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.
