The Occasion, Constitution, and Representation of South African Reconciliation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MAKING RHETORICAL HISTORY IN A TIME OF TRANSITION: THE OCCASION, CONSTITUTION, AND REPRESENTATION OF SOUTH AFRICAN RECONCILIATION ERIK DOXTADER S outh Af ri c a’s tu rn to re co n ci l i a tion did not begin with the fo rm a tion of the Tru t h and Re co n ci l i a tion Co m m i s s i o n . This essay examines the role of re co n ci l i a tion in S outh Af ri c a’s tra n s i tion from apa rt h eid to co n s ti tu tional dem o cra c y. It co n tends that re co n ci l i a tion is a mode of rh eto rical histo ry - m a k i n g , a co m pl ex set of i nven ti o n a l pra cti ces that both open time for spe e ch and em pl oy spe e ch to make ti m e . Vi ewed cl o sely, this middle vo i ce of re co n ci l i a tion ill u s tra tes pre ci se ways that insti tu tions and ci ti zens can craft the poten tial for futu re dialogue from within histo rical justi f i c a ti o n s for vi ol en ce . egotiated revolutions make time for speech. Revolutionary negotiations use Nspeech to make time. In South Africa’s transition from apartheid to constitu- tional democracy, reconciliation was held out as a means of making both speech and time. In 1994, following almost a decade of secret and public talks, all of which took place in the midst of horrific bloodshed, South Africa emerged from the dark- ness of apartheid to confront the heavy burden of its history. Between a violent past and democratic future, the “postamble” of South Africa’s interim constitution addressed this weight directly: “The pursuit of national unity, the well-being of all South African citizens and peace require reconciliation between the people of South Africa and the reconstruction of society.”The product of negotiations that were ini- tiated under the banner of reconciliation, this mandate gave way to legislation that authorized the formation of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a man who preached reconciliation well before there was a realistic chance of ending apartheid,this quasi-institutional body was charged with the task of helping South Africa to heal the wounds of apartheid. Erik Doxtader is an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He is also a MacArthur Foundation–Social Science Research Council Fellow in the Program on Peace and Security in a Changing World and an Honorary Research Fellow at the Centre for Rhetoric Studies, University of Cape Town. This project has been generously supported by the MacArthur Foundation and the Social Science Research Council. The University of Cape Town and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have each provided invaluable assistance. For his faith and support during the development of this work,I extend special thanks to Philippe Salazar. © Rhetoric & Public Affairs Vol.4, No. 2,2001, pp. 223-260 ISSN 1094-8392 224 RHETORIC & PUBLIC AFFAIRS In all of its forms, South African reconciliation has generated substantial interest and significant controversy.What is the nature or substance of reconciliation? Did it play a meaningful role in the South African transition? Was reconciliation a con- stitutive element of a“peaceful transition,” noble garb for a distasteful compromise, or a tactic designed to preserve white power?1 There are no easy answers to these questions. For one, there is vast and deep dis- agreement over how to define reconciliation in South Africa. Theologians, philoso- phers, and political scientists continue to debate whether reconciliation is a divine ministry, dialogic process, or state of affairs. Anthropologists and sociologists dis- agree as to whether reconciliation is an intrinsic feature of Southern African culture or a noxious byproduct of colonization. While the Western media have frequently equated reconciliation with the work of the TRC, the commission itself conducted inconclusive debates as to what it was doing and why. Is reconciliation an interper- sonal encounter between victim and perpetrator, a corporate effort to enable civil society, or a form of post-apartheid justice? Could it be all three? Charles Villa- Vicencio, former director of research for the TRC, contends that South African rec- onciliation has many faces and voices. If so, the study of reconciliation brings us into a labyrinth in which reference is far from certain, a puzzle that obliges us to concede that we may not know what reconciliation is.2 For those who find defi n i ti o nal disputes ted i o u s ,n orma t ive inqui r y into how rec- onc i l i a ti o n shaped the Sou th Afr ican tran s i ti o n conf r onts an equa l ly cha ll en gi n g problem : What is the best way to evalu a t e the develo pme nt and res ult of a tran s i ti on ? This is an old problem , one that conc erne d Plato’s Socra t es whe n he des c ri b ed the “i n s t a n t ”as the mome nt in time that is “no time at all” but whi c h contains the pot en- tial (infinite) for “u n i ty ’s” cha n g e from becoming to bein g . Tran s i ti on s , events that tear at the law of non - c ont radi c tio n—a conc eptual lyn c hpin of causal rea s o ning and so muc h human jud gm en t — a p pear at the “limit of tim e . ”Kenn e th Bur ke’s depi c tio n of di a l e ctical tran s f orma ti o n tea ches a similar lesson ,u n dersc oring Ma rx ’s claim that tran s i ti o ns entail a play of id eal talk and pragm a t ic conf u s i on . 3 Rea s o ning from the Sou th Afr ican case, Pi e t Mie rin g , a theol o gian at the Uni versi t y of Pretoria , ha s ar g u e d that tran s i ti o ns take shape in “mi d d le tim e . ” Betw een beginning and en d ,s et- ting the norms of pol i t ical life into a “constant flux , ” tran s i ti o ns are temp oral event s that both motivat e and inhibit human action . 4 If so , this insight helps explain the recu r ring cont roversy over whet h e r crit ical stud y has a tend ency to conf l a t e the causes and outcomes of pol i t ical tran s i ti on s . The proble m is remi n i s c ent of Rou s s e a u ’s puzzleme nt as to wh et h er an act of governa n c e must precede the forma - tio n of governm en t . Da vid Howa r th and Donald Horowit z , for instance, ha ve each ar g u e d that whe n attemp ting to assess the mechanics of “a cha n g e from one kind of (po l i t ical) regime to another,” ap peals to suc h goods as co ll ective interes t , cons ti t u- tion a l i s m , jus ti ce , and natur al rig hts may indicate that theorists have presu p pos e d preci s e ly that whi c h they seek to exp l a i n . 5 THE OCCASION, CONSTITUTION, AND REPRESENTATION OF SOUTH AFRICAN RECONCILIATION 225 In South Africa, the theoretical ambiguity that attends inquiry into the “middle time” of transition represents a practical problem of history. Intertwined with the question of what counts as “real” reconciliation, it is difficult to assess how recon- ciliation has shaped South Africa’s turn from apartheid to democracy.Did the African National Congress’ (ANC) commitment to “multi-racial democracy” set a place for reconciliation at the bargaining table even as the concept was used in the 1980s to justify civil disobedience and struggle? Did fears of retribution and politi- cal exclusion compel the National Party (NP) to hide its demand for amnesty within a call for reconciliation? Johnny De Lange,currently a minister of Parliament on the ANC side of the aisle,has argued bluntly that the mandate for reconciliation in the 1993 interim constitution was necessary to the degree that “without this spe- cific compromise,there would have been no settlement,no interim constitution,no elections, no democracy, and a possible continuation of the conflicts of the past.”6 Others disagree, claiming that reconciliation was less a product of necessary com- promise than a strategic attempt by the NP to slow democratization in a manner that preserved its own economic power base. There is also substantial debate over how reconciliation shaped the form of the transition and whether it produced a po l i tical dispen s a ti on that ign ored the needs of those who su f fered under apartheid.7 Rea d togeth e r, these cont roversies sug gest that reconc i l i a ti o n was a precond i ti on , mod a l i t y, and goal of the Sou th Afr ican tran s i ti on .