence against women and poverty are numerous. apartheid's economic exploitation and segregation systematically resulted in much higher levels of poverty for black South Africans and women in particular. A range of factors have contributed to high levels of violence against women in poor areas. These factors include transiency of the population, over-crowding, disrupted family life, a mentality of dependency and the socialised acceptance of violence as a way to solve problems.

Photo by Jametlene Reskp / Unsplash

It is thus imperative that programmes designed to eradicate poverty and reduce violence against women address the many social and economic complexities that contribute to the magnitude of oppression that poor women face. While there is a need for broad national policies and campaigns, local programmes targeted to the specific needs of diverse communities are essential. As the needs of rural and urban communities in each province will differ, so too will the approach needed to combat violence and poverty vary in each community. Above all what is needed is a gender focused development strategy which takes into consideration the unique needs of poor women.

A gendered approach to poverty reduction would concentrate on the economic development and empowerment of poor women. It would provide resource generating opportunities that are easily accessible and conducive to a woman's needs and, if necessary, her schedule as a caregiver. In rural areas, it is crucial that indigenous women be given access to the ownership of land. Programmes should provide financial assistance and credit at accommodating interest rates and convenient terms of repayment so as to increase a woman's opportunity to engage in small scale business activities. Programmes must provide education and employment training that builds the capacity of women to become economically independent and thus enables them to alter situations of violence. Functional literacy programmes are a crucial step in empowering women to take control of their own lives.

It is also necessary when designing poverty eradication programmes to address the social and public health depravation of poor communities. Free and accessible health services for women and children must be provided. Services such as shelters for abused women, counselling services and legal resources are essential if women suffering from violence are to be empowered to transform their situation.

As demonstrated, violence against women is a multi-dimensional issue. Despite the complexities, or perhaps because of them, it is important that there be a national learning process against such violence. The problem calls for a campaign on human rights that promotes a culture of tolerance, that cultivates respect for women's economic and social contributions and that advocates for women's safety and ultimately their lives.

There is much to be done in the fight against violence and poverty and the effect these have on women. However, we owe it to those women who suffer from the double oppression of poverty and violence to help them to transform conditions of dependence and hopelessness to those of empowerment and progress.

Callaghan, N., Hamber, B. & Takura, S. (1997). Violence, Women and Poverty: A Triad of Oppression. NGO Matters, Poverty Special, August, South African National NGO Coalition.

Noreen Callaghan is a former Research Intern at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Brandon Hamber is the former Manager of the Transition and Reconciliation Unit at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Spiwe Takura is a former Training Co-ordinator at the Centre for the study of Violence and Reconciliation.

What Happens when you are Exposed to Violence

Thabo, 17 years old, witnessed the death of his father during a violent robbery. Since that time he has been unable to sleep, has nightmares, feels very sad most of the time, has been fighting with his friends and cannot stop thinking about the event. He blames himself and in his head he goes over and over what he could have done to prevent his father's death. Thabo is experiencing what can be called a post (after) traumatic response.

Thabo's reactions are common in people who have been in dangerous situations in which they have been powerless. These sorts of situations generally involve seeing violence or being a victim of violence, although any dangerous situation can cause such a reaction. Examples include violent crime, assault, threats, car accidents, being in war situations, rape and political violence.

When in situations like these people often feel like they cannot cope. Others say that during the event they felt numb, like they were frozen. After the event people experience reactions that affect their behaviour and emotions.

Photo by Jon Tyson / Unsplash

Feelings of confusion, headaches, vomiting, feeling cold, being without feelings and shaking are common. In most cases people cannot sleep after the incident and have nightmares. Feelings of suddenly being back in the situation and not being able to stop thinking about it are common. Being scared all the time, worried and unable to relax is typical. Some may talk about the event all the time and others may try to keep it to themselves. Feeling depressed, sad, crying all the time and not wanting to do your normal activities can also happen. Everyone feels guilty and most people blame themselves for what happened.

The life-style of the person can change. Often people find that they lose their tempers easily, close relationships are difficult and many people feel very angry. At work most people find it hard to concentrate and seem to forget things. In the long-term, and in extreme cases, some people get self-destructive (i.e. purposefully hurt themselves), many people start drinking a lot of alcohol or taking drugs and other people even want to kill themselves.

When all of these feelings start happening most people feel that they are going crazy and will be unable to cope anymore. However, it is important to know that to experience these feelings is normal and natural. People often have these types of responses to trauma. People who have these responses are not sick or weak. They will usually get strong and feel well again if they get support from their families, community members (e.g. priests) and people who are trained to help with these sorts of problems like trauma counsellors and psychologists.

If you have been exposed to violence do not be afraid to seek help. Speak to those you trust and share your experiences. Services are also available, phone Sophie or Mpho at the Trauma Clinic (Tel: 011 403-5102) for more information or if you would like to speak to someone about your difficulties.

Published by Brandon Hamber & Mercy Hlungwani on 14 June 1997 for Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, South Africa.

Brandon Hamber is a clinical psychologist.

Mercy Hlungwani is a psychiatric nurse.