By Yvonne Chitiyo
An intense debate is currently underway in South Africa following a decision by the Government of National Unity (GNU) to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate alleged
apartheid crimes.
The Commission, to be appointed by President Nelson Mandela, is expected to finish its work in about two years and its report will be made public.
The establishment of the Truth Commission has instilled fear in some people.
Police Commissioner, General Johan van der Merwe, recently threatened that the process could expose some African National Congress (ANC) members who allegedly collaborated with the former
government to entrench apartheid.
However, Justice Minister Dullah Omar says the government is not worried about the threat and that it is no reason to suppress the truth.
He says the ANC accepted that its members might have to appear before the commission.
“The commission would enable the country to ‘come to terms with its past’ by demanding disclosure of abuses, granting amnesty to offenders and awarding compensation to victims,” said
Omar.
The decision to form the commission came in the wake of revelations that former President Frederick de Klerk had pardoned white extremists and security force members in the dying days of
South Africa’s last white-led regime.
De Klerk denied any political motivation for his acts, and said, “There was no political advantage to be gained by me or my party by any of these (amnesty) decisions.”
The Sunday Tribune, a Durban-based newspaper, says the pardons were against the wishes of the monitored government ahead of the elections.
The TEC had advised that sensitive amnesties be left to the new administration and not the one that had licensed the covert Civil Co-operation Bureau (CCB) to operate hit squads targeting antiapartheid
Mandela has said that he would not rest until everyone suspected of committing a crime has appeared before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
“I think we will all agree that it is not the most pleasant thing to revive bitter memories, to invoke people of the Netherlands and others in Europe who experienced the harsh realities of Nazism and we cannot move forward with confidence if we ignore the past,” he said.
Mandela added to the spirit of reconciliation by indicating that he was prepared to consider an amnesty for white extremists convicted of political crimes including those involved in pre-election bombings.
Two controversial names in the amnesty debate are those of Polish immigrant, Janus Walusz, and Conservative Party (CP) official, Clive Derby- Lewis, jailed last year for murdering South African Communist Party (SACP) leader, Chris Hani.
Political observers sayan amnesty for the two assassins would test Mandela’s support. They argue that the amnesty would not be accepted by the SACP or the thousands of people who took to the
streets in protest against the assassination of Hani, one of the country’s most popular political leaders.
In support of the Truth Commission, Omar said it was a fundamental element of reconciliation that people should know who committed what against who.
“It is essential to know what it is that -we are indemnifying and before such disclosures there can be no amnesty. We are not just going to give people indemnity for offenses we do not know. Confess your sins first and get amnesty later,” he said.
Omar rejects calls by right-wing organizations that the amnesty cut-off date be extended to cover 27 April 1994, arguing that this could spell disaster for the country.
The cut-off date was originally 8 October 1990, the day when returning ANC exiles were first indemnified by De Klerk. However, in the interests of unity, the date was extended to cover offenses committed up until 5 December 1993.
Political analysts feared that further extensions would create an impression not only among South Africans but also the international community that the new government was not serious about the issue.
Meanwhile, the National Party (NP) claims that Mandela reneged on a promise of reconciliation to De Klerk that the two parties would share the security portfolios — Defence, Correctional
(previously Law and Order).
NP officials also feared that real power will not reside with the Cabinet, but that important policy decisions would be taken by the ANC National Executive Committee (NEC), with the “power sharing” Cabinet being little more than a rubber stamp.
The justice ministry went to the ANC’s Omar, with the NP’s Chris Fismer as his deputy. ANC’s Joe Modise was appointed defence minister, while Sidney Mufamadi, also of the ANC, was appointed
safety and security minister. Inkatha Freedom Party’s (IFP) Sipho Mzimela took the correctional services portfolio.
One NP parliamentarian speculated that the ANC did not trust members of the previous government to root out “third force” activists. “They want the security forces to know right away who is the boss, “the official said.
Recently, De Klerk denounced the ANC for what he termed “insulting offers of chairmanships” for parliamentary standing committees and described the chairmanships as “innocuous, unimportant and
internal”. He disclosed that his party had considered the possibility of withdrawing from the GNU over the issue.
“If elements in the ANC caucus achieve so much power that they do not follow their leadership, then I think it holds serious consequences for the GNU,” he said.
The ANC caucus had recommended – and President Mandela had accepted — that the NP be offered the deputy chairmanship of the public accounts committee and the chairmanship of committees dealing with discipline, pensions, internal arrangements and private Members’ Bills — all minor committees.
The right-wing Freedom Front, led by former Defence Force chief General Constand Viljoen, was offered the chairmanship of the committee on defence, while the IFP, Democratic Party (DP) and Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) were tasked to chair other parliamentary committees.
Although some whites have thrown in their lot with blacks, others who are disgruntled are leaving South Africa. More than 10 000 whites fled the country before the April elections in fear of a new government.
“If white South Africans refuse to learn from their counter-parts in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in Africa, they will never learn,” commented a political analyst.
When Zimbabwe became independent in 1980, many whites feared there would be a backlash on white Rhodesians by blacks. But President Robert Mugabe’s policy of racial reconciliation was
instrumental in bridging the racial gap in the country.
“If Zimbabwe managed to preserve its peace, integrated whites and proved sceptics wrong that black is inefficient, why can’t we?” asked Gabriel Mulauzi, a black South African.
“The bitterness of blacks will not override their desire for peace.
They have fought for too long a time and all they want now is a guarantee that the economy will be equitably shared,” said Kheswa.
One white Zimbabwean who requested anonymity says initially he was sceptical about black rule, “but now, I do not regret having remained in the country at independence.”
It will need the leadership of Mandela to convince all South Africans that, as he has said so often in the past, whites must stay and contribute to the building of the new South Africa.
Ray Kheswa, a South African journalist, believes blacks are prepared to work with whites, despite the history of racial oppression.
