Truth, National Unity and Reconciliation in South Africa: A aspects of ...

Guided by the provisions of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act,we may isolate certain terms, concepts and categories to help us evaluate the vision,mandate and objectives of both the Act and the TRC itself.Gross Violation of Human RightsThe TRC is required to investigate, as fully as possible, the nature, causes andextent of what the Act terms “gross violations of human rights.” But what constitutesgross human right violations? Can we assume that the very notion of human rightspresupposed in the term is either feasible or acceptable in our situation? 10 Anobvious problem with the category and its definition is the question whether it ispossible to isolate among the oppressed those who have been grossly violated, asopposed to those who were minimally violated, in the light of the fact that Apartheidwas declared a crime against humanity? It must be noted “that the injustice, the guilt,the suffering in South Africa were very much greater than what was caused by thesespecific and serious human rights violations ... [therefore the whole] truth can neverbe told” 11 in the context of a commission.With its focus on gross violations of human rights, the TRC's pursuit for thetruth has serious limitations. 12 This approach tends to concentrate on the bloody andgruesome details of the activities of the “foot soldiers” who carried out instructions,without getting to the thinkers, planners and legitimisers of Apartheid's criminalactivities, except by way of implication. To attract attention, such implication musthowever not only be extremely embarrassing to the officials concerned, but it mustalso encompass the bloody and the gruesome. This has been the situation in thecase of the former minister of police, Adriaan Vlok, whose name has been mentionedin connection with, amongst other things, the bombing of the South African Councilof Churches (SACC) offices. He has recently applied for amnesty. But strictlyspeaking a cabinet minister whose policies led to police shooting black children; auniversity professor who defended Apartheid as an intelligent, rational and workablesystem, or a minister of education whose policies ensured that black education waspoor and under-financed, has “little” to disclose before the TRC. This is one of thethings that limits the ability of the TRC to serve a truly national and symbolic function.For unless those who did the thinking, planning and the leading can own up to theirroles, the chances that those who followed will do the same with honesty andintegrity are very slim.Yet, we must acknowledge that despite the limited nature of what the TRCseeks to probe, the investigation of gross human right violations may still serve aninformative, symbolic and ritual purpose for many South Africans – especially thosewho did not realise that there was something seriously wrong going on. 1310 For example, Van Schalkwyk argues that while, “this 'universal' concept of human rights mayto some extent have allowed for some emancipation (of women) in highly industrialised countries, ithas left the women [and men] of the Third World in bondage”, Van Schalkwyk, Annalet. Review ofGnanadason, Aruna, Kanyoro, Musimbi; McSpadden, Lucia Ann (eds). 1996 Women, Violence andNonviolent Change. Geneva: WCC. Missionalia 24:1 (April 1996), p.99.11 Smit, Dirkie J. “The truth and Reconciliation Commission ...” 1996, p.14 .12 I have not been able to find precise explanations and justification for the focus on “grossviolations of human rights” – not even in the Act itself. Without questioning its symbolic usefulness andits potential for triggering reconciliation, this specific focus on human rights violations is but one out ofmany other possible perspectives on South Africa's past.13 Part of the reason for this narrow delimitation of scope is probably driven by the need to

Cut-Off DatesThe provision that 1 March 1960 be the date of commencement for activities to beprobed is probably also related to the need for clearly delimited frames of referenceas well as negotiations-inspired compromises. 14 Here again, it can be pointed outthat 1960 is very late in the genealogy of oppression and dispossession of blackpeople. Was it not in 1913 that the infamous Land Act was passed, to ensure thatwhile the whites owned 87% of the land, blacks could only share a paltry 13%? 15These and other questions can and have indeed been posed in relation to the choiceof March 1960 16 to April 1994 as cut-off dates for the TRC process.Amnesty vs ReparationThe Act further provides for “the granting of amnesty to persons who make fulldisclosure of all the relevant facts... 17 ” This has perhaps been one of the most difficultaspects of the Act for the victims of gross human violations – the fact that personswho make full disclosure can be pardoned just for telling “the truth.” It is significantthat the Act does not require the perpetrators to demonstrate any remorse or showany willingness to make reparations for their actions. This is one of the reasons whythe TRC legislation has been described as weak. In terms of the Act, all that isrequired is for them to make a full disclosure 18 .Also, whereas the committee on amnesty has the power to grant amnesty, theRehabilitation and Reparations (R & R) committee – which deals with reparations forvictims – can only make recommendations to either the president or a parliamentarystanding committee. It appears therefore that it is firmly within the competencies ofthe commission to grant or not to grant amnesty to perpetrators but its hand is not sostrong in the case of reparations for the victims. 19 This means that while the TRC is“demarcate the core issues in the South African case and particularly those which are politicallyfeasible” , see Du Toit, André, in Boraine et al. op cit. p.131.14 Asmal, Kader et al.; op. cit. p.9.15 See, Mayende, Peter, “The Land Question: Prospects for the next millennium”. 1996.(Unpublished paper).16 Notable here is that while the commencement date of 1960 has neither been changed normuch debated, the cut-off date for the process has been shifted from the originally agreed date ofDecember 1993 to May 1994. This was mostly due to pressure from the white right wing groups,which continued their acts of sabotage and killing in the run-up to, during and after the 1994 elections.17 Statutes of the Republic ..., p.801.18 I have found the spirited arguments of Asmal et al. op. cit. p.17 unconvincing. They arguethat the Act leaves scope for “the creative discretion of the commission” to impose a “contritionrequirement” on the amnesty applicant. Furthermore, they argue that the commission may choose torequire an acknowledgement of sorrow on the part of a perpetrator seeking amnesty because“apology is the most obvious form of reparation.” Their arguments are too strained to be persuasive.What they cannot deny is the fact that the Act does not require contrition, sorrow or apology from theamnesty applicants, but only “full disclosure.” An even more recent article by the director of the TRC'sResearch Department confirms my view: “For many, not least the victims, this is not enough.Contrition and repentance are regarded as a basic minimum. Reality, however, requires us to settlefor less”. Villa-Vicencio, Charles. “Reconciling our people”. Sunday Times. 23 February, 1997, p.2.19 Towards the end of 1996, the Rehabilitation and Reparations Committee was reported to be“developing proposals for Urgent Interim Reparation measures,” to be completed in March 1998 andto be presented to the President and finally to be tabled in parliament for approval. Truth Talk. Vol 1No 1. November. “Urgent Relief for Victims Proposed” ... 1996, p.2.

able to “finalise” what it can offer to amnesty applicants, it is unable to do the samefor victims. Beyond the complex arguments 20 about whether the TRC ought to begiven more judicial teeth so that it could adopt a “prosecution-centred” approach, ablanket-amnesty approach, etc., there is the feeling that as things stand now, thescales are tilted slightly in favour of perpetrators. Indeed, the very clause of theinterim constitution that gave rise to the TRC process speaks mainly of amnesty andnot of reparations. 21Touching the Nation?The Act further asserts that through the TRC victims will be granted “opportunity torelate the violations they suffered” so that measures aimed at their reparation,rehabilitation and restoration may be taken. Specific “principles to govern actions ofCommission when dealing with victims” 22 – all aimed at helping the victims – are laidout. However, as pointed out in several instances above, the opportunity to relateone's story and the respectful treatment afforded one, may still not be enough. Somepeople have criticised the TRC precisely on this point, namely that the legislationmakes it “... easy for the perpetrators to get amnesty [but the victims],... they don'tget justice, they don't get the truth. They just get their stories recorded.” 23The image of the TRC as merely a “forum for tears” or a “Tears andReconciliation Commission” is a worrying one – but one which should not be allowedto trivialise the issues, for there is therapy in remembering and crying. Who canforget some of the hearings where, not only the victims, but the commissioners andcounsellors themselves cried with the victims? 24 The crunch question here is whetherSouth Africa, South African churches and especially white South Africa even took thetime to let themselves be touched by such moving moments? On the whole, itappears that while black people are following the proceedings of the TRC with atouch of lame curiosity, many white people appear to treat TRC proceedings withdisdainful apathy. While white amnesty applicants have been steadily appearingbefore the TRC's Amnesty Committee, white people in general are still conspicuous20 See Asmal et al. op. cit. p.19f.21 See, Omar, Dullah 1996. “Introduction to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission”. In,Botman, Russel H. & Petersen, Robin M. (Eds). Op. Cit., 1996, p.25.22 Statutes of the Republic, p. 813.23 Sean O'Leary of the Peace and Justice Department, South African Catholic Bishop'sConference quoted in, Colvin, Ross. “Doubts about the Truth”. The Argus. 15 January 1996, p.14. Seealso, Bam, Brigalia. “The Church in South Africa”. In, Pityana, Barney & Villa Vicencio, Charles. BeingChurch in South Africa today, Johannesburg: South African Council of Churches. 1995, p.49. Bamexpresses concern that “the commission seems to emphasize amnesty for the perpetrators ofoppression as a means of obtaining the truth. The need is a priority for the victims. The perpetratorshave had their day and they have had their say.” Even the TRC is aware that some people tend to“dub us „the Kleenex Commission‟ because of the tissues we give to witnesses to wipe away theirtears” Truth Talk. The Official Newsletter of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Volume 1Number 1. November, p.2, 1996.24 An editorial in a local newspaper voiced clear disapproval of such public display of emotion,especially by the Truth Commissioners. See “Restrained Empathy”. Business Day . 22 April 1996,p.10. The author(s) argue thus: “Two aspects of the commission's conduct give grounds for concern.One is the theological ethos surrounding the affair, accentuated by chairman Desmond Tutu'scassock, the hymn singing and the pre-hearing services ... . The second concern relates to thebearing of the commissioners and Tutu in particular. He is a compassionate man of strong emotions,but restrained empathy rather than tears are appropriate in his position, both as a source of strengthto the victims and to uphold the commissioners' impartiality.”

y their absence and disinterest. Surely, the TRC is not of concern only to theperpetrators of gross human rights violations and their victims. It should be a trulynational issue, able to touch the conscience of the entire nation. Is it, has it and will itbe able to do that? Have serious efforts been made to ensure that “our whole nationfeels the victims' pain and atones for past evils?” 25 What criteria can we use todetermine whether “our whole nation” has been touched?THE CHURCH AND THE TRCIs the Church Represented in the TRC?The presence of prominent church people in the TRC – especially thechairpersonship of the charismatic African ecumenical giant and veteran anti-Apartheid campaigner, Desmond Tutu – as commissioners and as members of subcommitteesmay tend to make many people feel that the church is “well represented”in the TRC. 26 But this could be an erroneous assumption to make.We must never forget that the TRC is a juridical entity with a political ratherthan a spiritual or theological agenda. To that end all those appointed to it areappointed not by churches, nor to serve the cause of the churches; they are allappointed to it by the President of South Africa in accordance with the provisions ofthe Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act. It is therefore erroneous toassume that the presence of church people in the commission means that thechurch is represented in it or that its objectives spiritual and theological. This sameerror is displayed when church people assume Christian and churchly concerns arerepresented in the present South African government, just because we have manyformer church leaders in it. 27 We must never forget that whilst these people mayhave come out of the churches, they have not been deployed in government or in theTRC by the churches.A different interpretation of their presence there is in fact possible. Theirpresence in the TRC and the government could be both an indictment of and a lossto the churches; in either case the church cannot assume that they represent her.While they may have acquired their leadership skills in church organisations it maybe that “they were not produced by the Church in South Africa.... If we had waited forthe Church in South Africa to give us these (theologians), we would have never had25 Storey, Peter. “Until our whole nation feels the victims' pain and atones for past evils, everysacrifice will have been in vain”. Sunday Independent, 21 April 1996, p.4.26 Although a trifle satirical, Mark Gevisser's characterisation of Bishop Tutu is not entirelyinaccurate: “If the grave and plodding Nelson Mandela is our reliable father, then that hyperactive littlefigure in ermine at his side is our naughty uncle; the one who carries all the family's emotionalbaggage, weeping for us when we grieve, dancing when we celebrate.” Gevisser, Mark. “The ultimatetest of Faith”. Mail & Guardian. 18 April 1996, p.12,. To Tutu's name, we may add those of equallyprominent church people in the TRC, vice-chairperson Alex Boraine (former Methodist minister),Khoza Mgojo, (liberation theologian and former president of the SACC), Charles Villa-Vicencio (prolifictheologian and now head of the Research sub-committee of the TRC), Bongani Finca (church leaderand prominent ecumenist), Tom Manthata (former employee of the Justice and Reconciliation divisionin the SACC), Rev Xundu and Professor Piet Meiring (current moderator of the Eastern TransvaalSynod of the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC).27 Frank Chikane (formerly SACC general secretary, now director general for the VicePresident's Office); Smangaliso Mkhatshwa (formerly Institute for Contextual Theology (ICT) generalsecretary, now deputy minister of education); Arnold Stofile (premier of the Eastern Cape region);Chris Nissen, and many others.

South African ecumenical movement was in the forefront of the sanctions debateboth in terms of economic sanctions but also of “ecumenical sanctions,” by formingstrong lobbies in global ecumenical organisations such as the World Council ofChurches (WCC) and World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC). For more thantwenty years, therefore, the prophetic and activist strand in South African ecumenismwas laying the foundations for real and truthful reconciliation, pointing out theinjustices and acting out the possible solutions. The churches cannot be opposed tothe truth and reconciliation process. To oppose it would mean that they are turningtheir backs on their own history of struggle. But they must do more than merely “notbe opposed” to it. They need to accompany the TRC critically, to ensure that itbecomes much more than a legal entity or a “tears forum.” In order to do thismeaningfully, church and theological formations must dig back into the reflectionsand activities of the South African ecumenical movement to find criteria againstwhich the present TRC process may be evaluated. It is this reservoir of propheticSouth African ecumenism, rather than the fuzzy reservoir of “New South Africanism,”that must inform both the reflections and activities of Christians as they seek toensure that the TRC succeeds in its mandate.Actual Church InvolvementA few church organisations and denominations have gone on record as expressingtheir support for the TRC process. 36 Indeed, the significant number of people fromreligious organisations in the TRC and its committees can be taken to mean thatreligious bodies are at least not opposed to its efforts. While sections and individualsfrom the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) have publicly supported the TRC process, 37the official organs of the DRC have expressed reservations. 38 But the TRC concernsall church groupings in South Africa and not only the DRC. A few formal and positiveresponses of support by church-related organisations, such as the Research Instituteon Christianity in South Africa (RICSA) at the University of Cape Town, thetheological faculty of the University of the Western Cape, and a statement of churchleaders within the SACC have also been made. 39 But the truth is that there has been“very little of the response of the religious community to this profound challenge.” 40Where and when such specific responses to the TRC have happened, they havebeen at the behest of individual congregations, individual ministers or by highlyspecified and specialised groupings, with very little coordination or cooperation. Afew individual persons associated with the church have written on the possible ways36 See, for example, the article titled “SA Salvation Army supports Truth body”. The Citizen. 6July 1996, p.9.37 See, Retief, Johan. “Kerkbode roep NGK op om te bely oor sy swye”. Die Burger. 4 May1996, p.7, 1996. However, in an editorial, the Afrikaner newspaper charges that Tutu forced the DutchReformed Church (DRC) to support the TRC. “Tutu Dwing die NG Kerk”. Afrikaner. 4 April 1996, p.2.See also the story of an Afrikaans minister who, right at the beginning, sent a letter of confession andapology to the TRC on his own behalf and on behalf of his people. Pretorius, Willem. “Vergewe My,vra Afrikaanse dominee in brief aan WVK”. Beeld. 24 April 1996, p.1.38 For a fuller discussion of the relationship between the DRC and the TRC, see de Villiers,Etienne. “The Challenge of the Afrikaans Churches”. In, Botman, Russel H. & Petersen, Robin M.(Eds) op. cit, 140-153.39 Botman, Russel 1996. “Pastoral Care and Counselling in Truth and Reconciliation: Types andForms of Pastoral Work”. In, Botman, Russel H. & Petersen, Robin M. (Eds) op. cit. p.155-157.40 Botman, H., Petersen, Robin 1996. “Introduction”. In, Botman, Russel H. & Petersen, RobinM. (Eds) ibid. p.12.

in which the church might respond to the TRC process. 41 In one such article, PietMeiring, now a TRC commissioner himself, makes several suggestions on what thechurch can do to support the TRC process. 42 In another article, SmangalisoMkhatshwa also urges the churches to accompany the TRC process in specificways. 43 A slightly more complex set of recommendations on what the churches cando to critically accompany the TRC process is presented by Dirkie Smit. 44 It is,therefore, not as if churches and church organisations have been opposed to orhighly critical of the TRC process. On the contrary, those churches and individualswho have spoken out or written, have given their support to the TRC process. Norhas there been a lack of practical suggestions on what the church should do – asindicated above. What is clear however, is that there is a lack of an enthusiastic, wellthought out, loud and coordinated response equal to the national significance of theTRC.THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONSThe most substantial single collection of theological reflections on the TRC processso far, is probably to be found in the book edited by Botman and Petersen. 45 Whilemost of the contributors to the volume raise critical questions on the TRC process orits reception, almost all of them are agreed about its cathartic potential for the wholeof South Africa. Other theological reflections also share this basic standpoint. 46 Thereis little question about the need for the church and Christian theologians toaccompany the TRC process because “the notions of „truth‟ and „reconciliation‟ lie atthe heart of at least the Christian tradition” 47 and “Christianity is the religion ofreconciliation” 48 so truth and reconciliation “is our job, the industry we work in ... [and41 One such a person is Bishop Peter Storey of the Methodist Church. He has written a seriesof reflections on the TRC in The Sunday Independent during 1996.42 Meiring, Piet. “Die Kerk en die WVK. Voorstelle vir praktiese hulp” . Beeld. 2 April, p.12, 1996.The suggestions he makes include: ownership of the process, help with the dissemination ofinformation, preparedness to encourage and help members to testify, critical reflection on the process,thinking about alternative methods of reparation, and counselling for both perpetrators and victims.43 Mkhatshwa, Smangaliso. “The Truth Will Make us Free”. Challenge Magazine. No 34.Feb/March, p.4, 1996. He suggests that the church should: help explain to ordinary people what theTRC is all about, help in the identification of victims, advising them to approach the TRC, help victimsapply for compensation, encourage perpetrators to come forward and confess, help arrange contactsbetween perpetrators and their victims where possible, and help with counselling.44 Smit, Dirkie J. “The Truth and Reconciliation Commission ... “p.12-13. He suggests that theTRC process invokes amongst other things, the following from the churches: a vigorous reflection onchurch-state relations, churches should take the initiative in confessing their own guilt, to provide “amoral interpretation of our past,” to expose the human tendency to escape guilt by all manner ofexcuses and to point out that in forgiving we may also need to forget “our bitter feelings of revenge.”See also, Villa-Vicencio. “On taking Responsibility”. In, Botman, Russel H. & Petersen, Robin M.(Eds). op. cit. p.131-139, 1996. In this article, Villa Vicencio moots the idea “of an inclusive, interreligious,multi-cultural act of repentance and renewal,” p.137.45 See the contributions of Botman, H. Russel and Petersen, Robin M. in the work they jointlyedited op. cit.46 See, Smit, Dirkie. “The Truth Commission ... “. and De Gruchy, John W. “ Guilt, Amnesty andNational Reconstruction”. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa. June. No. 83. 1993, 3-13.47 Botman & Petersen. “Introduction”. To Remember and To Heal ... p.12.48 Moltmann, Jürgen. God means Freedom. Nairobi: Association of Theological Institutions inEastern Africa 1992, p.63.

the] reason for our existence.” 49Christian Traditions and Theologies as a ResourceThe idea of a TRC is, in all probability, borrowed from the Roman Catholic model ofpenance, confession and absolution. The very language of “truth” and “reconciliation”has been central to the Christian tradition since its inception. But there is a veryspecial recent resource for reflection on truth, confession and amnesty; namely thedilemmas faced by German churches and theologians during and after the First andSecond World Wars. 50 These two sources offer Christians a rich reserve oftheological tools with which to enter the current South African debate. A few SouthAfrican theologians have tapped into these twin reserves in their attempt to reflect onthe South African situation. Ackermann argues that what South Africans – especiallyWhite South Africans – need is publicly “to lament the injustice and the pain of thepast “ – a practice which she traces both the Old Testament and to more recentSouth African political activism of groups such as the Black Sash. 51 Similarly, incalling for white South Africans to respond positively to Mandela's “politics of grace,”Petersen borrows from both Barthian and Augustinian theology. 52 Invoking theLiberation Theology themes of justice and a preferential option for the poor, WillaBoesak calls for all South Africans, including white South Africans, to demonstratewrathfulness towards Apartheid, its perpetrators and its consequences, instead ofexpecting “a kind of unnatural 'Christian patience' from Black people.” 53 A veryspecific notion from the Judaeo-Christian tradition that has been invoked in thediscussion of the TRC process is the Old Testament idea of Jubilee. Molefe Tselesees such projects as the TRC, the Reconstruction and Development Programme(RDP), Affirmative Action and Nation Building as opportunities “to give a historicalrealisation of the Jubilee spirit.” 54 An obvious resource from the Christian traditionwhich is used by almost all those who have attempted to reflect on the TRC processis the Bible. 55 The spectrum of themes such as memory, confession, truth andforgiveness is so central to Christian tradition and so relevant to recent historicalevents that theological evaluation of the TRC should come very naturally. 56There is, therefore, a steadily growing number of theological reflections on theTRC and on the larger issues of national reconciliation. But a lot more could still bedone. My feeling is that what I have called “the prophetic strand of South African49 Smit, Dirkie. “The Truth and Reconciliation ...” p.3.50 See, for example, De Gruchy. “Guilt Amnesty and National Reconstruction ... .”51 Ackermann, Denise. “On Hearing and Lamenting: Faith and Truth-Telling”. In, Botman,Russel H. & Petersen, Robin M. (Eds) op. cit, 1996, p.52.52 Petersen, Robin M.” The Politics of Grace and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission”. In,Botman, Russel H. & Petersen, Robin M. (eds) op. cit., 1996, p. 57-64.53 Boesak, Willa. “Truth, Justice and Reconciliation”. In, Botman, Russel H. & Petersen, RobinM. (eds) op. cit. 1996 p.67.54 Tsele, Molefe. “Kairos and Jubilee”. In, Botman, Russel H. & Petersen, Robin M. (eds). op. cit1996, p.75.55 See, Kistner, Wolfram. “The Biblical Understanding of Reconciliation”. In, Botman, Russel H.& Petersen, Robin M. (Eds). Op.cit., p.79-95.56 See the excellent articles of Smit, Dirkie J. “The Truth and Reconciliation Commission ...” andalso “Confession-Guilt-Truth-and-Forgiveness in the Christian Tradition”. In, Botman, Russel H. &Petersen, Robin M. (eds) op.cit. 96-117. See also, Du Toit, Cornel 1996. “Dealing with the Past”. Alsoin, Botman, Russel H. & Petersen, Robin M. (eds) p.118-128.

ecumenism” has yet to be seriously exploited in our theological reflections on theissues of national reconciliation.CONCLUDING PROPOSALSWithout extensive elaboration, I want to conclude by outlining a few further areaswhich require theological reflection if we are to accompany the TRC process in asufficiently critical way for it to become a fruitful exercise.Theological ConfusionPart of the reason why the South African theological community has been unable toaccompany the TRC process critically is the fact that there is a discernibletheological and ecclesiastical confusion in South Africa today. 57 Its clearestmanifestation has been in the rather strained and almost artificial search for a “newerthan new” theological discourse beyond and different from the discourses usedbefore. 58 At the root of this search is the feeling that, since there has beenfundamental change in South Africa, theology and churches must respondaccordingly. 59 This search for a new theological discourse has not been restricted toSouth Africa, but is indeed a global and a continental phenomenon. 60 It is the radicalchanges in the world that occurred in the late 1980s – effectively bringing an end tothe cold war – that are causing theologians and church organisations to think again.South Africa has once again become a microcosm of the changes in the world.Added to this confusion is the fact that some of the very people who, until veryrecently, would have taken the lead in giving theological direction and ecclesiasticalleadership are serving in our government and its instruments. The very search for a“novum,” a “new kairos,” “new terrains” and “new theological maps” 61 is a symptomof the confusion, more than it is a sign of a sober search for alternatives. Many ofthese “searches” do not take serious account of ground already captured by previouslocal theologies. Unable to mobilise its resources and speak boldly to the newsituation, it seems that even the “liberal progressive branch” of South Africantheology and South African ecumenism is, at least for now, only able to engage in57 See, Maluleke, Tinyiko S. “The Proposal for a Theology of Reconstruction: A criticalappraisal”. Missionalia. 22:3 (November 1994) 245-258; “Black Theology Lives! On a permanentCrisis”. Journal of Black Theology in South Africa. 9:1 (May 1995) 1-30; “Black and African Theologiesin the New World Order. A Time to Drink From Our Own Wells”. Journal of Theology for SouthernAfrica. No 96. (November 1996) 3-19; ” Recent Developments in the Christian Theologies of Africa:Towards the twenty-first Century”. Journal of Constructive Theology. 2:2 (December 1996) 33-60.58 See, Maluleke, Tinyiko Sam. “A Critical Look at Some New Theologies” Challenge Magazine.No. 41, April/May 1997, pp 20, 21 & 28.59 See, De Gruchy, John W. Christianity and Democracy: A Theology for a just World Order.Cape Town; David Philip, 1995; Pityana, Nyameko Barney. Beyond Transition: The Evolution ofTheological Method in South Africa: A Cultural Approach. Ph.D. thesis. Cape Town: University of CapeTown, 1995; Villa-Vicencio, Charles . A Theology of Reconstruction: Nation-Building and HumanRights. Cape Town: David Philip, 1992; Petersen, Robin. “Changing Paradigms of South AfricanProphetic Theology”. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa. No 95. (July 1996) 76-81.60 See, Bediako, Kwame. Christianity in Africa: The Renewal of a Non-Western Religion.Edinburgh; University Press, 1995; Mugambi, J.N.K. From Liberation to Reconstruction: AfricanChristian Theology After the Cold War. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers, 1995; Sanneh,Lamin. Translating the Message. The Missionary Impact on Culture. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1989.61 Petersen, Robin. “Changing Paradigms ...” p.76.

the building of theological castles in the air. Therefore we have seen an alarmingincrease in the manufacture of “new” theologies, most of which fail to respond to thesituation of the “victims of gross violations of human rights” – if I may borrow thatrather narrow perspective. These new theologies either tend to sing praises toNelson Mandela and his government 62 or engage “the new world order” in highlymiddle class terms by seeking to “strengthen or deepen” such vogue notions asuniversal human rights, nation-building, political economy, civil society, democracy,etc. 63 Where and when theological comment on the TRC has been attempted, it hasbeen at these levels of human rights campaigns, nation-building and the creation ofa civil society. But there is neither historical nor compelling proof that human rightscampaigns, nation-building exercises, excellent constitutions or very civil societieshave led to the extermination of racism, sexism and poverty – the latter three issues,being what I would consider priorities in our theological discourse.National Unity, Human RightsAlmost all the theological comment on the TRC process to date has tended to takethese and other related notions at their face value. 64 Though espoused as an idealtowards which South Africa is supposed to strive, the idea of national unity is boththeologically problematic and difficult to put into practice. This is especially so inSouth Africa. Apart from the horizontal divisions of culture, caste and language,South Africans are divided vertically and therefore even more seriously by class,race, memory or history and wealth. Given these circumstances, we do need to askourselves what exactly the goal and nature of such “national unity” would be. Tutu'svision of a “rainbow nation” is a subtle modification of the idea of a united nation 65 forit recognises some differences; but still, the rainbow is “one thing,” not severalthings. I think that we need to think more critically both about the precise ways inwhich we envision “national unity” and about whether and how the notion istheologically sustainable. It seems to me that we cannot simply substitute a broader“national unity” for previous Apartheid nationalism(s), without engaging the notions ofnationalism and national unity themselves. A good example of the ambivalence ofthe notion of “nationalism” is that South Africa's pursuit of “national unity” is, bydefinition, designed to exclude the Malawians, Mozambicans, Batswanas, Swazis,Zimbabweans, etc, who are not only resident in South Africa, but have contributedimmensely to the development of South Africa over the years. Yet, Europeans andNorth Americans can easily benefit from South Africa's new found nationalismthrough their skills, wealth and their multi-national companies. Only such “prior”reflection will equip us to comment with theological intelligence on the TRC which is,after all, only supposed to be one of the instruments to help us on the road to“national unity.”62 See, Petersen, Robin M. “The Politics of Grace... “ and Botman, Russel H. “NarrativeChallenges in a Situation of Transition”. Both in, Botman, Russel H. and Petersen, Robin M. 1996.(eds). op.cit, p.57-64 and 37-44 respectively. Petersen suggests, for example, that “... a theologicalreading of the politics of the ANC in general, and Nelson Mandela in particular, now illuminates thegospel in a new way. For what is being practised by Mandela can only be described as a politics ofgrace – grace in the full blown, unadulterated sense of forgiveness and restoration...” p.57.63 See Villa Vicencio, Charles A Theology of Reconstruction ... , and De Gruchy, John W.Christianity and Democracy ... .64 See, Maluleke, Tinyiko S. “The Proposals for a Theology of Reconstruction ...”65 Tutu, Desmond. The Rainbow People of God. London: Bantam Books, 1995.

I have already hinted at the problematic nature of the notion of universalhuman rights – a notion which is the main pole around which the tasks of the TRCrotate. The human rights movement is certainly one of the significant facets oftwentieth century Europe and North America, in the same league as the anti-slaverycampaigns of the past two centuries. 66 However, it is at least problematic to speak ofuniversal human rights – not only because European and American cultures, uponwhich the global craze for human rights is based, are not universal, but also becausethe presence of law and human rights bills do not necessarily translate into humandignity and prosperity, especially in the Third World. We need more than humaneconstitutions with human rights bills and intelligent debates and campaigns aboutthem. Such constitutions, bills, debates and campaigns can easily become hollow.Here once again, it seems that only thorough theological reflection on these kinds ofissues will ensure a fruitful appraisal of the TRC process.Hi-jacked Christian SymbolsThe nature of both the TRC and the present South African government, especially aspersonified in personalities such as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu, isbewitching. Part of the reason why it is so bewitching is the religious language andsymbolism that it uses to outline its visions. Central to the gesticulations, symbols,signs and rituals of the Mandela government is the idea of reconciliation. This ideais, as indicated above, central to the Christian doctrines of salvation andpersonhood. And since South Africa is, nominally speaking, an overwhelminglyChristian country, the reconciliation project strikes some live chords in the hearts ofthe millions of nominal Christians. But, as Dirkie Smit has said, “South Africa is notthe kingdom of God ... [not even the New South Africa!]. The logic of Christianconfession of guilt and forgiveness is not the logic of the public, political andeconomic world. The grammar of Christian contrition, confession and absolution isnot the grammar of public jurisprudence.” 67 For this reason we should not equate “fulldisclosure” with sorrowful Christian confession or the granting of amnesty with theChristian practice of absolution. Furthermore, South Africa is a predominantlyProtestant Christian country, with the African Independent Churches taking the lead,as opposed to say, Argentina or Chile – where such public reconciliation processeswere held – which are predominantly Catholic countries. The question is whether thenotions of (public) confession and forgiveness (absolution) will be able to touch andmove South Africans?Theology of the StateClosely related to the above discussion is the need for the construction of anindependent, prophetic and liberational theology of the state. To construct such atheology, we must be able to penetrate the fog created by what the media has called“Mandela magic.” One of the myths we have to bury is the idea that South Africantheology had a clearly worked out theology of the state during the Apartheid years.The truth is that some churches and theologians supported the state, while othersresisted it in activist, praxis-oriented terms. But there was no clearly worked out66 See Dowdall, Terry. “Psychological Aspects of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission”. In,Botman, Russel H. and Petersen, Robin M. (Eds). op.cit p. 27.67 Smit, Dirkie J. “The Truth and Reconciliation Commission ... “ p.12.

theology of the state – except among churches such as the DRC, which supportedthe state.This is the time to begin to systematically build such a theology or suchtheologies of the state – not a time to shy away from it because of some mistakenbelief that we have less to worry about in relation to the present state. Part of ourproblem is that while South African churches and Christianity in general havetraditionally claimed to be “the conscience of society,” today “a politician in power, byvirtue of having been voted in power by the people, claims to be the conscience ofsociety as well. So now there is a very live issue; where does the conscience ofsociety lie? With the religious institutions or with the politicians?” 68 This could explainpart of the crisis of credibility that South African churches are facing.Although I have pointed out the limited nature of the TRC‟s focus on victims ofgross human rights violations it is still possible for us to make a preferential option forthese “victims” insofar as they are representative and symbolic of the larger issues ofinjustice at stake. This is where the theological weight should fall in our pursuit for acredible theology of the state.The TRC Process as a National RitualIn the light of all the practical and theological questions we have raised above, itseems to me that the best that the TRC can be expected to deliver – if at all – is a“baby” and not a finished product. The baby will still need to be nurtured andsocialised until all South Africans can feel an ownership and an affinity for it. But thedanger is there for the baby either to emerge with severe deficiencies or to beactually still-born. Despite its juridical pretensions the TRC is not just a juridicalinstrument. It will not deliver as a juridical instrument. Similarly, we should not bemisled by the fact that the TRC process harbours serious religious pretensions.Some of its vocabulary and mannerisms are explicitly religious. The very leadershipof Bishop Tutu and other religious people of prominence in it adds to its religiouspretensions. Its public hearings have often resembled something of a cross betweena court room and a religious ceremony. The TRC is a hybrid, limited, momentary,symbolic, negotiated-settlement-inspired entity. For these reasons, the TRC cannotdeliver “national reconciliation” on its own. What is needed is for Christiantheologians, activists and churches to “deepen” and “exploit” the TRC's considerablepotential as a catalyst for national reconciliation. Therefore; more processes,activities and reflections – some religious, others juridical; some practical, othersmore theoretical; some momentary, others more ongoing – must accompany itswork. It is only in this sense that I can envisage the TRC process managing tobecome a meaningful national ritual.BIBLIOGRAPHYACKERMANN, Denise 1996. “On Hearing and Lamenting: Faith and Truth-Telling,” inBotman & Petersen (eds), 1996, 47-56.ALBERTS, Louw & CHIKANE, Frank (eds). The Road to Rustenburg. The Churchlooking Forward to a new South Africa. Cape Town: Struik, 1991.68 Pobee, John S. “Religion and Politics in Sub-Saharan Africa”. Journal of Theology forSouthern Africa. No. 83 (June 1993), p.18.

ASMAL, Kader, ASMAL, Louise & ROBERTS, Ronald Shuresh. ReconciliationThrough Truth. A Reckoning of Apartheid's Criminal Governance. Cape Town:David Philip, 1996.BAM, Brigalia. “The Church in South Africa”. In, Pityana, Barney & Villa Vicencio,Charles (eds). Being Church in South Africa today. Johannesburg: SouthAfrican Council of Churches, 1995, 43-53.BEDIAKO, Kwame. Christianity in Africa: The Renewal of a Non-Western Religion.Edinburgh: University Press, 1995.BOESAK, Willa. “Truth, Justice and Reconciliation,” in Botman & Petersen (eds),1996, 65-69.BORAINE, Alex; Levy, Janet & Scheffer, Ronel (eds). Dealing With the Past. Truthand Reconciliation in South Africa. Cape Town:Idasa, 1993.BOTHA, Nico; KRITZINGER, Klippies & MALULEKE, Tinyiko. “Crucial issues forChristian Mission – A missiological analysis of contemporary South Africa”.International Review of Mission. LXXXIII:328 (Jan 1994), 21-36.BOTMAN, Russel H. & PETERSEN, Robin M. (eds). To Remember and to Heal.Theological and Psychological Reflections on Truth and Reconciliation. CapeTown: Human & Rousseau, 1996.BOTMAN, Russel.”Pastoral Care and Counselling in Truth and Reconciliation: Typesand Forms of Pastoral Work,” in Botman & Petersen (eds), 1996, 154-162.COLVIN, Ross. “Doubts about the Truth”. The Argus. 15 January, 1996, p.14.DE GRUCHY, John W. “Guilt, Amnesty and National Reconstruction.Africa. KarlJaspers' Die Schuldfrage and the South African debate”. Journal of Theologyfor Southern Africa. June 1993. No. 83, 1993, 3-13.DE GRUCHY, John W. Christianity and Democracy: A Theology for a just WorldOrder. Cape Town: David Philip, 1995.DE GRUCHY, John W. “Christian Witness in a Secular State”. [A draft Paper].(Unpublished paper read at a SACC Theological Consultation, Johannesburg9-11 October 1996.DE VILLIERS, Etienne. “The Challenge of the Afrikaans Churches,” in Botman &Petersen (eds), 1996, 140-153.DOWDALL, Terry. “Psychological Aspects of the Truth and ReconciliationCommission,” in Botman & Petersen (eds), 1996, 27-36.DU TOIT, Cornel. “Dealing with the Past,” in Botman & Petersen (eds), 1996, 118-128.GEVISSER, Mark. “The ultimate test of Faith”. Mail & Guardian. 18 April 1996, 1996,p.12.INSTITUTE FOR CONTEXTUAL THEOLOGY. The Kairos Document (revisededition). Braamfontein: ICT, 1986.MALULEKE, Tinyiko S. “The Proposal for a Theology of Reconstruction: A criticalappraissal”. Missionalia 22:3 (November 1994), 245-258.MALULEKE, Tinyiko S. “Black Theology Lives! On a permanent Crisis”. Journal ofBlack Theology in South Africa. 9:1 (May), 1-30.MALULEKE, Tinyiko S. “Black and African Theologies in the New World Order. ATime to Drink From Our Own Wells”. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa.No 96. (November 1996), 3-19.MALULEKE, Tinyiko S. “Recent Developments in the Christian Theologies of Africa:Towards the twenty-first Century”. Journal of Constructive Theology. 2:2(December 1996) 33-60.MALULEKE, Tinyiko Sam. “A critical Look at Some New Theologies.” Challenge

Magazine. April/May 1997. No. 41,1997, pp.20, 21 & 28.MAYENDE, Peter. “The Land Question: Prospects for the next millennium”.(Unpublished paper, read at the South African Council of ChurchesTheological Consultation, 9-10 October 1996, Johannesburg).MEIRING, Piet. “Die Kerk en die WVK. Voorstelle vir praktiese hulp”. Beeld. 2 April1996. 1996, p.12.MKHATSHWA, Smangaliso. “The Truth Will Make us Free”. Challenge Magazine. No34. Feb/March 1996, p.4.MOLTMANN, Jurgen. God means Freedom. Nairobi: Association of TheologicalInstitutions in Eastern Africa. 1992.MOSALA, I.J. “Spirituality and Struggle: African and Black Theologies”. In, VillaVicencio, Charles & Niehaus, Carl (eds). Many Cultures, One Nation.Festschrift for Beyers Naudé. Cape Town: Human and Rousseauw, 1995, 79-89.MUGAMBI, J.N.K. From Liberation to Reconstruction: African Christian TheologyAfter the Cold War. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers, 1995.PETERSEN, Robin. “Changing Paradigms of South African Prophetic Theology”.Journal of Theology for Southern Africa. No 95. (July 1996), 76-81.PETERSEN, Robin M. “The Politics of Grace and the Truth and ReconciliationCommission,” in Botman & Petersen (eds), 1996, 57-64.PITYANA, Nyameko Barney. Beyond Transition: The Evolution of TheologicalMethod in South Africa: A Cultural Approach. Ph.D. thesis. Cape Town:University of Cape Town, 1995.PITYANA, Barney & VILLA-VICENCIO, Charles (eds) . Being Church in South Africatoday . Johannesburg: South African Council of Churches, 1995.POBEE, John S. “Religion and Politics in Sub-Saharan Africa”. Journal of Theologyfor Southern Africa. June 93. No 83, 1993, 14-19.PRETORIUS, Willem. “Vergewe My, vra Afrikaanse dominee in brief aan WVK”.Beeld. 24 April, 1996, p.1.RETIEF, Johan. “Kerkbode roep NGK op om te bely oor sy swye”. Die Burger. 4 May1996, 1996, p.7.ROHAN, Rafiq. “Delmas Trialist on Truth Commission”. Sowetan. 6 February 1996,p.5.SACC. Confessing Guilt in South Africa. The Responsibility of the Churches andIndividual Christians. Johannesburg; SACC, 1989.SALIE, Aneez. “Mandela Magic for Truth Group”. Cape Times. 14 February 1996,p.2.SANNEH, Lamin. Translating the Message. The Missionary Impact on Culture.Marykoll; Orbis, 1989.SMIT, Dirkie J. “The Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Tentative Religious andTheological Perspectives”. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa. March1995. No 90, 3-15.SMIT, Dirkie J. “Confession-Guilt-Truth-and-Forgiveness in the Christian Tradition,” inBotman & Petersen (eds), 1996, 96-117.Statutes of the Republic of South Africa – Constitutional Law. 1995. Promotion ofNational Reconciliation Act No 34 1995. 801-847.STOREY, Peter. “Until our whole nation feels the victims' pain and atones for pastevils, every sacrifice will have been in vain”. Sunday Independent. 21 April1996, p.4.Truth Talk. The Official Newsletter of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. “The

TRC 'puzzle' starts to fall into place”. Volume 1 Number 1. November 1996,p.2 & 7.TSELE, Molefe. “Kairos and Jubilee,” in Botman & Petersen (eds), 1996, 70-78.TUTU, Desmond. The Rainbow People of God. London: Bantam Books, 1995.VAN SCHALKWYK, Annalet. Review of Gnanadason, Aruna; Kanyoro, Musimbi;McSpadden, Lucia Ann (eds). Women Violence and Non-Violent Change.Geneva: WCC, 1996. Missionalia 24:1 (April 1996), 98-99.VILLA-VICENCIO, Charles. A Theology of Reconstruction: Nation-Building andHuman Rights. Cape Town; David Philip, 1992.VILLA-VICENCIO, Charles. “On taking Responsibility,” in Botman & Petersen (eds),1996,131-139.VILLA-VICENCIO, Charles. “Reconciling our people”. Sunday Times. 23 February,1997, p.26.