1. "No Losers" Strategy
Mandela’s “No Losers” Strategy is based on his philosophy of forgiveness and reconciliation so as to heal the wounds of apartheid. Boraine claims that the Truth and Reconciliation process aimed at democratic transformation and justice but this justice was not going to be retributive justice. The focus is on healing the victims and the ruptured society.
After the decision to dismantle apartheid and change of power, the issue of dealing with the apartheid crimes gained currency. There was a strong opinion lead by Kader Asmal in favor of “a South African equivalent of Nuremberg trials” (Boraine 13). However, eventually most of the political leaders including Asmal agreed to a South African commission on truth and reconciliation.
There were lessons in successes and failures to be learnt from the experiences of other nations that were also faced with the same problem of dealing with their past and finally the best path were to be chosen. Borain writes, “The only solution, it seemed to me at the time, was that the fire of raci'sm had to be countered and overcome with another fire – a blazing love which had at its heart justice and reconciliation.” (p.19).
For a country like South Africa, it was especially important because of the social demographic of South Africa with diverse cultural and ethnic groups. Boraine wanted instead to focus on truth and reconciliation and in his draft proposal to the President, he wrote, “South Africa is a deeply divided society and a major aim for the new Government of National Unity will be to work urgently to national reconciliation. It is with this central aim in mind that it is proposed that a Commission of Truth and Reconciliation be appointed as a matter of urgency” (p.32). In case of South Africa, dealing with the past could also lead to the practical difficulty of the courts being engaged with apartheid trials for years.
The focus of the commission was not on forgetting the violent past but to acknowledge the truth and move ahead from there without vengeance. There was thus a moral basis to dealing with the problem that the truth be told and acknowledged.
2. Review the reconciliation spectrum - where would you place South Africa on it? Why?
The reconciliation between two parties after war, social disturbance, or prolonged social injustices as in case of South Africa can range from anything between mere tolerances between the two parties to assimilation and elimination of differences. In other words, the reconciliation ranges from thin or weak form of reconciliation to thick or strong form of reconciliation. In South Africa, the attempt was made at the thick form of reconciliation with “focus on forgiveness and creation of mutual trust” along with a “shared vision” for the future of the nation.
Since reconciliation is a process and not an overnight outcome, the South African case represents the three fold process beginning with simple co-existence through democratic reciprocity ending in a “comprehensive reconstruction of social bonds between victims and perpetrators”. This approach to reconciliation is advocated by David Crocker. In case of South Africa, the focus is on “democratic reciprocity” along with the future vision to construct “social bonds between victims and perpetrators”. Several political leaders in South Africa promoted this approach. For instance, Van Zyl Slabbert had written, “Those of us who take democracy seriously must redouble our efforts to encourage a mood conducive to negotiations and to bring about pressure to establish the practical conditions which make negotiations possible.” (p.28).
The reconciliation spectrum can also be seen as reflected in the kind of justice being meted out to the victims. The logic of retributive justice represents one extreme end of this spectrum. The other end is the restorative justice. The advocates of the retributive justice uphold it on the claim of the rule of law and the victims’ rights. In case of South Africa, retributive justice is out of question, while the focus is on truth seeking on the assumption that knowledge of what happened in the past must be unearthed for successful reconciliation to take place.
Restitution is often a part of reconciliation strategy along with truth seeking. There can be different forms of restitution such as “compensation or reparations in cash or kind, provision of health services, symbolic restoration, public apologies, and efforts to advance social integration.” (Lecture Notes 4).
Boraine claims that “there are compelling a reasons, why a Commission of Truth and Reconciliation could actually assist the healing process” (P.33). The first reason states, “The past cannot be avoided and if attempts are made to conceal or ignore past violations of human rights it could make reconciliation even more difficult”. Boraine also claims that the cost of hiding the truth can be simply too high. In addition, if the victims are to be compensated, the truth of victimization has to be unearthed.
It is evident that in case of South Africa, a stronger form of reconciliation has been attempted at with the major focus on admitting and acknowledging the truth which would form the basis of compensation, mutual recognition and admission of something wrong in the past and a determination to not commit those same mistakes in the future.
Works Cited
Boraine, Alex. A Country Unmasked, Oxford University Press, 2001
Politics of Reconciliation, Online Class, Module 1 - Notes
