Truth And Reconciliaton Commissions

9 Pages 2145 Words

ng up a painful past, for really no reason at all. Others say they are just pointless, because no “real” punishment is being served. However, I believe that in any conflict, as long as one side continues to blame the other (or both sides blame each other) for their problems, healing cannot occur, and a return to normal relationships based on mutual trust cannot be formed. Apology can be a difficult notion, as it requires at the admission of some sort of guilt. However, no apology allows the other side to feel that its opponent believes their behavior was completely acceptable. This creates the fear that the opponent’s unjust or violent behavior could possibly continue. An apology is a sign that the opponent regrets their actions and wants to move to the bargaining table, work towards a compromise, or re-build old relationships.
Forgiveness is also an equally important aspect for reconciliation. People may feel inclined not to forgive, feeling that forgiveness is essentially "giving up" or allowing criminals to “get away with murder." They may also feel that revenge or punishment is the only way to serve real justice. Yet revenge and punishment are both aspects quite detrimental to establishing peace and resolving conflicts, as fear of retaliation can keep an opponent from accepting guilt and apologizing. It is for this reason that I would not write off TRC’s as pointless, and consider them a worthy attempt at re establishing order, because it is often necessary to forgive an enemy’s actions, no matter how horrific, to stop further atrocities from happening.
Since “the South African Commission has become the model for all future commissions”, it is important to explain briefly the role TRC’s played the post-apartheid nation. South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission has the power to grant amnesty for political crimes, investigate past human rights violations, as well as offer some sort of reparati...