Abstract
There is little empirical evidence to support the speculation about the relationship between justice and reconciliation in the African continent. Most of the time, this challenge has been promoted by the difficulty to prove the causation of this relationship. Hence, this research paper seeks to mainly focus on the potential avenues that can be used to gauge and assess the relationship between the truth and the process of reconciliation. By focusing on South Africa and Rwanda, the paper initiates a background check on the needed transitional/restorative justice in conflict resolution. Resolution processes of historical conflicts in these countries are used as case scenarios for explaining the transformational needs in the reconciliation of civil conflicts. In this thesis, Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of South Africa, are evaluated in the character of conceptual truth as well as reconciliation commissions of these respective countries. By focusing on these TRC’s, the assumptions of their contextual situations help this thesis to present the basic principles involved in the restoration of justice in different contextual situations. Even though they were contextually designed, their basic principle involves restorative justice that seeks to enable people to accept the truth as a fundamental aspect of reconciliation. Therefore, this paper provides recommendations that the truth has to be acceptable in the society for reconciliation to take place effectively. Consequently, the effects of truth in the reconciliation of a country after civil conflicts remains an important aspect of future research. Therefore, this thesis recommends the potential approach towards using the truth in aiding reconciliation in different nations. It draws upon 12 different scholarly sources that provide constructive information on the management of humanitarian intervention of truth as an appropriate approach to achieving restorative justice.
Key words: Reconciliation, restorative justice, truth, apartheid, genocide.
Introduction
Conflict resolution has undergone a transition especially in this 21st century. 1994 marks a very significant year for both South Africa and Rwanda. As South Africa was making a peaceful transition from the apartheid regime, Rwanda was undergoing a tragic and violent genocide during this year[1]. Based on these occurrences, this paper evaluates how the need for justice and reconciliation supported implementation of TRC’s in both countries. Despite their contextual differences, that year marked the beginning of the hard task of the post-conflict reconciliation. Therefore, this paper seeks to identify and assess the approaches that are involved in the reconciliation of such divided societies. Its point of focus involves comparison of these two countries using the unique approach of truth in acquiring restorative justice in their distinctly different tragedies. It contains a new approach that was not initially used in either countries but could be adopted in similarly unique situations. Thus, it argues that the approach is justified and relevant hence could be applied in the different and unique contexts[2]. A chosen model of reconciliation is also applied in this research and a comparison is made in its ability to establish reconciliation in both Rwanda and South Africa. In order to understand the effectiveness of TRC’s in establishing reconciliation in these countries, the study examines various theories of truth and reconciliation that help in the rise of constructive ideas behind restorative justice. Therefore, it will be easier to understand if reconciliation has been achieved once this approach is applied in such contexts. Eventually, the outcomes of the approach indicate that truth telling and reconciliation have been valuable in facilitating the healing process in any nation hence it facilitates resolution of civil conflicts in any nation.
Background information
Restorative Justice
Philosophical aspects of restorative justice have identified this as the most effective approach towards achieving reconciliation in conflict resolution. Unlike retributive approach where punishment is used to resolve conflict, restorative justice applies an alternative framework whereby the victims, offenders, and communities are encouraged to resolve conflicts in a more peaceful manner[3]. Therefore, it simply implies that restorative justice involves a dialogue process between conflicting parties despite their differences. With that in mind, it becomes clear that truth plays an integral part in establishing the real problem as well as the integral solution that can provide long term restoration of justice. In that case, it is important to look at the contexts in both South Africa and Rwanda when applying the restorative approach as a method of reconciliation. In order to explain the need for truth in establishing reconciliation, the approach of restorative justice looks into the justice system and how it can achieve reconciliation. For instance, the context in both countries involves a time when they were faced with human rights violations that led to loss of thousands of lives. Consequently, the countries were also faced with questions of whether the then justice system was able to restore the country after the conflicts[4]. With that in mind, there was need for the countries to first identify what would likely happen if the justice system was not able to work effectively in case, they lack a functioning government. With such questions in mind, this paper explains the basic principle of the truth in the establishment of an effective justice system.
Truth and reconciliation commissions were therefore developed after the conflicts as key governmental institutions that would effectively promote reconciliation using the truth as a key tool. Truth has been applied here as a basic principle due to its ability to establish restorative justice which has already been considered to be effective in acquiring reconciliation. During the 1970’s and 1980’s, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions were used by Latin American countries after the dictatorship regime to restore justice[5]. Later on, these commissions have also been applied in various other countries without a discrete of what truth commissions really do. However, this study identifies that the TRC is implemented with various designs depending on the needs and intentions of a country[6]. Therefore, its application in situations similar to those in Rwanda and South Africa is mainly dependent on the shared understanding of the harm caused by a conflict as well as the value lost in government functioning. In that case, justice can best be achieved after a conflict through social action which promotes the restoration of the already lost social equilibrium. This philosophy of restorative justice implies that the goal of using the truth is to restore the original trust hence bringing the offender and the estranged victim/s together [7]. Therefore, the steering propositions as regards to restorative justice provide a substantial basis for effective Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.
Literature review
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)
Conceptual definitions in regards to reconciliation at the outset indicate that it is the extension of esteem and dignity to other people’s interests through trust, respect, and understanding. Therefore, it involves an increased infatuation of governments with the truth in order to generate curative powers that jump into serious damages to relationships among citizens[8]. Based on this perspective, restorative justice is mainly concerned with the engagement of victims and offenders in a shared understanding of the conflict. In the end, it becomes easier for all the parties involved to unite and resolve on the ways through which they can deal with the effects of a conflict. Initial studies indicate the importance of TRC’s in establishing healing rather than punishing offenders in a conflict. Thus, TRC’s need to draw from the restorative justice in the efforts towards promoting meaningful “punishments” mainly involving obliging offenders towards promoting truth. Consequently, TRC’s also apply the restorative justice approach of amnesty whereby offenders are encouraged to actively take part in dialogical processes of reconciliation. Eventually, ranting amnesty in a conflict may help in reconciliating the parties involved and is compatible with the philosophy of healing instead of punishing[9]. Amnesty is considered to be the doorway to establishing truth in a reconciliation process, hence this idea raises the question on the extent of reconciliation achieved through TRC’s. However, this thesis explains the original context of restorative justice and the application of truth in TRC’s with the aim of achieving both justice and reconciliation. Basically, it involves the consideration of how relationships can be rebuilt after suffering a conflict.
Reconciliation
Reconciliation can be basically described as the process that is involved in the building of a relationship that may be minimally acceptable especially after a conflict between different parties. Therefore, reconciliation can best be achieved through strategies that deal with both parties in a conflict through encouraging their interaction humans-in-relationships after the conflict[10]. Both TRC in Rwanda’s and South Affrica’s Gacaca Community Courts act as reconciliation commissions embodying restorative approaches in their respective contexts. Based on this approach, the concept of the truth and amnesty is taken into account as a key tool towards achieving its goals in reconciliation of parties involved in the conflict. After the 1994 incidents, both countries initiated a process of national reconciliation through TRC and Gacaca Community Courts respectively. However, Gacaca focused more on the pre-colonial Rwandan approach of accusing the genocide-related crimes[11]. Hence, the South African TRC served as a more effective approach in the process of developing interpersonal and national reconciliation after the conflicts. Therefore, these contexts indicate that restorative justice could be achieved through the implementation of truth and reconciliation commissions in accordance with specific contexts of different countries. In this paper, the TRC applies the key principles of restorative justice including truth and amnesty as necessary tools for the reconciliation process. Based on both contexts in South Africa and Rwanda, this thesis applies different perspectives of the implementation of this restorative justice practice including juridical, political, and anthropological aspects [12]. It simply implies that providing truth without justice to victims is ineffective, and the case is the same when justice is served without truth which would lead to historical revisionism hence creating new conflicts. For this reason, truth is an essential ingredient in the making reconciliation a reality in any context of a conflict.
Discussion
Dimensions of restorative justice principle
There are various assumptions that underlie the concept of restorative justice. In order to understand the key principles of this concept, restorative justice is viewed in this study as an approach that promotes communication and brings together those on both sides of a conflict [13]. Reconciliation goes hand in hand with various factors of restorative justice although it generates a series of questions that require solutions. For instance, there is need to understand those who need to be reconciled, who should start the process, and how it should look like among other issues. Restorative justice is basically a practice-based principle that consists of different dimensions [14]. This study mainly focuses on the theoretical framework of the restorative justice through the lens of truth and amnesty in three different perspectives as will be explained in the following paragraphs. These perspectives define the much more complex paradigm of restorative justice in these countries whose road to reconciliation did not begin or end with trials or commissions. Instead, the study proposes restorative justice as a grassroot movement whereby the local people are involved in the action towards advancing reconciliation at all levels. Thus, restorative justice is mainly practiced bottom-up meaning that it can achieve its goals both at the local, regional and national levels of conflict.
Political perspective
Restorative justice is first viewed under a political perspective as a resource for political institutions to form a narrative of political ‘truths.’ In other words, political endeavors such as the dismantling of the apartheid regime in South Africa implemented restorative truths that helped to uncover certain “truths” about injustice. Therefore, an opportunity was provided for political institutions use these ‘truths’ to either demote or appoint political leaders such as Nelson Mandela [15]. Eventually, South Africa was able to acquire a certain level of reconciliation through restorative justice which supported truth in a democratic nation.
Anthropological perspective
This perspective suggests that a reconciliation process should provide an opportunity for the offenders, victims, and their respective families to come together and identify the aftermath of their conflict. As a result, the restoration of justice is achieved when everyone is involved in the process of deciding on the approach that can repair the harm based on their individual needs [16]. Thus, it is also concerned with the relationships of the parties involved in a conflict rather than the law only. Hence, Rwanda’s Gacaca Community Courts’ commitment to healing that wounds among individual Rwandans and their groups has been a similar attempt towards achieving restorative justice.
Juridical perspective
There are core principles that are involved in various restorative justice practices. However, this study focuses on South Africa and Rwanda’s perspectives whereby the offenders have been given an obligation in the process of making things right as much as possible. This instance is visible when South Africa passed a law on amnesty and explains better the role of restorative justice in turning the wrongs into right. Thus, it involves the effective participation of the offenders and victims in the maximum exchange of information and participation in order to meet mutual consent. Eventually, this form of reconciliation provides justice through active participation of all community members regardless of their affiliations in the conflict resolution process.
Post-apartheid South African Context
Amnesty provisions in the post-apartheid era indicate the acknowledgements of the past violations by the TRC. Note that TRC was not invented by South Africa because it had already been used by twenty-five other countries around Africa since 1974 [17]. However, South Africa’s case drew more attention from the world because the TRC was the best resourced and commissioned by the time it was implemented in the country. Based on its success in the removal of apartheid regime, TRC has attracted more attention due to a promising capability to provide an alternative solution to the ‘truth of amnesty’[18]. Thus, it was mainly based on the notion of using the truth in dealing with political and social conflicts that affected the country. Starting from December 1995, the reconciliation process in South Africa was initiated by the TRC under the spirit of generosity especially to those classified as victims [19]. In the post-1994 journey of reconciliation, South Africa’s TRC mainly focused on the truth as the primary component of restoring justice. Despite numerous concerns, TRC began focusing on the equity and fairness involved in the entire process of reconciliation. Eventually, the TRC was found to be an important principle that placed social equity and justice at the forefront of the reconciliation process.
Post-genocide Rwandan perspective
This paper has focused on various prospects of peace in the post-genocide Rwandan reconciliation context. Such prospects have revealed potential issues associated with the implementation of restorative justice principles in reconciliation [20]. However, the use of truths in the reconciliation process has already been proven to be effective in restoring justice in any context. This paper finds out that the application of amnesty in the post-genocide reconciliation process has made it easier for Rwanda to move closer to the healing point. Based on this perspective, the study suggests that the government of Rwanda needs to improve in its commitment towards the application of truths in promoting amnesty [21]. After the 1994 genocide, Rwanda was left with the huge task of restoring justice and fostering a high level of reconciliation. At some point, the Tutsi-led Rwandan government took a different path of identifying and comprehending the accountability of perpetrators in the genocide crimes [22]. This resulted in calls for Rwanda to mimic the South African way of amnesty as an exchange for truth in order to help offenders and victims to collaborate in the reconciliation process. After the end of the genocide, Rwanda has been stripped of all of its resources through the devastating war. As a result, there was a strong compulsion for revenge among the affected victims leading to the Gacaca trials all over the communities. These trials resulted in the identification of perpetrators who were later given the amnesty. This concept was considered to be kind of a more effective reconciliatory concept although it was considered vulnerable to manipulation [23]. As a result, this study identifies that justice was still a big issue in Rwanda and desired a commission that could stop victims from feeling betrayed by the traditional Gacaca Community Court trials.
Conceptual framework of justice and reconciliation
One major challenge that faces the process of reconciliation is the understanding of where the interpersonal and national interests cross with each other. As a matter of fact, reconciliation is mainly based on the restoration of the relationships between individuals as well as communities. This explains why South Africa was able to eliminate the apartheid regime at the same time when Rwanda was torn apart by the genocide; however, there has been some progress in the healing process in both countries since then [24]. Based on this perspective, the relationship that is explained here is about the offender and the victim of a conflict. Hence, the TRC project simply involves a forgiveness project through the enhancement of truths in the reconciliation process. This situation has been shared in many of the South African contexts. It is also similarly experienced in the Rwandan context whereby both offenders and victims have resolved into division of work in order to build a sharable livelihood[25]. Therefore, it is important to note that reconciliations do not just begin with trials and commissions. Instead, it is mainly influenced by the changes and transformation in the relationships between the conflicting parties.
South Africa began experiencing reforms in the reconciliation process after the establishment of the TRC. This was mainly contributed to by the fact that the TRC inseminated the principle of truths and amnesty concepts as a way of restoring the lost relationships among citizens [26]. On the contrary, the Rwandan context presented a more complex situation that only depended on the Gacaca court trials as the main restoration solution. However, the effective use of truths in the restorative justice process in South Africa helped the government to quickly achieve a greater level of reconciliation. At the heart of the TRC was the rehumanization of both victims and perpetrators hence South Africans could easily begin to reengage in new relationships [27]. Therefore, the consideration of the concepts such as the “common understanding” obtained through truths in a reconciliation process could easily help victims to absorb the effect of the conflict and move on swiftly. Consequently, Rwanda was advised by international mediators to adopt the South African way of restoring justice by use of the concept of truthfulnees when undertaking a reconciliation in order to facilitate the restoration of justice in the country. Based on these outcomes, the study offers the basic concept of the collective truth as a key principle in enhancing the process of reconciliation in any conflict.
Conclusions and recommendations
This literature offers a picture of transitional justice that focuses on the existing speculations regarding the relationship between justice and reconciliation. With little concrete evidence, the study has offered vivid descriptions of the significant challenges that have faced the process of reconciliation by focusing on two case scenarios involving Rwanda and South Africa. Based on the discussions provided above, the study suggests that the concept of truth actually supports the implementation of amnesty across the reconciliation process. As a matter of fact, the restorative justice has been identified as a primary principle of reconciliation mainly because it promotes the acceptance of truth which is proven useful in the achievement of reconciliation. Therefore, truth aids reconciliation through its significant impacts on behavior among the offenders and victims of any conflict. By focusing on Rwanda and South Africa, this study recommends the need for identifying the outlook of the truth in the reconciliation process in future research to help in identifying any existing gaps. Eventually, the study has provided the basic principles of restorative justice and how they can contextually influence the process of reconciliation after a conflict.
Bibliography
Becker, Heike. "Beyond trauma: New perspectives on the politics of memory in East and Southern Africa." African studies 70, no. 2 (2011): 321-335.
Clark, Janine Natalya. "Reconciliation via truth? A study of South Africa's TRC." Journal of Human Rights 11, no. 2 (2012): 189-209.
Giblin, John D. "Re-constructing the past in post-genocide Rwanda: an archaeological contribution." Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 45, no. 3 (2010): 341-341.
Graybill, Lyn, and Kimberly Lanegran. "Truth, justice, and reconciliation in Africa: Issues and cases." African studies quarterly 8, no. 1 (2004): 1-18.
Harris, Bronwyn. Arranging prejudice: Exploring hate crime in post-apartheid South Africa. Cape Town: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 2004.
Kohen, Ari, Michael Zanchelli, and Levi Drake. "Personal and political reconciliation in post-genocide Rwanda." Social Justice Research 24, no. 1 (2011): 85-106.
Mawhinney, Emily B. "Restoring Justice: Lessons from Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa and Rwanda." Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 36 (2015): ii.
McCarthy, Emily H. "South Africa's Amnesty Process: A Viable Route Toward Truth and Reconciliation." Mich. J. Race & L. 3 (1997): 183.
Weldon, Gail. "A comparative study of the construction of memory and identity in the curriculum of post-conflict societies: Rwanda and South Africa." History Education Research Journal 6, no. 1 (2006): 55-71.
Wielenga, Cori. "Comparing approaches to reconciliation in South Africa and Rwanda." conflict trends 2011, no. 4 (2011): 38-45.
Zorbas, Eugenia. "Reconciliation in post-genocide Rwanda." African Journal of Legal Studies 1, no. 1 (2004): 29-52.
Annotated Bibliography
Mawhinney, Emily B. "Restoring Justice: Lessons from Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa and Rwanda." Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 36 (2015): ii.
Emily B. Mawhinney’s text explains the nature of conflict and the process of its transformation over time. It identifies and explains the consequent changes in the methods and strategies of conflict resolution and how it affects the process of reconciliation. This study provides various discussions on the philosophical and conceptual aspects of restorative justice. Therefore, it provides useful information in regards to the alternative frameworks in the form of restorative justice that could be applied in the process of reconciliation after a conflict. At the core of this study is the emphasis on the impacts of restorative justice in the reconciliation process which provides vivid ideas on the processes that are involved in the achievement of reconciliation.
Weldon, Gail. "A comparative study of the construction of memory and identity in the curriculum of post-conflict societies: Rwanda and South Africa." History Education Research Journal 6, no. 1 (2006): 55-71.
This study proposes the current need for restorative justice as a way of promoting reconciliation in different contexts. Its author uses the examples of Rwanda and South Africa as the key beneficiaries of the restorative justice in the aftermath of their conflicts. Also, important to note is its focus on the formation and importance of the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and the Gacaca Community Courts in South Africa and Rwanda respectively. Evaluations on the TRC’s and the Gacaca courts provides a distinction between the two countries and how restorative justice can be achieved more effectively in South Africa than in Rwanda. This is mainly contributed to by the effective concept of truth which is identified as an important ingredient of the reconciliation process.
Wielenga, Cori. "Comparing approaches to reconciliation in South Africa and Rwanda." conflict trends 2011, no. 4 (2011): 38-45.
Cori Wielanga writes about the trends of conflict starting from the 1994. It provides descriptions and differences in the context of conflicts between Rwanda and South Africa. Based on her explanations, the author reveals the distinctly different approaches used in the restoration of justice and reconciliation in these countries. Information from this source helps this study to identify different reconciliation approaches in relevance to distinct contexts.
Kohen, Ari, Michael Zanchelli, and Levi Drake. "Personal and political reconciliation in post-genocide Rwanda." Social Justice Research 24, no. 1 (2011): 85-106.
This is a scholarly source that provides research information on post-genocide Rwanda. It explores various questions in regards to the prospects of peace and justice especially in the post-genocide Rwanda. Therefore, it helps the current research to identify the potential limits and significance of restorative justice approaches that were applied by Rwanda to establish reconciliation. Information from this source also helps in understanding the relevant initiatives that have been involved in the reconciliation process to help Rwanda restore justice until today. Therefore, it proposes relevant information that can help in the establishment of a comprehensive study of the reconciliation process in the aftermath of a conflict.
McCarthy, Emily H. "South Africa's Amnesty Process: A Viable Route Toward Truth and Reconciliation." Mich. J. Race & L. 3 (1997): 183.
This study focuses on truth and reconciliation. It is basically concerned with the role of truths in the enhancement of reconciliation especially in the context of post-apartheid South Africa. Its information has been used in this research to explain the importance of truth in providing amnesty as a way of restoring the relationships between victims and offenders in a conflict. Therefore, it helps the current research to identify the amnesty provisions in the TRC in South Africa and how it can help in the achievement of reconciliation.
Harris, Bronwyn. Arranging prejudice: Exploring hate crime in post-apartheid South Africa. Cape Town: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 2004.
This source explains the relationship underlying the concept of citizenship and inter-personal relationships in the occurrence of a conflict. Most of the aspects of this study are mainly concerned with the process of reconciliation and various aspects of citizenship that can influence its establishment. Despite some little connections with the main topics of the study, restorative justice has been given little focus. However, it is still a useful source for this research because it explains various notions surrounding the mechanisms of conflict and reconciliations in the apartheid era.
Andrews, Penelope E. "Reparations for apartheid's victims: the path to reconciliation." DePaul L. Rev. 53 (2003): 1155.
This article provides evaluations of the South African context of reconciliation especially in the post-apartheid era. It proposes the broader perspective of truths and forgiveness as key aspects in the development of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. With that in mind, this research applies information from this resource to highlight and explain the importance of TRC as well as its validity in the restoration of justice in the aftermath of apartheid. Therefore, it is an important source of information for the research because it offers insights on accountability among both victims and offenders as key principles of restorative justice.
[1] Wielenga, Cori. "Comparing approaches to reconciliation in South Africa and Rwanda." conflict trends 2011, no. 4 (2011): 38-45.
[2] Wielenga, Cori. (2011): 38-45.
[3] Mawhinney, Emily B. "Restoring Justice: Lessons from Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa and Rwanda." Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 36 (2015): ii.
[4] Weldon, Gail. "A comparative study of the construction of memory and identity in the curriculum of post-conflict societies: Rwanda and South Africa." History Education Research Journal 6, no. 1 (2006): 55-71.
[5] Weldon, (2006): 55-71.
[6] Weldon, 55-71.
[7] Mawhinney, Emily B. "Restoring Justice: Lessons from Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa and Rwanda." Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 36 (2015): ii.
[8] Clark, Janine Natalya. "Reconciliation via truth? A study of South Africa's TRC." Journal of Human Rights 11, no. 2 (2012): 189-209.
[9] Clark, Janine Natalya. (2012): 189-209.
[10] Wielenga, Cori. "Comparing approaches to reconciliation in South Africa and Rwanda." conflict trends 2011, no. 4 (2011): 38-45.
[11] Wielenga, Cori. (2011): 38-45.
[12] Zorbas, Eugenia. "Reconciliation in post-genocide Rwanda." African Journal of Legal Studies 1, no. 1 (2004): 29-52.
[13] Andrews, Penelope E. "Reparations for apartheid's victims: the path to reconciliation." DePaul L. Rev. 53 (2003): 1155.
[14] Andrews, (2003): 1155.
[15] Zorbas, Eugenia. (2004): 29-52.
[16] Zorbas, 29-52.
[17] McCarthy, Emily H. "South Africa's Amnesty Process: A Viable Route Toward Truth and Reconciliation." Mich. J. Race & L. 3 (1997): 183.
[18] Becker, Heike. "Beyond trauma: New perspectives on the politics of memory in East and Southern Africa." African studies 70, no. 2 (2011): 321-335.
[19] Wielenga, 38-45.
[20] Kohen, Ari, Michael Zanchelli, and Levi Drake. "Personal and political reconciliation in post-genocide Rwanda." Social Justice Research 24, no. 1 (2011): 85-106.
[21] Kohen, Ari, Michael Zanchelli, and Levi Drake. (2011): 85-106.
[22] Wielenga, 38-45.
[23] Wielenga, 38-45.
[24] Harris, Bronwyn. Arranging prejudice: Exploring hate crime in post-apartheid South Africa. Cape Town: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 2004.
[25] Graybill, Lyn, and Kimberly Lanegran. "Truth, justice, and reconciliation in Africa: Issues and cases." African studies quarterly 8, no. 1 (2004): 1-18.
[26] Giblin, John D. "Re-constructing the past in post-genocide Rwanda: an archaeological contribution." Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 45, no. 3 (2010): 341-341.
[27] Wielenga, 38-45.