TRC Final Report

Volume 5

Chapter 7

Subsection 7

Third parties: the perspective of the Commission

51 There is a third perspective: that of the onlooker, the outsider, the observer, the recorder, the evaluator, the scientist. That is the position of the Commission. Neither victim nor perpetrator, but charged with the task of understanding such acts of evil and helping to prevent them in future, it is a difficult stance. From the observer’s difficult position, it is both helpful and instructive to grasp the notion that the perspectives of victims and perpetrators may differ sharply.

52 While its overall aim is to be even-handed and as objective as possible, to view the Commission as homogeneous, as all of one piece, is a rather oversimplified approach. The Commission is made up of many people with different perspectives. Members have had sympathy with the victims not least because of the harrowing process of hearing month after month of testimony from victims. In addition, some Commission members have shared the perspectives of victims in their own past experience. Depending on the context, members may also have had some empathy with perpetrators, perceiving them to some extent also as victims. This is not to decry the efforts of the Commission to be objective. It is an honest admission that the perspective of the Commission and its members is a complex one.

Perpetrators as victims?

53 A further problem of perspective is the thorny question of whether perpetrators may also be viewed as victims. Although one may wish to have a clear-cut position on perpetrators, its is possible that there are grey areas. Perpetrators may be seen as acting under orders, as subjects of indoctrination, as subjected to threats, as outcomes of earlier doctrinaire education. In the most pernicious situation, askaris (former ANC cadres who were ‘turned’, frequently through torture, threats and brutality, into state agents) are themselves transformed into killers and torturers. Military conscripts could view themselves in part as victims of a state system. Kitskonstabels (special constables) could see themselves as victims of poverty, in need of a job.

54 To understand these potential grey areas involves being drawn into a position of some sympathy with the perpetrator. The dangers of this are twofold: first to forget and ignore the suffering of victims of abuse, and second, to exonerate the doer of violent deeds. From the third perspective of the Commission, difficulties are once again manifest. Two statements may be fruitful. First, it is important to recognise that perpetrators may in part be victims. Second, recognition of the grey areas should not be regarded as absolving perpetrators of responsibility for their deeds.

55 The position of the Commission regarding accountability and responsibility is quite clear and was repeatedly stated by the chairperson of the Commission. While acts of gross violations of human rights may be regarded as demonic, it is counter-productive to regard persons who perpetrated those acts as necessarily demonic. The work of the Commission towards reconciliation would be useless if such a stance were to be upheld.