Comparing Australian reconciliation movement with Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa - Essay Example

?Comparing and contrasting Australian reconciliation movement with Truth and Reconciliation process in South Africa Introduction The post-world war saw the development, expansion and implementation of new international human rights, law and protection in response to terrible atrocities that has been taking place over the years. The United Nations together with other non-governmental organizations witnessed this massive inhuman practice and decided to act by developing institutions and legal frameworks to help address these injustices and restore sanity in the affected countries. These frameworks were developed in order to address the economic, social and cultural rights and to ensure that they do not exist again. This essay compares and contrasts these two different models of reconciliation movement applied in the two countries and their uniqueness in adapting and dealing with particular situational context. The fundamental understanding of this essay is that it advances more knowledge in combining both the South Africa model and the Australian model in their approach of delivering justice. South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission The South African TRC main aim was not to punish with imprisonment or death the violators of human rights but to employ a restorative and system of justice this was a system of justice that seeks to return the situation to the way it was before the atrocities were committed by the use of public hearings (Gade, 2013). This system largely includes reparation, restitution of property, and restitution of cultural property, historical commission and apologies and it is strongly believed to have been influenced by Nelson Mandela who was then the president. Nelson Mandela wanted a reconciliation that is true to the harsh situation in South Africa that binds the wounds of the country by building trust and confidence to the people (Tutu, 1999). Mandela also wanted a united South Africa united as one country, one nation and one people marching together towards a common goal in future. The most important goal of South Africans was to have a unified country out of two groups of people that were least distrustful of each other since any attempt to punish the perpetrators of the terrible atrocities would have been counterproductive. The blacks and the whites in South Africa had strong negative feelings that had developed from each other over the years due to worst inhuman treatment. It was clear that both sides of the divide used violence hence harming innocent people in their attempts to have their way and therefore all sides were responsible to the atrocities done in the country (Stein, 2004). Of these several truth commissions, the South Africa’s truth and justice commission is arguably the best-developed example of all that have existed in the world due to its unique context (Worden, 1997). Just like any other models, the South African system also had several faults but its strengths are believed to have outweighed its faults making it among the best reconciliation commissions in the world (Gunstone, 2005). Strengths of South African TRC The TRC in South Africa had its emphasis, focus and detail on victims and their relatives thereby enabling them to get first-hand information on the atrocities hence making it very exhaustive in its findings (Geoffrey, 2003). They looked into the horrible crimes and established everything about them by searching for the real victims who suffered such crimes by allowing them and giving them adequate time to tell all their stories. The hearings were conducted every day and involved people in leadership positions as well as the local people in villages without any leadership position enabling them to cover a large number of people (Worden, 1997). Desmond Tutu one of the architects of South Africa’s TRC is on record saying that there is no future without forgiveness and this gave them a strong foundation in coming up with credible report (Tutu, 1999). Many of those who came to the hearings attested afterwards that they had found relief and experienced healing just from telling their bitters stories before the commission. During the focus on everyday witnesses, one of the greatest strengths for the commission is their capability to achieve relief for most of the people who witnessed before it. The process was so free that it even incorporated the relatives of victims also to testify before it hence enabling it to widen its scope. Despite initial estimates of awarding 200 people amnesty, the commission ended up awarding over 7,000 people amnesty making it a commission which awarded the biggest number of amnesties in history. In addition to those who came before TRC commission, a good number of people also found new information about the suffering and the disappearances of their loved ones hence leading to decent burial for their lost but dead loved ones. This gave the South Africa’s TRC an ability to touch the lives of thousands of people both in and out of the country, a powerful strength of their TRC model (Worden, 1997). Another major strength of south Africa TRC was its ability to establish an in depth and detailed accounts of the conflict hence enabling them develop a credible historical record of future generations. The hope for amnesty and the threat that someone would find information of past crimes after TRC made people came in large numbers making the commission establish an in depth report of the crimes committed with a lot of ease (Gibson, 2004). This also enabled them to reveal many truths a mid-mystery of many disappearances of the events during the apartheid era. The south Africa TRC was also able to establish a more accurate representation of the happenings and also revise the way in which most people view the atrocities committed. By calling both the members of the divide in the same hearings, the South Africa’s TRC made it clear that both sides had violated human rights hence furthering the goals of reconciliations. Weaknesses of South Africa TRC Despite the numerous strengths of South Africa’s TRC, they were also associated with a number of weaknesses during their hearings. The largest criticism of the South Africa TRC came from the mass amnesty awarded to thousands of people resulting to perpetrators of heinous crimes to walk Scott free leaving the victims and families in everlasting wounds. Some scholars believe that the South African TRC never achieve justice for the victims by awarding amnesty to violators of human rights (Geoffrey, 2003). The commission South African commission also faced difficulties in uncovering the documents, evidence and witnesses testimonies from events dating back for the past 40 years. The commission had to work hard to unearth the secrets in both sides leading to implication of several leaders of the apartheid movement. This led to many people applying for amnesty especially those of high rankings who committed worst of crimes hence they were never punished. The absence of evidence implicating leaders like Botha and De Klerk led them not to apply for amnesty and completely escape from the system of justice despite belief that they were either directly or indirectly involved in the crimes (Tutu, 1999). Another weakness of the South Africa’s TRC is that they never managed to attract the bulk of the white South Africans to participate enthusiastically in the process and TRC leader Desmond Tutu admitted this. The South Africa’s TRC also promised much repatriation, which were delayed so much breaking the heats of most of the victims of heinous crimes. The TRC of South Africa was also as a result of political process and this led to belief that some conclusions were made out of political compromise and as such was now warranted. Australian Reconciliation Process The Australian reconciliation process began after the commonwealth parliament unanimously passed the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act of 1991, to address the past injustices and restore trust and unity among the diverse groups living in Australia (YouMeUnity, 2011). The main aim of the process was to reconcile both groups by the end of the year 2000 leading the creation of the council of Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR) to promote and guide the reconciliation process. Strengths of the Australian reconciliation movement The Australian CAR produced a number of general accessible sources that aimed to educate the Australian community about reconciliation and indigenous issues, and these sources include the study circle project, a publication known as walking together, brochures, leaflets, reports, videos, TV and radio among other communication channels (Reconciliation Australia, 2010). Australians for reconciliation program was also developed that encouraged community involvement in reconciliation and the movement was quite imperative in this type of peace building process. This was very successful since by the end of the year 2000, there were hundreds of small recreational groups in various places like churches, schools, workplaces and as a result, about 250,000 people marched for reconciliation across Sydney Harbour Bridge during the Corroboree 2000 (Langton, 2003). Weaknesses of the Australian CAR Despite its successes, the Australian CAR also faced a number of challenges in their attempts to reconcile the conflicting groups. There was a lot of confusion within the wider Australian community over the meaning of reconciliation, which resulted into most people not taking the process seriously thereby jeopardizing it (Aubrey and Philips, 2010). The government was considered a major obstacle to the process due to the nature of influence it exerted during the ten-year process denying the commission the independence it requires. The CAR is also widely accused to have failed in addressing several issues important to the indigenous people, including matters of sovereignty, treaty and power relationships (Clark, 2000). This is evident in the Final Declaration Towards Reconciliation released in the year 2000 in which most of the indigenous people were not happy with since they believe it did not fully address the specific measures proposed by them. Therefore, the documents of reconciliation could have been very successful if they had adequately involved and address the broad concerns of the indigenous people (RAN, 2007). The manner in which the reconciliation process was established emphasized on symbolic and practical reconciliation rather than substantive reconciliation and this reduced the level of its effectiveness in addressing the longstanding problems of the indigenous people. This also resulted into a reconciliation commission that only wanted to improve the relationships but not to fully address the past injustices thereby reducing its legitimacy. The Australian process was seen just as a means of achieving the socio-economic equality but failed greatly in addressing the biggest problem of conflict, which was the land rights issues (Langton, 2003). The commission also failed to fully accommodate the divergent views arising from various people due to its limited scope hence it didn’t fully achieve its reconciliatory goals in the long run (NSDC, 2013). Conclusion Both the South African TRC and the Australian CAR were established to reconcile the warring groups by addressing the past injustices and drawing the roadmap for future relations, which is accommodative of each other. They employed different models in their approach in addressing the issues, which affected their people. Both the commissions had their strengths and weaknesses thus none of them was perfect in addressing the historical injustices. Despite these shortcomings, the South African TRC is believed to have been more successful in addressing historical injustices due to their approach, which was very accommodative and less interference, by other external forces by the government. It also managed to bring the two conflicting sides into common ground by reaching very large numbers of people hence it was exhaustive in their approach. The Australian CAR seen by many to have failed in delivering their mandate due to their approach, which never addresses the demands of indigenous people exhaustively hence their reconciliation aim, was greatly jeopardized. References Aubrey, P.K and Philips, J. 2010. Are we there yet? Ten years on from the decade of reconciliation: a reconciliation progress report. [Online]. Available at: http://antar.org.au/sites/default/files/reconciliation_progress_report_final_0.pdf> [Accessed 15/09/2013] Clark, G. 2000. ‘Not much progress’. In Essays on Australian Reconciliation, ed. M. Grattan. Melbourne: Bookman Press Gade, C.N. 2013. , 'Restorative Justice and the South African Truth and Reconciliation Process', South African Journal Of Philosophy, 32, 1, pp. 10-35. Geoffrey, R. 2003. “Truth Commissions and Transitional Justice” in Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice. New York: New Press. Gunstone, A. 2005. The formal Australian reconciliation process: 1991-2000. Melbourne, Australia: Monash University. Gibson, J.L. 2004. 'Does Truth Lead to Reconciliation? Testing the Causal Assumptions of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Process', American Journal Of Political Science, 48, 2, pp. 201-217.  National Sorry Day Committee. (NSDC), 2013. The Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples. [Online]. Available at Read More