Forgiveness is not giving up...............

In many protracted and deep-rooted conflicts, apology and forgiveness are essential for reconciliation and conflict resolution. As long as one side continues to blame the other (or both sides blame each other) for their problems, healing cannot occur, and normal relationships based on mutual acceptance and trust cannot be formed.

Apology is often a difficult step, as it requires acknowledging guilt. However, the lack of apology suggests to the other side that its opponent thinks that its behaviour was appropriate. This creates the fear that the opponent’s unjust or violent behaviour will continue. An apology is a signal, more than anything, that the opponent regrets its actions and wants to rebuild a new relationship on a stronger foundation.

Forgiveness is also critical for reconciliation. Many people refuse to forgive, feeling that forgiveness is essentially "giving up" or "letting the enemy get away with" their actions. Revenge or punishment, they feel, is the only way to achieve "justice." Yet the need for revenge or punishment can delay or even prohibit the resolution of a conflict, as fear of retaliation can keep an opponent from accepting guilt and apologizing. For this reason, it is often superior to forgive an opponent’s deeds--even if they were atrocities, to stop further atrocities from happening.

Forgiveness is not giving up, but is rather an acknowledgment of the past and a willingness to move on in a new way for the benefit of both sides. This is superior to revenge, because revenge only continues the conflict and the pain. "The more common misperception is that by performing acts of revenge, one’s hurt will go away. This notion blocks people from coming out of their pain and moving on

Forgiveness becomes institutionalized when amnesty is granted for war crimes or political crimes against a particular ethnic group (as occurred in South Africa in the apartheid era, for instance). Some people, both within and outside the victim groups, feel strongly that such crimes should be prosecuted and the perpetrators punished. This is the only way to obtain justice, it is argued, which many believe is required before a lasting peace can be obtained.
Others, however, saying that prosecution and punishment will just prolong the pain, not end it. A better solution, many argue, is recognition of the past, and amnesty for the perpetrators of violence.



The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is one example of this approach. There perpetrators of violence on both sides of the conflict (white and black) are encouraged to testify about their deeds, after which they are granted amnesty for their actions. While some South Africans object to the Reconciliation Commission, it seems evident that the successful transition to black majority rule could not have occurred as it did without such an amnesty process. South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was a court-like body assembled in South Africa after the end of Apartheid. Anybody who felt they had been a victim of violence could come forward and be heard at the TRC. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from prosecution.

The formal hearings began on 15 April 1996. The hearings made international news and many sessions were broadcast on national television. The TRC was a crucial component of the transition to full and free democracy in South Africa and, despite some flaws, is generally regarded as very successful.

Creation and Mandate the TRC was set up in terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No 34 of 1995, and was based in Cape Town. The mandate of the commission was to bear witness to, record and in some cases grant amnesty to the perpetrators of crimes relating to human rights violations, reparation and rehabilitation.

The TRC has a number of high profile members: Archbishop Desmond Tutu (chairperson), Dr Alex Boraine (Deputy Chairperson), Mary Burton, Advocate Chris de Jager, Bongani Finca, Sisi Khampepe, Richard Lyster, Wynand Malan, Reverend Khoza Mgojo, Hlengiwe Mkhize, Dumisa Ntsebeza (head of the Investigative Unit), Wendy Orr, Advocate Denzil Potgieter, Mapule Ramashala, Dr Faizel Randera, Yasmin Sooka and Glenda Wildschut.

Committees

The work of the TRC was accomplished through three committees: Human Rights Violations (HRV) Committee investigated human rights abuses that took place between 1960 and 1994.

Reparation and Rehabilitation (R&R) Committee was charged with restoring victims' dignity and formulating proposals to assist with rehabilitation.

Amnesty Committee (AC) considered applications for amnesty that were requested in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I .In theory the commission was empowered to grant amnesty to those charged with atrocities during Apartheid as long as two conditions were met: The crimes were politically motivated and the entire and whole truth was told by the person seeking amnesty.

No one was exempt from being charged. As well as ordinary citizens, members of the police could be charged and, most notably, members of the African National Congress, the ruling party at the time of the trial, could also be charged. 5392 people were refused amnesty and 849 were granted amnesty, out of 7112 petitioners (there were a number of additional categories, such as withdrawn).

Findings the commission brought forth many witnesses giving testimony about the secret and immoral acts committed by the Apartheid Government, the liberation forces including the ANC, and other forces for violence that many say would not have come out into the open otherwise.

On October 28, 1998 the Commission presented its report, which condemned both sides for committing atrocities.