South Africa’s “Ubuntu” and Sri Lanka’s “Karunawa” : Will the twain meet?
(Part 2).
By Bandu de Silva
In an article I published in 2013/2014, discussing the relevance of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation model (TRC) to Sri Lanka I concluded as follows:
“One should see that behind this projection of the South African model to Sri Lanka lies a subtle programme to gain support to the West’s attempt to market a project to popularize that deceitful strategy in order to continue exploitation by Western capital while at the same time proceed with raising human rights issues in other countries, which is but a ploy to hide the West’s own human rights violations. That is a new way of continuing with the colonial agenda to keep certain countries under perpetual subjugation and pressure.”
Delving deep into the subject, I asked: “Who are the advocates of this? Doesn’t one see the Western hand in it now picked up especially by pro- Eelam lobbies overseas? During and before CHOGM held in Colombo, the idea of the South African TRC seems to have been put across to the Sri Lankan government by the South African side. President Zuma was seen right at the centre of these then on-going suggestions. Here we may pause for a while to ask “Who is President Zuma”? Does he represent Nelson Mandela’s ideals? If so, at the funeral ceremony in the Stadium when Zuma’s picture appeared on the screen after that of the deceased Nelson Mandela, why did the audience ‘boo’?
I quoted Prof. Horace Campbell of the Tsinhua University who also asked why the stadium where the memorial service was held was half empty when the memory of the departed leader, Madiba was being honoured? Over 90 world leaders had been present. President Obama was given the honour of making the funeral oratory, not the head of the OAU, or the new Chair of CHOGM although President Rajapaksa who had expected, quite rightly, that he would be given a slot to speak on behalf of the Commonwealth leaders. No CHOGM was recognized there. It was Prince Charles and David Cameron who shined, if at all, after Obama. That is the reality which post-Mandela South Africa is”.
In other words, the post independent regime, including Mandela’s is “ one which closely collaborates with Western Capital… If the Sri Lankan government thought (as at 2013) that President Zuma was projecting Mandela’s ideals, it was mistaken. So do any others who so believe. The recommendations which poured in for Sri Lanka to emulate South Africa’s TRC process then could be seen as another trap laid for Sri Lanka over which the government had to tread very carefully before it puts its foot into another mess like the LLRC,” I wrote.
Why did I write so?
Apart from the South African situation being entirely different from that in Sri Lanka, I argued that TRC’s mandate “did not extend to investigate the most vital issue – the horrendous period of the cruel persuasion of the Apartheid policy by the Apartheid regime of South Africa which violated all basic human rights and practiced a vicious kind of racism even worse than that pursued by the Fascist regime of former Germany”. The investigation by the Commission held under the Chairmanship of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, was confined to a period from 1960 to 1994. That is, it covered only a part of the Apartheid era and the years of the transition period.
I pointed out further, “reading in between lines, one could see what had been claimed as its positive side, (see Wkepedia), its real objective was nothing but to prevent any extreme form of dealing with the past and the situation arising in the post -Apartheid period from transition to the establishment of democratic rule.” As Prof Campbell observed, “In the three years after the release of Mandela, the international media was predicting a bloodbath in South Africa if Blacks were to emerge victorious from the first democratic elections in 1994. Those with strategic control over the means of violence sought to make this bloodbath a reality right up to the moment when Mandela was inaugurated in May 1994 as the first Black President of a Democratic Society.” That is international media joining to create a situation of fear in order to safeguard the interest of minority Apartheid rulers.
It was against this fear of a black uprising against the minority Afrikaaner and their African collaborators and against the background of suppression under the Apartheid/ earlier colonial regime, aknowledged/apologized/and compensation was paid as the majority of South Africans expected. The Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995 was passed to give the legal framework for the establishment of TRC.
Was it then an exclusively, Mandela/Tutu/ ANC initiative, I asked? It could not be so, I argued. Judging from all available data, I saw it as a compromise, albeit the former President Ian Botha refusing the summons of the Commission calling it a “Circus” and earned a fine and receiving a suspended sentence for that but acquitted in appeal.
South Africa’s “Ubuntu” reconciliation model and Sri Lanka’s “Karunawa” model:
Will the twain meet?
Part 3
Mandela’s position
As I wrote elsewhere, (‘Mandela:A different perspective”: www.Nation.lk/epaper/sunday/2014/01/12/files/assets/basic.html) when I met Nelson Mandela shortly after he was released from prison, in my capacity as Sri Lanka’s most senior serving professional diplomat at the time, he seemed to be undecided. Even if the African ideal of Ubuntu (reconciliation), like the Buddhist ideal of “Nahi-verena-verani”, or the higher ideals of Metta and Karuna, might have been present in Mandela’s mind, and even if Archbishop Tutu might have made a profound impact on him, the demand of the oppressed majority Africans was not completely out of his mind when he spoke to me. The force of vengeance demanded by extreme sections, which Campbell described as “those with strategic control over the means of violence … seeking to make this bloodbath a reality right up to the moment when Mandela was inaugurated in May 1994 as the first Black President” was also not out of his mind.
I wrote that, in the final analysis, Mandela was subjected to Western Capitalist pressure through a section of ANC to which he succumbed. It is hard to think why, Mandela, a man who was the product of South Africa’s agony, and symbolized it’s aspirations, left office after his first term as President. Altruistic and noble qualities have been assigned to it. However, circumstances leave room for doubt as to why he left the ideals of serving his people he had very much in mind , which he told me when I met him, unfulfilled. He was seen throughout his Presidency engaging on behalf of people trying to liberate themselves in other lands in a proactive role when he opposed Western designation of these states as supporting terrorism and openly supported Fidel Castro, Yassar Arafat of PLO and others. He was very critical of US intervention in other states of Africa. He received President Chandrika of Sri Lanka as the “young and new hope of Asia” (though she did not live up to hat expectation). On the part of US, its Defence Department did not remove him from the list of terrorists until late, and after the State Department had delisted him.
How could one explain this dual frame of mind , I asked. His rhetoric did not fit into the agenda of ANC leaders like Ramphosa, former militant Trade Union leader in the platinum mine industry who had joined the Apartheid regime in suppressing strike at the Platinum mines and later became one of the big shareholders in the industry. It was Ramposha who went to meet Mandela when he was released from custody. On further reflection, I even wonder if Mandela’s release itself was negotiated through Ramphosha’s intervention and that Mandela had to pay a price for that by opting for ‘ubuntu’, though he kept on supporting liberation struggles.
‘Ubuntu’ in practice, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)
The TRC was then established against the background of a predicted blood bath in South Africa which could emerge from the first victorious democratic elections held in post- Apartheid South Africa. One year after Mandela became President, as I said earlier, the Parliament of South Africa established the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, No. 34 of 1995 to provide the legal framework for the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Mandela threw his international weight behind the process of Reconciliation.
While the TRC was holding sessions, Mandela made a number of public gestures to demonstrate the fact that he supported full reconciliation between the oppressed blacks and the oppressors like the visit to have tea with Mrs. Betsie Verwoerd at Oriana in 1995, and donning the jersey of the segregated South African rugby team in the World Cup in South Africa .(Campbell). These gestures were meant to demonstrate that new South Africa was based on forgiveness and willingness to share, core principles of ‘Ubuntu”.
Such gestures have not been wanting in Sri Lanka’s present situation though not to such a flagged extent. This was demonstrated by the appointment of the TNA leader Sambanthan as the leader of opposition among other gestures like the Presidentia and Prime Ministerial visits to the North.
Legal view
At the legal level, South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution is seen as one of the most progressive in the world, and one seen as drawing on Ubuntu to enshrine equal constitutional rights for all – black, white, coloured, women, youths, elderly people and same-gender-loving persons. Bringing in Ubuntu here can be seen as a clever strategy to pacify the extremists mobilizing public opinion to create violence.
This effort at Reconciliation at the legal level and at the public level went side by side as the TRC started hearings in Cape Town in 1996.
The Mandate of TRC
The mandate of the Commission, to put it in summary, had been to bear witness to, record, and in some cases grant amnesty to the perpetrators of crimes relating to human rights violations, as well as reparation and rehabilitation. Witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences, and some were selected for public hearings. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request amnesty from both civil and criminal prosecution.
Restorative Justice
Campbell observes that a new concept (This was actually brought to the fore in 1958) was being developed in the context of seeking restorative justice beyond the Nuremberg Model of winners’ court. The healing power of the process was manifest in the rituals that emanated from victims and oppressors, creating a space that could be the basis of holding the society together. This ritual of the TRC with the spiritual underpinnings of forgiveness and healing was utilized as a powerful antidote to the three hundred years of white racist oppression. He quotes: Malidoma Some: Healing Wisdom of Africa: Finding Life Purpose Through Nature, Ritual, and Community.
“It was in the TRC where one saw some of the ideas being worked out. During the Hearings of the TRC there were public hearings as the narratives of perpetrators and victims moved in a constant motion across time (from present to past and present to future) and space (spiritual, social, physical, emotional) in a movement that may be called recursive.
As Campbell summed up: “Here was a profound moment in the history of South Africa as the African people offered a crucible for healing the society… Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu will go down in history as individuals who opened up the possibilities for another form of society. This healing process offered by the TRC, despite its imperfections, placed Ubuntu on the philosophical map breaking the ideation baggage of individualism, greed, competition and revenge.”
The recent critic Campbell was not the only one who saw the purpose and results of TRC in negative terms. There were others which Wikipedia has listed. The BBC itself observed that the mandate of the TRC was to “uncover the truth about past abuse, using amnesty as a mechanism, rather than to punish past crimes.” So, the TRC was no more than what Botha called a “Circus,” not for the reasons he thought, but for reasons of its appearance and content. The success of the “TRC Method” versus the “Nuremberg Method” of procedure is open to debate, as Wikipedia observed.
To be Continued
South Africa’s “Ubuntu” reconciliation model and Sri Lanka’s “Karunawa” model:
Will the twain meet?
Part 4
Relevance to Sri Lanka
The above discussion provides the background to South Africa’s TRC process. Its mandate was limited and was not intended to investigate causes of the most serious human rights issue that South Africans faced, and provide ‘justice’ that the South African people expected. Its objective was primarily to prevent a blood bath taking place by going into post- Apartheid issues over a limited period.
However, its objectives and the whole environment surrounding it as has been mystified along with Mandela’s personality, when it was clear that he had, as it appears from all indications, clearly held different views from reconciliation when he stood for Cuba, Palestine, Libya, Yemen and others, and was harshly critical of US. Are we to then believe that his personality was imported into a West –sponsored project of reconciliation which was meant to save the Afrikaner minority and for Western Capital to continue with the economic exploitation of South Africa with African collaborators within and outside ANC?
What is then the magic of TRC which Sri Lanka can derive? Is it just the misleading nomenclature given to the South African project? Let us de-mystify it.
Sri Lanka’s Post-War Situation
The post- Apartheid conditions which obtained in South Africa do not exist in Sri Lanka. Though there was no post-ar blood-bath here as was imagined in respect of South Africa where it was sagaciously avoided, there have been two different trends in Sri Lanka. One was to treat the LTTE terrorists leniently. Except for those who were found guilty of serious crimes against whom Court actions were proceeding, others have been rehabilitated and have now joined the mainstream of the society. Former LTTE stalwarts, Muralitharan (Karuna), Chandrakanthan (Pillayan), K.Pathmanathan (K.P) and Tamilini)9who died of Cancer this week) stand out as distinctive symbols of that healing process.
The other trend was to proceed on a path of victory celebrations by the state, which took the shine away from, if not vitiated the effects of the ‘healing’ process introduced by the lenient treatment of former terrorists.
Applicability of South African Model
Whatever the circumstances in which the South African TRC was brought about, and proceeded with its investigation, it helped to control a volatile situation from erupting. We did not face such a situation here. Over-celebrations were the only negative element which did not help the healing process but further accentuated the division. Perhaps, it might be argued that it took away any element of extremism that might have been present and erupted among the victorious side, but everything was well under control.
As far as the mandate is concerned, there appears to be very little to draw from the mandate issued to the South African Commission. Bereft of its underlying implications, taking only the outer manifestations, like the nomenclature (title), the TRC process can have a meaning only if Sri Lanka is prepared firstly, to tone down on these negative-resulting celebrations, as I wrote in 2003 and soon after victory, as far as reconciliation is concerned. Then why continue with celebrations?
My present thoughts
On further reflection, now that Sri Lanka has subscribed to the idea of a local mechanism of investigation with options for foreign participation, despite the government’s claims to the contrary, there seems to be a positive element in the South African model to look at. That is the objective of South Africa’s TRC process, which has been, apart from recording, in some cases, to “grant amnesty to the perpetrators of crimes relating to human rights violations, as well as to provide reparation and rehabilitation, and to receive amnesty from criminal prosecution. That is not the expectation of the West and of others in Sri Lanka as demonstrated by the recently adopted Resolution in Geneva but it is for the Sri Lankan people and the government to think what is best for the country.
That may not be the objective of our leadership who appears to be groping in darkness after co-sponsoring the Geneva resolution when they propose to hold a South African type TRC in Sri Lanka. In my view then, there is nothing to gain from South African experience, if only its mystifying name now enthroned by the West as an example of noble human conduct, is to be used. That is because it served the purpose, the protection of the former perpetrators of Apartheid and interests of Western Capital. Even Jay and Eric Vera who wrote on the effectiveness of the TRC observed its usefulness only in terms of bringing out the truth of what happened during the Apartheid regime, [but the whole truth nothing but the truth, was missing]. Many witnesses were found to be lying. 5,392 amnesty applications were rejected; only 849 were admitted and over 2000 others were withdrawn.
Sri Lanka has enough human resources and historical, religious and cultural resources of its own besides, accumulated legal wisdom to draw from, in formulating its own mechanism if the LLRC process needs to be taken forward.
One should be mindful that behind this projection of the South African model to Sri Lanka lies a subtle programme to gain support to the West’s attempt to market a project to popularize the deceitful strategy of hiding human rights violations in their countries. Catering to the objective of the Western interest groups and the Tamils to conduct investigation to dispense retributive justice alone of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials type should be avoided at any cost. In the Sri Lankan situation, the roles of both sides to the conflict have to be investigated as these have given rise to serious grievances, not the way it was done in South Africa, but in a far more meaningful way. There should be no interests to protect the interests of one side and Western Capital as was the South African situation. To imitate that would be a mockery.
P.S.
As I write information comes that South Africa has withdrawn from the Rome Treaty, i.e. jurisdiction of ICC on the ground that all investigations by ICC has been directed so far at African states.
Concluded
***
*The writer was Sri Lanka’s former senior Diplomat accredited to a number of countries in Europe besides France, the Vatican and UNESCO, and later the country’s first Resident Ambassador to Iran. He was also, perhaps, the first senior Sri Lanakan diplomat to meet Nelson Mandela shortly after his release from prison and had intentions to run for Presidency. Since retirement, he has turned writer and writes to the printed and electronic media and academic journals regularly
867 Viewers
