The bitter fruit of incomplete reconciliation

INTERVIEW/Adèle Kirsten

50 people dead and an estimated 70,000 on the run. This was the result of a wave of anti-immigrant violence that broke out the 11th of May in a township north of Johannesburg, South Africa, spreading to other cities and covering headlines worldwide. Since then, 36,000 people returned to Mozambique and close to 1,900 people fled to Malawi, according to the Red Cross, but it is not over, yet.

“The crisis was sparked by incomplete reconciliation,” says Adele Kirsten, South Africa’s long time peace activist known for her work with Gun Free Zones, who met with the first large scale crisis since becoming head of the Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, CSVR, this January. The center coordinated quick response humanitarian aid to the displaced immigrants, stranded in tents.

The violence, according to Kirsten comes from a "misperception you can't ignore" about what democracy should bring and where the jobs are. In an exclusive interview to Comunidad Segura, Kirsten spoke about the crisis, and also about her work at the CSVR, a nongovernmental organization at the heart of the transition:  “We look at why is crime so violent in South Africa, how society remembers and understands its past and human rights violations, how people record and find their history through memory workshops.” She finds however, that now is not the time for civil society to shoulder the burden of government, but for re-evaluating past strategies in light of results and being ready to change.

Could you describe to me how the center has been involved in the recent crisis concerning violence against immigrants in South Africa?

We been very involved – and the crisis itself relates to a question around reconciliation, I think part of what happens in South Africa is a symptom of incomplete reconciliation, an incomplete transition from a repressive system to a constitutional democracy, and I think one of the underlying factors is because many South Africans who live in poorer settlements feel they have not benefited from democracy, that they did not get housing and running water and jobs as they had been promised by democracy.

I think there are many other societies where there is that lack of services and poverty but where it does not necessarily reflect the extreme forms of violence that took place over the last few weeks. Part of it is related with the history of Apartheid, the history of the use of violence in our society.

What response has Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation been involved in?

Our response has been to be involved in coordinating counseling and humanitarian assistance. We are helping people deal with trauma... post traumatic stress syndrome, and helping them understand with what has happened to them and so they can regain a sense of balance.

Where are the immigrants now?

The immigrants have been displaced from their homes to shelters, there are in shelters offered by city government, the provincial government, some are being offered by churches…among others.

Is the peak of the crisis over?

It seems to be calmer now, but it remains a crisis, there are not enough tents, there isn’t enough water, the weather is cold, none of them are able to go back home yet.  Apart from offering support to the victims the CSVR is also coordinating humanitarian assistance. We have teams at each of the 20 sites; we have set up a template about each site, with information on how many people are at each site, we are trying to link up people who have been separated…

Has there been any intervention with the aggressors?

There are many cases where local community organizations have helped ease tensions and prevent attacks. It is important to work with the communitiesm, that we provide victims with what they need.

Not all people were involved in the violence but many just stood and watched.

We are not interested in who the perpetrators are, at this stage it is immaterial, but we are interested in with working with the community as a whole. It is slow and we have to see it as long term. People are dissatisfied with their conditions, they are poor people, their perception that foreigners are taking their jobs, there is no proof of that but you cannot ignore this misperception.

What is the center’s relation with the government?

The center is completely independent, but we do work with government when appropriate and relevant, in this issue we are committed to work with them, but they have not been easy to work with, the government took two weeks to respond, they are a bit defensive, the relations between United Nation agencies and civil society with government is quite tense now. UN agencies are not quite that easy to work with but at least they know what they can do and not do, they are clear.

Has the crisis led to a long term project in this case?

We are not sure at this point, it is really the role of the state, it needs to start taking over and it is beginning to to do that now...

What is the role of the center overall?

We look at why is crime so violent in South Africa, how society remembers and understands its past and human rights violations, how people record and find their history through memory workshops. We look at the sites of remains of human rights violations, at child disappearances.

Is is not possible to just turn a new leaf, forget the past?

To work with memory is to work with accountability and impunity.
This is part of our work with other nations too, such as Peru. Unless we deal with the past and reconcile with the past, understand what happened and why, deep resentment set in.

It means recognizing that victims can become perpetrators. It is about interrupting the cycle of violence. You create a new help line. I think the xenophobic surge over the past few weeks is a fault line.

So overcoming past violence is not a question of forgetting nor of forgiveness?

The concept of the Peace and Reconciliation Commission (part of the transition from the Apartheid) had a very strong moral and religious message, and the message was one of forgiveness and it had some value at the time, but examples illustrate that they are separate processes.

Look, it is not a straight forward thing of this works and that does not work.
You see for example in Ruanda, the process was much more locally focused, apart from the national process they also had a local one with local hearings, where local people could take part, it was very interesting. There are similar examples in Guatemala and Argentina as well. Here we had a much more formal process.

Could you comment on your experience with the Gun Free South Africa?

It was interesting that in this crisis there was very little gun related violence, we still are the highest gun homicide nations, the work is not finished, and I hope to work more on gun control.

“Leave fear outside”,  was one lemma of the Gun Free Zones, how do you do that?

These words were written on a poster that was almost the end of the process. It is based on a social contract, we would run workshops to start discussing the meaning of safety, of public safety and the role of the community. The process started with dialogue, establishing a relationship of trust. It does not mean that people were necessarily not scared, but at least people know each other more.

How do you involve the community in this kind of work?

The meetings were mostly with lay people, the initial meeting with only communities, and then eventually they felt free to call in other groups when necessary. If they felt, for example, insecure about people coming from outside into their ‘gun free’ communities, they might agree to call police on board.

In the case of large urban centers?

It was still mainly driven by the community. We’d go to big urban centers, but use established structures, catholic centers, civic services, women’s or youth organizations, you work with groups that are sympathetic to your goals.

Part of our anti-apartheid work is to identify sectors and identify with them, work with schools for example, and get them to replicate the work with other schools.

What is the role of civil society in violence prevention?

It is a critical role and it must be done in partnership with a range of other organizations and including government.

But we have not had the kind of results that we should, we have not yet stepped back to see what works. We need to do more research and gather data on what prevents violence.

I often use the example of the Fight for Peace Boxing club, working with resilience and looking at the factors of what helps young people not get into crime. 

It is time to turn the question around, talk about the positive. Civil society should work more at evaluating our own processes, and this is a long term project. We tend to look for quick fixes, it is understandable because there are enormous levels of violence in both our societies.

From Comunidad Segura:

South Africa’s Child Rights Bill, a revolution in the making

In the ring for peace | ComunidadeSegura.org

A first step towards protecting children involved in gun violence

Read Further:

Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation

From the BBC, Pictures of the stranded immigrants: In Pictures: Fleeing S Africa Unrest

Fight for Peace, create champions