The Truth and Reconciliation Commission: An Interview with Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela
Nthabiseng Mabuza
Fall 2000

In the wake of democracy, the former oppressors were afraid of facing prosecution from victims who would seek retribution. As a compromise, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was established. Its mission was to grant amnesty to those who came forward to confess their crimes. But in order for applicants to qualify for amnesty, the Commission, which was chaired by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, required that they provide "full disclosure of all knowledge pertaining to gross human rights violations," or risk facing prosecution for their crimes.

The TRC empowered victims by designing a "victim friendly" environment. It also provided a platform for victims to share their stories publicly, facing their perpetrators for the first time, in hopes that the process would help them find some closure, and enable them to move on with their lives.

There was also some controversy facing the Commission. Some felt that granting amnesty was a denial of the right to prosecute. Others argued that the TRC only dealt with the excesses of apartheid, rather than the day to day brutalities and extreme violence which represented the real truth about apartheid. But despite the controversies, many will say that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was good for the country, if only because it helped shed light on controversial issues in South Africa's history of struggle.

What follows is an interview with Ms. Gobodo-Madikizela, conducted by Nthabiseng Mabuza.

NM: What is the TRC and why was it established?
PG-M: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established as part of a negotiated settlement in a society seeking social cohesion rather than vengeance. The intent was to try to break the cycles of politically inspired violence that so often repeat themselves historically.

NM: What are some of the factors that contributed to the launching of the TRC?
PG-M: When apartheid collapsed, the leaders of this brutally oppressive system in South Africa demanded blanket amnesty for its police and foot soldiers. Also, some survivors and families of victims wanted to know what happened to their loved ones, and who the perpetrators were. They wanted to know those responsible for giving orders to their perpetrators whose actions left them and their loved ones to suffer to the extent they did. Other victims wanted prosecutions. As a compromise, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established and given a mandate to grant amnesty to perpetrators from both sides of the political conflict on a case by case basis, in exchange for full disclosure of the atrocities they committed.

NM: What challenges did the new government face in tryng to build a unified south africa? And what role did the trc play in that?
PG-M: South Africa was negotiating a political settlement to establish a Government of National Unity, which meant that people who were former enemies would govern the country and make important decisions about what direction the country should take after apartheid. The question was how to take the next step towards transformation, how to examine the past without becoming slaves to it. One of the critical issues that faced the TRC was to establish a process that would be victim driven; a process that would honor victims of gross human rights violations while exposing the truth about atrocities committed in the past.

NM: Most people find it difficult to understand how people can forgive in the face of tragedy. How do you understand the process of forgiveness?
PG-M: The ability to forgive the perpetrator sets the victim above the perpetrator. The granting of forgiveness can also relieve victims of the burden of anger associated with the trauma they suffered at the hands of the perpetrator. It is this sense of relief that victims are in search of when they say they forgive perpetrators. There is often the mistake of equating forgiving with forgetting. This is not the case. Nothing can make victims forget their trauma. It is something they live with daily. But when victims know that their victimizer at least recognizes the pain and suffering he caused, it is a way of giving back victims the dignity and respect that was taken away at the time of the abuse.

NM: The concept of a "genuine" apology is hard to measure. How do you know perpetrators mean it, and why do they apologize if they were not required to by law?
PG-M: I agree it's not easy to assess the sincerity of an apology. But you know, you do have a sense when you are being manipulated into believing something. If you have suffered the pain of abuse and exclusion in your own land, you come to know when you're being duped. There are no rules regarding how one can tell, but I think people respond with empathy because there is an invitation to be human towards another. It is the perpetrator's remorse that becomes an invitation to humaness. This is why an act of forgiveness sets the victim apart from the perpetrator, who failed to act humanly towards the victim at the time he committed his crime. For perpetrators, when they apologize and experience remorse, it gives them a chance to reclaim their own humanity. Some rise to the moral challenge. Others of course don't care, and they continue acting with contempt.

NM: Are you saying that amnesty was just granted even to those who didn't apologize or show some kind of regret?
PG-M: Therein lies my reservation about the amnesty process, and the idea of political pardoning. What is the moral basis for pardoning perpetrators who have no regrets for what they did? You see, the Amnesty clause of the commission was borne in controversy. Some proposed that there should be no amnesty, and others urged that there should be general amnesty without any declaration of atrocities committed and without any hearings. Parliament's decision was that the granting of amnesty would only be limited to those who fulfilled three stipulations: full disclosure; the presence of political motive; and the proportionality of the crime to the political motive. Apology, regret, and remorse did not form part of the essential criteria for the granting of amnesty. This has enabled some perpetrators to treat victims with contempt, something that often leads to the retraumatization of victims at public hearings. I always felt that if amnesty were to be granted because there is acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and some indication of change of heart, or at least DESIRE to change, then the granting of amnesty would have a moral urge. However, having said all that, attitudes cannot be legislated, and perhaps the absence of an apology clause has made it easier to assess with some measure of certainty the sincerity of those who do ask forgiveness from their victims. A perpetrator's genuine apology can be one of the most empowering phases in the victim's journey with the trauma caused by the perpetrator.

NM: You were involved pretty early on with the TRC. Would you tell us what role you played before and during the TRC hearings?
PG-M: Yes I was. I worked as expert witness for human rights lawyers who were defending black activists charged by the State. Before I joined the TRC, I had taken up a teaching post in the psychology department at UCT. I was on the TRC's Human Rights Violations Committee and chaired many of the public hearings in the Western Cape region.

NM: You had the opportunity to listen to some of the victims' stories before they even went to the hearing. I can only imagine that it was an emotional experience for you. How did you cope with that?
PG-M: One of the challenges I have with sharing my experiences on the TRC is how to make it accessible without being personal about it. Being on the commission was equally challenging, particularly because most of the victims who came to the commission were black, and were women. This made their stories real in a very personal way. Being black and being a woman on the commission re-exposed me to the multiple meanings of a childhood, a student's life and a professional life under apartheid South Africa. I was not a neutral listener on the commission, a reality which, although many of us on the commission shared, we could never have admitted at the time. The commission emphasized even-handedness, and any demonstration of emotion was bound to be interpreted as proof of partiality. The task of dealing with traumatic memory that evoked one's own memory of the past without letting go of one's own emotions was no easy task to perform.

NM: Five/ten years from now, where do you hope to see South Africa in terms of reconciliation with the past?
PG-M: True reconciliation in South Africa is still elusive. People's lives haven't really changed that much. The reality is that white people continue to live privileged lives while the majority of black people live in poverty. Only a small percentage of blacks are benefiting from transformation, for example, with government policies such as affirmative action. The government has come up with very few effective programs to improve the lot of the poor. The danger of this is that if the greater challenge of economic transformation is not met, what has already been achieved in South Africa could be lost. Part of the reason there's been relative calm in South Africa is that people took pride in the fact that we now had a black government. But there might be a resurgence of anger, which could be directed at the new beneficiaries of privilege, who now happen to be black.

NM: What is the TRC legacy? And do you think the TRC was successful in what it set out to accomplish?
PG-M: What was extra-ordinary about the TRC was in being able to move people vicariously and to touch them through the remarkable stories of individuals who testified in public. A process of public accounting is important because it forces people -not just those who dealt the murderous blows, but also those who failed to speak out against the abuses of power -to come to terms with their capacity to do injustices. It re-frames justice in a way that restores dignity and hope to those who suffered under an oppressive system. It is a chance for those who were responsible for the suffering to reclaim their humanity. However, the lesson of South Africa's TRC is that one should not settle for utterances of apology and gestures of forgiveness and reconciliation. Instead, transformation should be used to address strategies for real change.

NM: What do you consider the most important achievement of the TRC?
PG-M: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a unique process in that while exposing the deeds of many perpetrators, it empowered victims in a way that no court could have done. It made them the center of its proceedings, honoring them while shaming the perpetrators. For the first time, victims enjoyed the affirmation that they were denied in the years of apartheid. Because their experiences were validated, many victims who took the stand and spoke in public about their suffering, felt justice was restored. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Commission's work are the moving stories of forgiveness by the victims as they recounted the horrors that they suffered. When the TRC started its hearings, we never expected that there would be pronouncement of forgiveness by victims. In fact, we never expected that there would be perpetrators expressing apologies and asking for forgiveness for their horrible deeds, especially since they were not required by law to apologize. There is no doubt that South Africa's TRC will hold a special place in history.

Nthabiseng Mabuza is a writer and occasional volunteer at South Africa Partners. We are grateful for the time and energy she devoted to posting this interview on our website.