Ayesha Kajee, May 13th

Despite the jet lag, this speaker was really enjoyable. (She also has worked in Ghana and hopefully, I will be in contact with her about my study abroad plans for Ghana in the fall.) Throughout our time with her, civil society groups were mentioned a lot. This last spring semester I took a health care policy course in which Ralph Nader was a guest speaker. Nader mentioned the potential of consumer groups in changing the US health care system. It is important to have multiple access points for people to get involved. Grassroots and civil society groups can give such access points.

Kajee talked about how many people, especially in the rural areas, do not feel that justice has been served. A main factor in the process of justice was giving amnesty for full discloser of the truth. We briefly discussed a social and psychological consciousness. I was asked if it was feasible at the time of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to request the perpetrators to fully disclose the truth with the climate at the time. Kajee agreed from a psychological climate perspective but said legally they were bound. Reconciliation seems to be a very emotional process. Would the truth telling process be beneficial if it was mainly conducted for legal reasons? Am I over emphasizing the potential emotional benefits of truth telling? Nevertheless, both the victims and the perpetrators should benefit from truth telling. The victims could feel like their pain has been recognized and the perpetrators could start to come to terms with their actions. I am wondering about the public display aspect of this truth telling process that was connected to amnesty. Again, if the perpetrators are too scared to tell the truth in public, then no one will benefit. At the same time, the victims feel like the “government has sold out” (in Kajee’s words) and that justice is not being served. I am concerned with the perception of justice. Justice in the context of opposition does not aid the reconciliation process. Even now, I am writing in the language of victim and perpetrator. This language is problematic. Both victims and perpetrators are survivors of the apartheid and history of discrimination. When everyone is viewed as a survivor, the concept of justice hopefully changes too. As survivors, what are the needs going forward? How does justice play into this question?