Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation

From Rhetoric to Responsibility:
Making reparations to the surviviors of past political violence in South Africa

Chapter 6

An Assessment of the Impact of Urgent Interim Reparations

by Anna Crawford-Pinnerup

Anna Crawford-Pinnerup is a former intern at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

In the reparations and rehabilitation policy of the TRC, urgent interim reparations (UIR) is defined as urgent assistance for victims, as well as their relatives and dependants, in order to provide them with access to appropriate services and facilities. According to the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act (hereafter the TRC Act), UIR could include medical, emotional, educational, material and/or symbolic needs.

Although the disseminating, receiving and assessing of UIR applications make up only a part of implementing reparations, they were considered to be worthy of study as they provide some understanding of the impact of financial reparations.

UIR payments to victims began in June 1998, some 18 months after the TRC began operating. Victims were given a once-off payment ranging from a baseline of approximately R2 000 up to R6 000 in exceptional circumstances. As of October 2000 the Reparations and Rehabilitation (R&R) Committee had largely completed granting UIR to approximately 12 000 victims.

Assessing the UIR Programme

The research presented here, in summary form, is intended to assess the impact of the UIR on recipients. More specifically the goals were to:

Although the focus of the research presented here was the issue of UIR, topics pertaining to the TRC's way of operating arose. As UIR was clearly embedded in the entire TRC process, it was impossible to isolate it from its context. The TRC process strongly influenced recipients' perceptions of and satisfaction with UIR. Important themes such as the UIR recipients' perceptions of the TRC, family and community conflict, forgiveness, reconciliation, justice, and rights have been integrated into the research to the extent they were explored in the interviews.

Methodology

The first part of the research consisted of interviews with nine recipients of UIR, five of which were conducted through an interpreter. To strengthen the information and complement the findings, the second phase consisted of eleven interviews with so-called 'community leaders' involved with the recipients during and after the life of the TRC. All the semi-structured interviews were qualitative and aimed at providing insight into the perceptions of the impact of UIR. The interviews were conducted between April and June 1999.

During the research it became evident that the respondents were a heterogeneous group, holding different perceptions of the UIR's impact. The summary of the findings presented here focuses on the shared and non-shared views of the UIR's impact within the recipient sample. Only the interviews with the UIR recipients are reported on here. The full findings, including the community leaders' perceptions, are available from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

The UIR recipients interviewed were deemed victims by the TRC because of death or injury to a close relative, or because they had themselves been injured. None of the recipients interviewed testified publicly to the TRC. The UIR the interviewed recipients were awarded ranged between R2 000 and R4 530.

Most of those interviewed have been members of the Khulumani Support Group (KSG) since 1995, and it was through the KSG that they submitted their statements. The Khulumani Support Group is a largely Gauteng-based group that has offered survivors and families of victims support during the process of the TRC. This structure, in some cases, introduced victims to the TRC, found indigenous ways to reconcile with the past and lobbied the TRC regarding the rights and concerns of survivors and families of victims.

Recipients' Shared Views of the Impact of the UIR
Reasons for going to the TRC

Most recipients gave statements to the TRC to find out the truth and who was responsible for injuring them. All recipients had hoped to meet the perpetrators, but stated that this had not occurred. The recipients had asked the TRC for assistance that would give them access to certain services, but only a few asked specifically for money. Most of the recipients stated that they wanted to participate in the TRC process to prevent the past from repeating itself and to be a part of rewriting South Africa's history.

How the UIR was put to use

The recipients stated that they had used the UIR for essentials, such as food, clothing for their children and paying for their children's schooling. Others prioritised purchasing a tombstone and having a celebration for a lost relative. Those who did not buy a tombstone said that they would have invested in a tombstone had there been more reparations.

Satisfaction with the UIR

All recipients expressed some measure of pleasure at having been selected for UIR, but agreed that the amount was too little to make a material difference.

Healing and empowerment

The recipients expressed an interest in receiving counselling and agreed that if their entire life situation were to change for the better, it would be easier to heal. They agreed that those victims who did not receive UIR felt "worse psychologically", "became jealous or mad", and sometimes threatened violence.

Family and community dynamics

The recipients agreed that giving victims UIR had the potential of causing family and community conflict. A typical response was: "I didn't tell anybody about the money. I was afraid they would hate me" (Respondent 3). Generally, the recipients told only family members they could trust.

Perceptions of justice

The recipients stated they still did not know the identity of the perpetrators. With the exception of one recipient, none expressed a desire to see the perpetrators brought to justice.

Perceptions of rights

The recipients stated they would have liked to receive more money, but were unclear as to their right to more money, A typical response was: "When you work at a factory you know that you will receive money, it is your right. With a [dysfunctional] leg, it is hard to put a price on it or say what your right is" (Respondent 2).

Perceptions of reparations

The recipients shared their understanding of the concept of reparations, i.e. that reparations cannot repair, but are necessary for people to reconcile/forgive. Most, though, felt that giving reparations was the best thing the government could do for victims. They agreed that "reparations" meant being understood and sympathised with, that it could constitute an acknowledgement of their suffering, and was instrumental in helping victims cope. Typically, respondents said, "Money can't bring back the dead, but it can help you come to terms with the past" (Respondent 5).

Perceptions of forgiveness

According to the recipients, forgiveness and reconciliation are the same. Together, reconciliation and forgiveness mean to be understood, to bring out the truth, and to understand why people did what they did. They agreed that the TRC embodied the notion of forgiveness, and that this was acceptable because they deemed forgiveness a necessary step in coping with the past and starting to heal.

Perceptions of reconciliation

All recipients felt that if the perpetrators had come forward and the recipients had been granted some kind of compensation for their losses, they would be able to reconcile. The recipients were disappointed that they did not meet their perpetrators. A common response was: "It was my impression that I would go to the TRC and meet the perpetrators and find out why they did what they did...I hoped that the government would play some kind of a role between myself and the perpetrators and then eventually one could start talking about reconciliation. Since this meeting didn't take place, I have no comment" (Respondent 2).

Perceptions of the TRC

The recipients approved of the TRC's objectives, although they were frustrated it took so long to receive UIR. They had hoped to be better informed about the rationale of the TRC's operations and found the process of applying for and receiving UIR very confusing. They felt disoriented about the future of final reparations and did not know whom to address with queries on the current status of reparations. For example, a recipient (Respondent 5) explained that she was bewildered because she had lost two sons and only received UIR for one. She said she was waiting to receive UIR from the TRC for the other son.

Victims' expectations of reparations

The recipients stated that the victims felt they had been promised not only UIR but also future reparations. The term "interim" communicated to them that more monetary assistance would ensue. Also, some recipients expressed that many victims thought that the TRC's R&R policy proposal in the TRC final report was the actual implementation plan, and that this had created high expectations among victims.

Differences in the views of UIR recipients
Views on the adequacy of the UIR

Some recipients stated that the UIR amount granted was adequate, while others expressed extreme dissatisfaction that they had not received more. A typical angry response was: "The government gives us R3 750. What kind of money is that? You can put it in the dustbin!" (Respondent 7)

Satisfaction with the selection process

The recipients differed on whether they approved of the TRC selection process for victims in general and for recipients of UIR more specifically. They differed on whether they thought the TRC was successful at reaching the most deserving and needy victims. A typical response was: "They [victims the recipient knew] did not go to the TRC. They said they didn't want to be attacked again. Many people didn't want to go. Some of them really deserved this [reparations]" (Respondent 9).

Recipients disagreed as to who they felt was the most deserving, i.e. other people or themselves. They also differed on whether they thought other victims accepted and endorsed both the TRC's selection of victims in general and victims eligible for UIR. A response that captured this was: "Some feel that the recipients are 'better victims'. The non-recipients feel that they are not taken seriously and are unhappy about that. The ones who haven't received reparations and who are also victims want to know why the recipients qualify and they don't" (Respondent 2).

Healing and empowerment

The recipients had very different perceptions of whether the UIR made a substantial impact on their lives. Some recipients felt that: "Money makes you stronger...sympathy makes you strong. It builds you to recover, even though it won't bring your child back. You thank God for what he gave you, even if it was taken away" (Respondent 8). Whereas others gave responses such as: "I always feel like crying. Nothing has changed" (Respondent 4). Furthermore, respondents differed as to their views of whether the UIR made them feel proud.

Similarly, the recipients disagreed on whether UIR made a contribution to starting a process of empowerment and/or healing. A positive statement made by some was, "When they told me I got R2 000 I was so healed inside" (Respondent 9). Those who felt that UIR played an important role in encouraging healing also stated that the TRC process had been beneficial in the sense that it had familiarised them with the suffering of others.

Perceptions of forgiveness

The recipients disagreed as to whether forgiveness means to remember, or forget. They had different views on whether forgiving is a difficult thing to do: "Some people can't forgive - it depends on the person. It's good to forgive, and reparations can help this" (Respondent 5). One recipient said that all other victims in her community could forgive, except her, "I can never accept what happened and forgive the people who killed my mother" (Respondent 1).

The recipients also had different perceptions of whether one can forgive when one does not know the perpetrator. "They [the TRC] asked me to forgive the perpetrators, and so I did. It's difficult because I don't know who did it. If they come to me, I'll forgive. I'm not the only one who is crying" (Respondent 4). Another response that captures this is: "If I get money, I'd forget everything and do my things the way I like...He shot me, I forget. If I saw him, I'd say 'you're my friend, forget about the past. I've got everything I want'" (Respondent 7). Finally, they disagreed as to whether one can forgive when one does not feel empowered economically.

What can we do with such a few rand? Those whites who killed and abused our black brothers received golden handshakes by the black government in an effort to drive home the process of reconciliation. We demand a fair share of the money, given to apartheid's generals.

(Dumisani Khumalo, Khulumani Member, City Press, May 7, 2000)
Perceptions of reconciliation

The recipients positioned themselves differently as to whether reparations are a central aspect of reconciliation. Some said that they had already begun to reconcile before being granted UIR, whereas others said that the UIR, if it were followed by further reparations, would prompt them to become reconciliatory. They felt differently about whether they were able to reconcile, just as they expressed opposite views on whether reconciliation means to remember or forget (see above). Also, the recipients disagreed on whether there had been any reconciliation: "At a national level it looks like there has been some reconciliation [from TV]. But on a personal level it is a pointless exercise because the perpetrators didn't come forward and I don't know what they're thinking" (Respondent 2).

Perceptions of the ANC and government

The recipients had various views on whether the UIR process was a reflection of government's interest, or lack thereof, in victim empowerment. They also had divergent views on whether government and/or the ANC remembered or had forgotten victims. Responses that imply the ANC had 'forgotten' a victim is captured by Respondent 3: "We gave our children to the ANC. The government has the blood of our children and husbands on its hands. They forgot about us. Why?"

Perceptions of what should happen with final reparations

The recipients had different visions of what should happen with the final reparations. Typical contradictory responses were, "They (the government) should create schools for children, hospitals, and food and housing for the poor" (Respondent 8) and: "Symbolic reparations are difficult. We fought more than they did. I need the money, not the communities" (Respondent 3).

On the whole, the recipients disagreed on whether they would prefer future assistance from the government in the shape of significant monetary grants (recipients who were themselves victimised and had become handicapped as a consequence), or employment and a lesser amount of monetary reparations (recipients who had lost a relative and who were eligible for employment). Some acknowledged the importance of looking back whilst looking forward, "Reparations can't go on forever. Work goes into the future" (Respondent 9).

Discussion

There was consensus among recipients that all who went to the TRC went because they were motivated by:

Furthermore, the research revealed two types of recipient reactions to and perceptions of UIR. These reactions seemed to be strongly contingent on the recipients' level of traumatisation and psychological coping abilities combined with their overall life situation.

The first type or group of recipients felt positive about the UIR process. They saw material and symbolic value in the process and felt that healing and empowerment had resulted from the reparations that had been made to them. They were also positive about the possibility of moral and social order being restored to South Africa and were keen to be a part of this process. Although they remarked that they would appreciate continued recognition of the wrongs that they had suffered and more reparations, they understood that attention needed to be paid to the healing of communities as well.

In contrast, the second type or group did not show a positive attitude towards the UIR process and viewed the monetary award as valuable only as a means of alleviating tangible suffering. They felt they had received too little financial assistance and responded with apathy or anger. Recipients in this group were unable to work for health reasons and were losing faith in the government to address their problems. This group saw the possibility for healing and empowerment as contingent on further awards of money and did not view the needs of entire communities as more urgent than their own individual needs.

Although the recipients had expected to receive UIR because they were in need, they differed in their perceptions of how instrumental the UIR should have been as a means to ongoing survival. The two types of recipients perceived UIR as having attempted to address two very different types of needs. Hence, the recipients' perception of the UIR's success depended on which type of need they anticipated UIR would and should target. These two types of need are confined to separate realms of concreteness/abstractness and resemble the compartmentalisation of needs that are presented in Maslow's model of the hierarchy of needs.

Maslow distinguishes between different human needs that each, in its own way, is a motivational force behind behaviour. It is only when needs lowest in the hierarchy (such as getting adequate food and rest, and being out of danger) are met, that a person has the surplus to meet a need at a higher level, such as developing sustainable and meaningful social relations and engaging in self-actualisation (cf. Maslow, 1970; Rogers, 1959).

The first group had a desire to find 'meaning' in events and everyday life, efforts which involve a search for 'order' (how events fit into the grand scheme of life occurrences) and purpose (why the events occurred). These recipients' needs revolved around aspects of self-actualisation and the attainment of personal integrity. These recipients were endowed with an emotional surplus that, among other things, was manifested in a concern for their communities, the future of South Africa and in an interest for psychological and spiritual growth. The second group's needs were very basic in nature and warranted financial provisions to ensure every day survival. Their greatest concerns were how to provide food for their families and ensure their continued existence.

Briefly, the UIR succeeded in giving both categories of recipients short-term relief. However, both categories of recipients are in need of further assistance to continue the process of healing, reconciling and empowerment.

Successes and failures of the UIR

The TRC final report states that reparations must attempt to restore human dignity and signify an acknowledgement of the wrongs that victims have been subjected to. Another goal was that reparations awarded to victims make a significant impact on their lives. UIR was meant to achieve these same ends, but its mandate demonstrates that there was recognition of the very concrete urgency and despair that some victims experienced.

It seems as though needs that were material in nature were primarily addressed in the recipients' use of the UIR. Paying old debts, paying for school, starting up small businesses or commemorating a loved one occurred less frequently. Nonetheless, in the view of the recipients from the first category, the UIR met two types of need, i.e. emotional/symbolic needs and the need to alleviate tangible suffering temporarily.

However, the relief of receiving UIR was short-lived for the second category of recipients, who hoped to address urgent needs over time. In the sense that the UIR opted to address both types of victim needs (material and emotional/symbolic needs), it has, thus far, been successful in relation to the first group of recipients in that they absorbed the TRC's goals of promoting healing and reconciliation through token reparations, and considered it 'meaningful' to have basic needs met temporarily. However, it is questionable whether the UIR, as the first component of the TRC's proposed reparations, had much practical and material value to any of the recipients.

The first category of recipients, who had relatively good coping skills, are (still) benefiting in symbolic ways. However, it remains to be seen how far into the future these recipients' gratitude for the reparations will last. UIR has helped the first category of recipients initiate the process of healing, reconciling and empowerment, whereas the second category is still struggling to meet basic needs for survival. Although all recipients were pleased they had received reparations, this research suggests that the UIR distributed cannot stand alone. The UIR has simply not made a significant impact on the lives of recipients.

It will take much more than a process such as UIR, a small lump sum of money, or symbolic reparations to meet the R&R Committee's goals, i.e. for all recipients to feel their suffering has been acknowledged and to make a substantial impact on their lives that will assist them in regaining their dignity.

Nonetheless, respondents welcomed the TRC's objective of bringing about healing and reconciliation. While most respondents stated that the TRC achieved what it could within the constraints of its mandate, some criticised the TRC's operations and particularly the fact that victims were not provided counselling and support. That said, all recipients expressed approval of the TRC despite dissatisfaction with the UIR implementation.

Interestingly, the majority of respondents agreed that receiving reparations has, at best, intensified existing family dynamics and, at worst, created family conflict. The recipients specifically indicated that they had informed only trusted family members about receiving UIR. The fact that recipient families experienced inter-family conflict as a consequence of competition for resources to the extent they did might emphasise how in need they are.

Less related to reparations is the fact that many recipients expressed fear of creating conflict and of being re-victimised by their fellow community members. Most recipients expressed that the pervasiveness of community crime and conflict has prevented reconciliation, but that it was their perception that national reconciliation has taken place. This could indicate that some of the recipients' expectations that the TRC's effort to 'trickle down' and create successful community reconciliation have been disappointing, thus sustaining their feelings of victimisation (cf. van der Merwe, 1998).

Recipients largely held the view that the term "reparations", meant to acknowledge and validate victims' stories and restore human dignity and pride. In their view, reparations are a tangible recognition of suffering that symbolises sympathy and understanding from others. The recipients agreed that the reparations are central to a reconciliation process, but differed on what type of reparation could promote reconciliation. The first category of recipients stated that their effort to reconcile would be greatly assisted if their perpetrators came forward, whereas the second category of recipients stated that they would demand being granted compensation by their perpetrators in "exchange" for reconciliation.

All respondents approved of and expressed acceptance of the notion of receiving reparations, and none of the recipients felt that the TRC had tried to 'buy' the goodwill of the recipients, or that the recipients were betraying the memory of a lost one by accepting the UIR. "Rituals of respect" for the lost ones were not disturbed by the granting of reparations (cf. Hamber & Wilson, 1998).

All UIR recipients expressed some measure of appreciation for having received UIR. Since eight of nine interviewees were KSG members and were thus used to asserting themselves, their acceptance and gratefulness might shed light on how pervasive the 'culture of tolerance' might be among other victim communities which do not have access to mechanisms for victim support.

As a summary then, recipients believe that they, and others, should receive further individual reparations. The research shows that all UIR recipients were unempowered psychologically and in terms of expressing their rights. The fact that some victims have become sensitised to and tolerant of their circumstances should be addressed and remedied. Receiving UIR has assisted some recipients thus far, but it will take more substantial efforts to create ongoing and widespread empowerment. Encouraging empowerment, restoring human dignity and promoting a culture in which people know and respect basic human rights could and should be facilitated through final reparations.

Conclusion

The goals of the research were to investigate to what degree, if at all, UIR helped meet the TRC's objectives of promoting reconciliation and healing at individual and national levels. The research indicates that the recipients generally accepted and supported the TRC's objectives and the means through which the TRC opted to achieve these ends. Nonetheless, the recipients felt that the TRC did not successfully inform them about the UIR process, did not provide them with the whole truth (including identifying perpetrators), nor was the UIR considered adequate in addressing urgent material needs. According to the findings, recipients differed on whether they were optimistic about the prospect of building a sustainable human rights culture, guided by social and moral order. One group of recipients believed that change for the better is already occurring, whereas the other group felt demoralised and sceptical of such progress.

UIR recipients generally condoned the way in which the TRC imposed the religious values of forgiveness and reconciliation on the victims' testimonial spaces. More importantly, the recipients did not express a claim to see justice achieved and have their rights addressed, and when referring to justice they emphasised their urgent needs. This suggests that there were certain psychological, practical and legal factors that have encouraged and sustained the recipients' tolerance.

It is the assumption of the TRC final report, and one of the findings of this research, that for national and individual healing and reconciliation to occur, successful implementation of significant reparations and rehabilitation measures is required. This research shows that UIR must be considered a token compensation or symbolic reparation in that it satisfied the recipients' material needs only briefly, and in that only those recipients who perceived the UIR as symbolic seemed to benefit from it. UIR has not in and of itself made a meaningful and substantial impact on the lives of recipients and cannot, therefore, be considered a significant or even an adequate attempt at reparations.

It is the conclusion of this research that the UIR process has succeeded in nothing more than initiating healing and reconciliation for the first group of recipients, whereas the second group is as unempowered as they were before they received the UIR.

The stories of survivors have shown how imperative the accomplishment of truth and justice is for survivors - and the rest of the world - to heal and regain faith in humanity. In the cases when survivors' stories have been integrated into world history, it has often taken decades of social remedy. The South African TRC and the survivors' stories have been cathartic in their social and political consequences in that they have ushered in the establishment of a democratic constitution and the development of a new awareness of SA's violent history. Although these developments should be celebrated, they do not constitute significant change for the people who have suffered loss of access to education, employment, safety, mental and physical health and even life.

These people see that formal change is occurring, but cannot reach it. Apartheid's criminalisation of politics has left a legacy of criminal victimisation that is recycled in and permeates communities. Therefore, it is of the outmost importance that the survivors of apartheid be given not only access to their constitutionally defined rights and community reconstruction, but also continued acknowledgement and empowerment through further individual reparations.

References

Rogers, C. (1959). On self-actualisation. In Koch, Psychology: A Study of a Science. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.

Hamber, B. & Wilson, R. (forthcoming). Symbolic closure through Memory, Reparation and Revenge in Post-conflict Societies. In E. Cairns (ed.), Social Memory (working title), Macmillan Publishers.

Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. New York, USA: Harper & Row.

van der Merwe, H. (1998). The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Community Reconciliation. Research conducted with funding provided by the Jennings Randolph Programme of The United States Institute of Peace, 8 October. Johannesburg, South Africa: Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.

Chapter 7

© Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation

 
Home | Programmes | Research | Consultancy | Coming Events |
Staff | Internships | Annual Report | Background | Aims |
African Transitional Justice Research Network |
Justice in Perspective | Links

eXTReMe Tracker