TRC Final Report

Volume 5

Part minority_position

Subsection 9

■ ON VALUE SYSTEMS AND A HUMAN RIGHTS CULTURE

66 I have been made aware again of the different value systems operating in different segments of our society. They transcend divisions of race, gender, ethnicity, religion and region, although some value systems seem to be more dominant in some communities than in others.

67 Conflict between value systems cannot be resolved through rigid and dogmatic enforcement of one at the expense of others. Often it cannot be resolved at all. Not only does the Constitution wisely account for this fact, but the political leaders of our country are also showing, in word and deed, great sensitivity to this reality. Such conflict can at best be managed. Paradigm shifts in value systems do not happen through debate but through exposure. In this sense, a value system is probably best described as a framework, a set of coping mechanisms, survival mechanisms for responding to your world as you see it.

68 Our Constitution, based on a democratic order, even entrenching human rights values, acknowledges the reality of traditional value systems and has regard for traditional leadership.

69 Democratic systems, for example, are by definition threatening to traditional systems, where leadership is determined by heredity and not by elections. Hierarchies are intrinsic to their existence. The concepts of merit, ethics and morality are very differently understood and judged.

70 The simultaneous operation of different value systems in society calls for wise systemic management if we want to promote a human rights culture at all. Of course, one can always measure another by one’s own value system. Invariably the other will be found wanting.

71 Promoting a human rights culture does not mean, at least to my mind, the moral judgement of others, especially if they do not share your mindset. As I have often said in the immediate past, I find moralising, if not counter-productive to reconciliation and national unity, offensive to my taste.

72 The task of the Commission, amongst others, is to report on the motives and perspectives of perpetrators and on the perspectives of victims. The draft chapter prepared for the Commission on this subject addresses the issue with much understanding and empathy, but in a general way and without an analysis of data. Perspectives quoted are used as examples. As in many other instances, the author had to draw primarily on theory and secondary sources.

73 I mention this aspect because I fear that the ensuing public debate will do very little to change structures of thinking, of the very value systems that caused the conflict. It is important to identify communities, operating social systems and geographies if society itself is to have a better understanding and awareness of underlying causes of conflict, which may have nothing to do with apartheid. Apartheid is no longer a threat. It will never be fashionable again. It will not rise from the dead. It was the content of an ideological mindset. Different ideologies, or even different rigidly enforced dogmas, may create similar threats to unity and reconciliation, to peace and stability, to survival itself. Small things may trigger major conflicts. They may well give rise to apparently unlikely and very violent alliances. “Value systems of a feather stick together.” Our immediate past bears testimony to this adapted adage.