TRC Final Report

Volume 5

Chapter 7

Volume FIVE Chapter SEVEN

Causes, Motives and Perspectives of Perpetrators¹

■ INTRODUCTION

1 The Act governing the work of the Commission requires not only that it establish as complete a picture as possible of activities during the years falling under its mandate and that it identify perpetrators of gross human rights violations, but also that it establish the “antecedent circumstances, factors and context of [gross human rights] violations as well as the causes, motives and perspectives of the persons responsible”.²

2 Who were the perpetrators and what ‘made’ them, moved them or contributed to their behaviour? It is essential to examine perpetrators as multi-dimensional and rounded individuals rather than simply characterising them as purveyors of horrendous acts. Building on the factual history presented in earlier chapters, and utilising research developed in relation to the Holocaust and other situations of sustained oppression that gave rise to systematic acts of gross human rights violations, this chapter attempts to explain why and how these violations transpired, as a basis for informing the debate concerning reconciliation and recommendations to prevent violations in future. A diagnosis of persons and institutions responsible for gross human rights violations is of paramount importance in seeking to prevent future gross human rights violations.

3 It could be argued that prevention is only effective in the early stages of the development of a culture of gross human rights violations, and that signs and symptoms of the ‘syndrome’ should be made known widely. Itzhak Fried³ has suggested that: Individuals in most societies know that a constellation of high fever and coughing may indicate pneumonia. In the same sense, people might become aware that symptoms of an emerging obsessive ideology, hyper-arousal, diminished affective reactivity, and group dependent aggression, directed at members of other sub-groups may signify a situation which needs immediate political, social, and social scientific attention.

4 The tale to be told in this chapter is incomplete and in some respects premature for, although the Commission heard evidence over two and a half years, the bulk of this material came from victims. The work of the Amnesty Committee, which involved hearing testimony from alleged perpetrators, was incomplete at the time of reporting and was scheduled to continue for approximately another twelve months – until July 1999. Hence, a complete picture would emerge only when that task was done and the testimonies thoroughly studied to reveal the full pattern of motives and perspectives of all perpetrators. Even then the tale will be incomplete, since not all categories of perpetrators, for instance ‘necklace’ murder cases, are likely to be fully represented.

5 Further limitations of this chapter need to be clearly stated. The Commission is aware that the quotations in this chapter are not necessarily even-handed extracts from all parties concerned. Quotations are used to illustrate the processes described and the perspectives of various groups. This could result in allegations of bias. However, in some instances, this was unavoidable. Not all groups or parties cooperated equally with the Commission. As a result, comprehensive searches through documents revealed few instances of statements from Inkatha perpetrators, from township ‘vigilante groups’, from torturers or from African National Congress (ANC)-aligned self-defence units (SDUs). Documentary evidence is thus only partly available. Furthermore, the precise question of motives of perpetrators was often not fully canvassed by amnesty panels, nor by special hearings of the Commission. These shortcomings should be attributed to partial failings of the Commission itself, rather than to systematic bias.

6 As a premature effort, the chapter draws on a wide-ranging literature, from local as well as international sources, in an attempt to understand the position of perpetrators. It would be helpful to understand this chapter as being in the form of an agenda for future research and verification rather than a closed book. Nonetheless, partial understandings may be better than none.

7 The chapter begins with a general perspective on patterns of violence, with examples drawn from the information given to the Commission. This is followed by a discussion on the problem of perspectives on the conflict and its participants. It then explores various possible explanations of causes and motives of perpetrators, giving attention both to the political context of the violations and to individual psychological explanations of perpetrators’ actions and the situations in which violations occurred. Consideration is then given to the role of language, the existence of secret societies and silences in the conflict. The information set out above will then be applied to two case examples, exploring the causes, motives and perspectives of torturers and of participants in crowd violence. The chapter concludes with some ideas for the future prevention of atrocities.