Engaging with Victims and Perpetrators in Transitional ... - FriEnt

FriEnt/KOFF Workshop ReportWhat does it mean in practice?• Truth recovery processes have to be attentive to the fact that there maybe different groups of victims which may engage in political contest overacknowledgement of claims.• For this reason such processes should be victim-centred rather thanvictim-led with due respect to victims’ needs and support of victims’ fullparticipation in such processes. This includes not only psychologicalsupport, but legal representation and financial assistance where required.• A truth recovery process has to be organised in such a way as toovercome old patterns of division in order to reduce the risk of futurevictimisation and consolidate a basis for new social solidarity. This alsoincludes relinquishing the culture of blame on the part of victims andrecognising and empathising with the suffering of the ‘other’ side.• Truth recovery is never really done for victims but for society. We shouldnot make victims believe that this is good for them. This is why we mayalso need compensation of victims’ participation in truth seekingprocesses.3.3. The Right to Reparation: A basis for transforming victim andperpetrator identities?Reparation appeared in our framework on the side of the victim-orientedtransitional justice mechanisms, entailing individual measures for victims,relatives and dependents. There may also be collective forms of reparation thatusually involve symbolic acts and, less often, collective measures to improvevictims’ lives. Reparations may mark a period of mourning, enable victims tomove beyond bare survival and support individual journeys of finding meaningand healing.Dr. Undine Whande, a social anthropologist with many years of conflicttransformation practice in South Africa, discussed in her presentation whateffects reparations, or rather the limited nature thereof, have had in South Africa.Victim and perpetrator definitions and identity shiftsIn the South African negotiation process the question of amnesty featured moreprominently than reparations. Significantly, both sides - the liberationmovements and the Apartheid government - saw each other as ‘perpetrators’. Ashift in official state discourse - and along with it a re-definition of “victims” and“perpetrators” - took place in the early days of transition. Members of theliberation movements, previously described in the media as “terrorists”, werenow revered as “freedom fighters” and “heroes” in official public discourse. Bycontrast, National Party members, in particular members of the security forceswent from ‘proud soldiers/policemen’ to “apartheid perpetrators” and “grosshuman rights violators” in need of amnesty.The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) adopted a fairlynarrow definition of “victims” entitled to reparations: those subjected to killing,abduction, torture, and severe ill treatment and their families. The TRC did notinclude the broadscale experience of structural and cultural violence that affectedeveryone of colour or take into account the depth of the emotional scars left by‘petty’ apartheid.10