HEADLINE:   the debate  

PUBLICATION: Cape Times

PAGE NUMBER: 11

AUTHOR:     Zubeida Jaffer

DATE:       2003-04-13 22:00:00

Will government keep its word and reach out to victims needing reparations?

Zubeida Jaffer

Keen eyes and ears will be trained on members of parliament when they take the floor in the reparations debate tomorrow afternoon. Seven years after survivors first started giving testimony at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings, some of them will be in the public gallery as government considers the TRC recommendations for reparations.

It has been a long journey for those who have patiently waited for government to fulfill its side of the negotiated pact - forego prosecutions in exchange for truth and reparations.

This was the pact struck and it is exceedingly unjust for survivors now to be told that they did not partake in resistance to receive monetary compensation. Government set that precedent way back in 1994 when it granted special pensions to former members of resistance organisations.

Through the historic TRC process, thousands of survivors and their families were identified as victims of gross human rights abuses. Beyond these, there were many who chose not to participate in the hearings, either because they felt no need to do so, or because they were opposed to the idea of trading justice for truth. They wanted the prosecution of individuals responsible for committing the atrocities.

Those who agreed to be part of the process led by the TRC did not ask for reparations. The Promotion of Unity and Reconciliation Act, No34 of 1995 mandated the TRC to make recommendations to the president in this regard and defined reparation as any form of compensation, ex gratia payment, restitution, rehabilitation or recognition that would restore the human and civil dignity of victims.

The TRC recommendations made four years ago range from institutional reforms and legal interventions to administrative transformation, memorials and monuments, community rehabilitation and monetary payments. It is the proposed monetary payments that have generated the most spirited debate.

The TRC has recommended that victims receive reparation grants of between R17 000 and R23 000 per year for a maximum of six years. This has ample precedent internationally. Chile has committed itself to a comprehensive reparation programme of R120 million per year, which includes pensions. Other examples include reparations for the World War 2 Japanese-American internees and for Japanese "comfort women" imprisoned by the Imperial Army.

While the government has fulfilled its legal duty to provide interim reparations, tomorrow's debate will be the most important indicator of where it stands on final reparations. 

Leading the debate will be President Thabo Mbeki and Justice Minister Penuell Maduna. Neither have particularly highly-developed feminine personas that allow a flair for care and nurturing. Let's hope they make a special effort to understand that tomorrow is not only about the law, about the budget and about tensions with the TRC. It is about a group of people who symbolise the most wounded in our nation. It is about deep hurt that requires the right messages and action.

Next year we celebrate ten years of democracy. It will be a shame if we have not sensitively brought closure to a process that represents the first step along a long road towards healing a nation. Tomorrow could provide the foundation for sustained work to heal wounded souls. Government's attitude will inform the effort of sectors of our society that need to be mobilised to nurse and heal the wounds of the past. 

Government, big business and individuals who make up civil society will have to come to the party. The Institute for Justice and Reconciliation conducted a national survey recently that showed public support for the involvement of all three of these sectors in bringing about reconciliation. The Reconciliation Barometer found that close to 40% of South Africans back multi-stake-holder involvement. Disappointingly, the barometer found that fewer than 10% of whites took individual responsibility for the reconciliation process.

The recent litigation against Anglo-American and other multi-national corporations abroad will make it increasingly difficult for big business to shirk its responsibility. As major beneficiaries of apartheid social ordering, business cannot now leave the repairing to government. 

But Archbishop Desmond Tutu has broadened his appeal to include individual white and black citizens. 

I am suggesting that all of us, black and white, who could - and there are enough of us to make a difference - should adopt at least one family and give R100 or R200 per month. It would make a heck of a difference to a family that had no regular income. The debate could pave the way towards making that difference. Eyes and ears in the gallery and around the country will be sharply attuned, deciding whether the men and women they have placed in power care enough about fulfilling a pact that they accepted in good faith.

l Jaffer is an award-winning freelance journalist and political analyst for the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation. This article is part of a monthly series that the institute submits to the Cape Times.