Reconciliation Studies in South Africa

Reconciliation Studies – Contours of a New Discipline
Since the beginning of the 1990s reconciliation has become an important concept used in various post-conflict situations. The word has many meanings, and apart from the fact that the origin is to be found in the English translation of the Bible in King James’ version (and one has to look for Paul’s epistles like 2 Corinthians 5.16-21), the word now has taken on a much wider meaning and concerns no doubt the wider society. This is not the place to go into the various meanings, but there is a kind of consensus in the sense that in a post-conflict situation (like Rwanda, South Africa, Namibia, Germany, etc) it does not work to accept an outcome with winners and losers. In a globalised world it has become more and more apparent that there is a desperate need for a kind of solution, if ever so fragile, that gives all a chance, not only should there be a rehabilitation of the victims, also the perpetrators should be given a chance of a new life – and this should not be missed – together with those who were victims.
South Africa is such a place. The needed transformation must have solid reconciliation as a base. Those who once supported apartheid and benefited from it greatly must somehow still be part of the new solution. There is of course an ongoing debate about this, about what should still be required from those who benefited etc, but by and large all accept that people should stay on and remain a part of the country and its future.
The fact is that the term reconciliation has undergone a kind of metamorphosis from having been a term rooted in a biblical and theological soil to becoming a political term in the wider, socio-political landscape. In order to make reconciliation studies meaningful at this point in time the following three criteria should be taken seriously.
First there has to be a recognised post-conflict situation. There is no use for a study of a situation where there is no articulated need to move into a new understanding of the specific society. There must be a post-conflict state of affairs that is commonly acknowledged. There must also be an agreement regarding the need to move beyond the said conflict into a new kind of society. However, the net result of any such serious study of post-conflict situations is the discovery that many societies have similar strands of such post-conflict nature and it could even be the case with countries that still are in an intra-state conflict.
Secondly, there must be tangible proof that certain actors (be it the national government, UN based organisations, NGOs or church bodies) have embarked on a reconciliation process. One could summarise such attempts in as far as there is or was an existing truth and reconciliation commission (TRC). In terms of study it is absolutely vital here to recognise the importance of such a context. On my shelf I have a recent book on various reconciliation processes around the world and the scholars participating in it is quite impressive. However, a large number of these scholars are from the West, especially from the US and even if a good number of them have been part of various conflicts and post-conflict situations for longer and shorter periods, one is sorely lacking the kind of contextuality that makes a difference. As the Deputy Vice Chancellor of the University of Johannesburg, Professor Adam Habib, said recently: “the research question is embedded in each local context and will change in nature if taken out of there.” What he is saying in our case is in effect that it makes a difference whether the reconciliation process in South Africa is studied from within in a total sense or not. In short, the research question itself is derived from the fact that the context is one of former victims as well as former perpetrators.
Thirdly, there is a point in keeping up the tension between the theological and the political in terms of what is reconciliation. Perhaps the real tragedy is that the church never allowed reconciliation to become a societal process, a never-ending, un-finished business kind of story, but kept the phenomenon captive within the walls of the church. It withered slowly but certainly and became through the years merely a matter of private devotion for the individual Christian and at best something between the penitent and father confessor. Reconciliation had to be liberated into the real world. However a mere journey from the theological to the political will also not do. Already one can see that the notion of reconciliation after such a journey has become so diluted that it simply may mean that “people get along without killing each other”. In order to have an impact in the political sphere reconciliation somehow has to maintain some of its theological character, some of its irreducible God-given grace. In order to help people come to terms with their differences and embrace one another in these very differences, this faith based notion of reconciliation has to be confronted with real social and political ills.
It goes without saying that Reconciliation Studies should be pursued at South African universities and exactly this is happening at this time in various forms. They should be inter-disciplinary by nature but still, one way or another, take the points above into account. We also think that there is a strong case for such an extensive programme at the University of the Western Cape.