TRC Final Report

Volume 1

Chapter 5

Subsection 5

Personal and narrative truth

35 At a hearing of the Commission in Port Elizabeth on 21 May 1996, Archbishop Tutu said: This Commission is said to listen to everyone. It is therefore important that everyone should be given a chance to say his or her truth as he or she sees it…

36 By telling their stories, both victims and perpetrators gave meaning to the multi-layered experiences of the South African story. These personal truths were communicated to the broader public by the media. In the (South) African context, where value continues to be attached to oral tradition, the process of story telling was particularly important. Indeed, this aspect is a distinctive and unique feature of the legislation governing the Commission, setting it apart from the mandates of truth commissions elsewhere. The Act explicitly recognised the healing potential of telling stories.⁶ The stories told to the Commission were not presented as arguments or claims in a court of law. Rather, they provided unique insights into the pain of South Africa’s past, often touching the hearts of all that heard them.

37 By providing the environment in which victims could tell their own stories in their own languages, the Commission not only helped to uncover existing facts about past abuses, but also assisted in the creation of a ‘narrative truth’. In so doing, it also sought to contribute to the process of reconciliation by ensuring that the truth about the past included the validation of the individual subjective experiences of people who had previously been silenced or voiceless. The Commission sought, too, to capture the widest possible record of people’s perceptions, stories, myths and experiences. It chose, in the words of Antjie Krog, a South African writer and poet, “the road of... restoring memory and humanity”.⁷ It is what Oxford University historian, Timothy Garton Ash, sees as “the most promising” way – a way that offers “history lessons” as an alternative to political trials, uncovering what happened and identifying lessons for the future.⁸ As such, the Commission sought to recover parts of the national memory that had hitherto been officially ignored.

38 It is impossible to capture the detail and complexity of all of this in a report. The transcripts of the hearings, individual statements, a mountain of press clippings and video material are all part of an invaluable record which the Commission handed over to the National Archives for public access. This record will form a part of the national memory for generations yet to come. In this report, the Commission has tried, through a range of detailed ‘window cases’ and selections from the testimonies of many victims, to capture some part of the richness of the individual accounts heard before it.

Social truth

39 While narrative truth was central to the work of the Commission, especially to the hearings of the Human Rights Violations Committee, it was in its search for social truth that the closest connection between the Commission’s process and its goal was to be found.

40 Judge Albie Sachs, a prominent participant in the debates preceding the establishment of the Commission and now a Constitutional Court judge, made a useful distinction between what he called ‘microscope truth’ and ‘dialogue truth’. “The first”, he said, “is factual, verifiable and can be documented and proved. ‘Dialogue truth’, on the other hand, is social truth, the truth of experience that is established through interaction, discussion and debate” ⁹ (emphasis added).

41 In recognising the importance of social or ‘dialogue’ truth, the Commission acknowledged the importance of participation and transparency. Its goal was to try to transcend the divisions of the past by listening carefully to the complex motives and perspectives of all those involved. It made a conscious effort to provide an environment in which all possible views could be considered and weighed, one against the other. People from all walks of life were invited to participate in the process, including faith communities, the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and political parties. The public was engaged through open hearings and the media. The Commission itself was also subjected to constant public scrutiny and critique.

42 It is particularly important to emphasise that establishing the truth could not be divorced from the affirmation of the dignity of human beings. Thus, not only the actual outcome or findings of an investigation counted. The process whereby the truth was reached was itself important because it was through this process that the essential norms of social relations between people were reflected. It was, furthermore, through dialogue and respect that a means of promoting transparency, democracy and participation in society was suggested as a basis for affirming human dignity and integrity.