Responsibility and Accountability in Theory and Practice

Responsibility and accountability in theory and practice: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s investigation of human rights abuse in South Africa Marina Carman B.A. (Hons.) Sydney A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. University of New South Wales. July, 2005. ABSTRACT The main aims of the investigation conducted here are to draw out important debates in theory and in the South African social context over the concepts of responsibility and accountability for human rights abuse, and to look at how these were present within, and impacted on, discussions within and around the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The TRC did not specifically discuss or define theoretical concepts of responsibility or accountability. However, I argue that it is possible to draw out some important features of its implicit approach – particularly in terms of its emphasis on collective responsibility and social context (in addition to individual responsibility), and its emphasis on moral arguments for individuals and collectives to accept responsibility and hold themselves accountable by contributing to future change. This ambitious and complex approach raised some important theoretical issues, which have been discussed and debated in the theoretical literature. These include: the relationship between individual responsibility, collective responsibility and the influence of “the system”; the nature of collective responsibility; the nature of morality; the distinction between moral and political responsibility; and how individuals and collectives can or should be held accountable. In South Africa, these theoretical debates inter-mingled with a range of other factors, including individual and collective interests, motives and political perspectives. From an analysis of the existing literature on the TRC and original interviews conducted with key informants, I draw out three main opposing views which I argue arose in the South African social context about responsibility and accountability, and what the TRC could and should have done to address these. In a detailed analysis of the TRC’s hearings and Final Report, I draw out how theoretical debates, and these three opposing views, were present within and impacted on the TRC’s work. I argue that it was impossible for the TRC to satisfy everyone and resolve these debates, and that its approach led to unrealistic expectations of its work and its role more generally. This has impacted negatively on how the TRC was and is perceived. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to my first supervisor, the late Rob Steven, for the enthusiasm and inspiration which stayed with me until the end. Thanks to Gavin Kitching, my second supervisor, for his interest and feedback. Thanks to David Philips for his help with drafts. Thanks to Marc Williams for his indispensable help in finishing off. Thanks to those who agreed to be interviewed, all of who did so with openness and enthusiasm. Thanks to the staff at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation who provided me with help in many different ways. Finally, thanks to all my friends for their support. For my parents, whose hearts were also broken by this past. ii Table of contents Abstract i Acknowledgements and Dedication ii Table of contents iii List of abbreviations v Chapter 1: Introduction 1 - The TRC as an institution 2 - The TRC’s approach 4 - Theoretical debates 12 - Practical implications 15 - Contextual debates 17 - Practical implications 26 - Structure 27 Chapter 2: Analysing the TRC 29 - Truth commissions 29 - Contextual literature 33 - Methodology 35 - Views on the TRC 45 - Conclusion 59 Chapter 3: Theorising responsibility and accountability 61 - Individual and collective responsibility 61 - Moral and political responsibility 71 - Accountability 82 - Conclusion 89 Chapter 4: Perpetrators and state institutions 90 - Individual perpetrators 90 - The politicians and parties 94 - State Security Council 102 - The TRC’s findings 107 - Perceptions 113 Chapter 5: Social institutions and groups 116 - Expectations 116 - Individual and collective 117 - Responsible for what? 119 - Moral responsibility 123 - The TRC’s findings 124 iii - Accountability 132 - Perceptions 135 Chapter 6: Accountability: who or what should pay? 138 - Damage caused by abuse 138 - What change was needed? 142 - Who or what should pay? 148 - The ANC’s response 151 - Perceptions 155 Chapter 7: Conclusion 164 - Theoretical debates 165 - Practical implications 166 - Contextual debates 167 - Practical implications 169 Bibliography 171 Appendix A: List of analysed transcripts from the amnesty hearings 189 Appendix B: List of analysed transcripts from the political party hearings 194 Appendix C: List of analysed transcripts from the State 195 Security Council hearings Appendix D: List of analysed transcripts from the business and 196 labour hearings Appendix E: List of analysed transcripts from the human 199 rights violations hearings Appendix F: List of interviews 206 Appendix G: Interview schedule 211 iv ABREVIATIONS ANC African National Congress COSATU Congress of South African Trade Unions CSVR Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus IFP Inkatha Freedom Party NP National Party MK Umkhonto we Sizwe MP Member of Parliament NGOs Non-Government Organisations PAC Pan Africanist Congress SACP South African Communist Party SSC State Security Council TRC Truth and Reconciliation Commission UDF United Democratic Front v Chapter 1: Introduction The main aims of the investigation conducted here are to draw out important debates in theory and in the South African social context over the concepts of responsibility and accountability for human rights abuse, and to look at how these were present within, and impacted on, discussions within and around the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The TRC was a product of the negotiated settlement which ended Apartheid rule in 1994. It met for the first time on the renamed “Day of Reconciliation”1 December 16, 1995. It handed down its Final Report in 1998. Its amnesty process concluded in December 2001, after which a codicil to the Final Report was released in early 2003. The TRC did not specifically discuss or define theoretical concepts of responsibility or accountability. However, I argue that it is possible to draw out some important features of its implicit approach – particularly in terms of its emphasis on collective responsibility and social context (in addition to individual responsibility), and its emphasis on moral arguments for individuals and collectives to accept responsibility and hold themselves accountable by contributing to future change. This ambitious and complex approach raised some important theoretical issues, which have been discussed and debated in the theoretical literature. These include: the relationship between individual responsibility, collective responsibility and the influence of “the system”; the nature of collective responsibility; the nature of morality; the distinction between moral and political responsibility; and how individuals and collectives can or should be held accountable. In South Africa, these theoretical debates inter-mingled with a range of other factors, including individual and collective interests, motives and political perspectives. From an analysis of the existing literature on the TRC and original interviews conducted with key informants, I draw out three main opposing views which I argue arose in the South African social context about responsibility and accountability, and what the TRC could and should have done to address these. In a detailed analysis of the TRC’s hearings and 1 Previously a day used by conservative Afrikaners to celebrate the Battle of Blood River in which the Zulu army led by chief Dingane was defeated in 1836. 1 Final Report, I draw out how theoretical debates, and these three opposing views, were present within and impacted on the TRC’s work. I argue that it was impossible for the TRC to satisfy everyone and resolve these debates, and that its approach led to unrealistic expectations of its work and its role more generally. This has impacted negatively on how the TRC was and is perceived. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the TRC as an institution and to draw out its approach to responsibility and accountability. I will then outline the main steps in the investigation which follows. The TRC as an institution The TRC consisted of three committees: the Human Rights Violations Committee; the Amnesty Committee; and the Reparation and Rehabilitation Committee. Large research and investigative units aided and complemented the work of these committees. The Commission was appointed to run for a period of two years. It established a head office in Cape Town, regional offices in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban and East London and a sub-regional office in Bloemfontein. The main objectives set for the TRC were as follows. 1) The TRC was to take submissions from victims of gross human rights violations, investigate such abuses and hold public hearings. More than 20,000 statements were received from victims2. These contained around 50,000 individual human rights violations. Once the statements were received, they were logged in a database and investigated. Corroborative evidence and background research material was collected and cross-referenced where possible with other cases. Pre- findings were made either accepting or rejecting the statements of alleged violations, and these were then referred

Load more