Phd Chapter 1: Sarah Henkeman 11/5/09
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AS A TOOL FOR PEACEBUILDING: A SOUTH AFRICAN STUDY Sarah Henkeman 208525878 A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies School of Economics and Finance College of Law and Management Studies Supervisor: Professor Geoff Harris 2012 1 DECLARATION I, SARAH ROSALINE HENKEMAN declare that: (i) The research reported in this thesis, except where otherwise indicated, is my original research. (ii) This thesis has not been submitted for any degree or examination at any other university. (iii) This thesis does not contain other persons’ data, pictures, graphs or other information, unless specifically acknowledged as being sourced from other persons. (iv) This thesis does not contain other persons’ writing, unless specifically acknowledged as being sourced from other researchers. Where other written sources have been quoted, then: a) Their words have been re-written but the general information attributed to them has been referenced: b) Where their exact words have been used, their writing has been placed inside quotation marks, or indented and referenced. (v) This thesis does not contain text, graphics or tables copied and pasted from the Internet, unless specifically acknowledged, and the source being detailed in the thesis and in the References sections. Signature:_______________________________ 2 ABSTRACT In this study a component of long-term peacebuilding practice - restorative justice processing - was examined in South Africa’s unequal, transitional context. Based on multidisciplinary literature, Galtung’s (1996) notion of cultural-structural-direct violence, Cohen’s (2001) theory of denial, and empirical data, a conceptual argument was made that a conspiracy of silence (cultural violence) exists about the interaction of growing inequality (structural violence) and the levels of crime/social harm (direct violence). Victim offender mediation, as a form of restorative justice processing, was an embedded, (Yin, 1994) instrumental (Stake,1995) case which provided micro level information about peacebuilding practice. Peace studies was chosen as the core discipline in this multi- perspectival study, as it allowed micro-macro linkages to be made deductively and inductively. Empirical data was generated by a 360° formation of six sub-units comprised of victims, offenders, practitioners, prosecutors, key experts, a Norwegian external sub- unit (which provided a keyhole comparison of activities inside the ‘black box’ of victim offender mediation), and observation. The research discovered four interlinked gaps in restorative justice processing. These gaps are contextual, conceptual, training and practice related. Patterns of denial - that manifested as procedural blindness, substantive deafness and a complicit silence about the interaction of cultural, structural and direct violence - resulted from the combined effects of these interlinked gaps. Recommendations for education, training and coaching, based on the conceptual argument and comprehensive model of findings, were developed to fill the interlinked gaps, so that restorative justice practitioners can be better placed to contribute to long-term peacebuilding in a structurally responsive way. A caveat applies: ultimately, society and individuals must change and restorative justice processing on its own can only take society part of the way towards social justice. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Professor Geoff Harris is patience personified; extremely tactful and incredibly supportive beyond the call of duty and despite the geographic distance(s) of his students. I am grateful for his commitment to the project of peace and his unstinting support for anyone who wants to work for positive peace. I benefitted greatly from his wisdom, patient guidance and active support during the times when doors closed and it seemed the research would come to a halt. Professor Harris was always willing to write letters in support of my attempts to find new avenues when disappointment arose. A special thanks to every person who gave up their time to participate in this research to give perspectives of victims, offenders, mediators, prosecutors, internal and external key experts. Without your generosity of spirit, there would be no thesis. I am extremely grateful to organisations in South Africa and Norway who allowed me to use their premises, granted interviews and/or recruited their clients for this research. Family and friends have been very supportive and patient during the long period of this study. Thanks to Luke, Joshua, Mandy, Cheryl, Glenda, Lee Anne, Espen, Adelene, Ingrid, Irvin, Roshila, Anne Magrethe, Undine, Amber, Nomaza for conversations, walks, coffee, and/or pep talks. A special thank you to Joshua, Luke and Cheryl, for double checking my numbers. Thanks from the depths of my heart Joshua for the meals, endless cups of tea and unstinting support during the last months of thesis writing, and for helping to collate the bibliography. Thanks Mandy and Glenda for sitting me down during 2011 and telling me to stop second guessing myself and ‘just start writing’; and Luke – for telling me to ‘just set a date and finish it’ during 2012. So I did! I appreciate the fieldwork grant of R6 500-00 and waiver of fees for the first three years of registration by the University of KwaZulu Natal. It enabled me to give donations to the South African NGOs, provided travel money for most of the participants, and covered part of my accommodation and airfare to two provinces in South Africa. To the hundreds of authors whose articles and books I have read, people who provide open source materials, UKZN administrative staff, and to my country, South Africa - for providing the context for this research - I am forever grateful for the education. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................ 2 ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................................ 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... 5 PART I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 11 CHAPTER ONE: SOUTH AFRICA’S TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY ................................... 12 1. Introduction: Long-term Peacebuilding and trans-historical inequality ........................................ 12 1.1 Background: South Africa’s peace process ............................................................................ 14 1.1.1 Historic compromise/negotiated revolution ........................................................................... 16 1.1.2 Constitutional goals .............................................................................................................. 17 1.1.3 Negative peace and the pursuit of ‘national unity’ ................................................................. 18 1.1.4 Micro-macro linkages ........................................................................................................... 21 1.1.5 Conflict Resolution methods and restorative justice .............................................................. 22 1.1.6 Examples of structural violence ............................................................................................ 23 1.1.7 Some manifestations of direct violence ................................................................................. 26 1.1.8 Taking a deeper and wider view ........................................................................................... 27 1.2 Immediate background to the research question .................................................................... 29 1.2.1 Victim offender mediation - embedded/instrumental case ..................................................... 30 1.2.2 Clarification of terms............................................................................................................ 31 1.3 Overall research approach: ‘bricolage’ ................................................................................... 32 1.4 Overall Objective and Specific Aims...................................................................................... 37 1.4.1 Macro level: ......................................................................................................................... 37 1.4.2 Micro level: .......................................................................................................................... 38 1.4.3 Process: ................................................................................................................................ 38 1.4.4 Integration: ........................................................................................................................... 38 1.5 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 38 1.6 Overview of chapters ............................................................................................................. 40 PART II: UNEQUAL, TRANSITIONAL CONTEXT .................................................................... 42 CHAPTER