The Road To Reconciliation In South Africa

Due to differences in the understanding and definition of conflict, there are different conflict resolution theories in the academic community. Perspectives and approaches have undergone significant changes, from focusing on direct violence to emphasizing structural violence. Rather than avoiding conflicts, the purpose of conflict transformation is to minimize the negative impact of conflicts and maximize their positive potentials within the framework of both parties’interests, which is a key element in the process of building social relationships and ensuring the harmonious development of the society. By applying the theories of historiography and conflict transformation, this thesis aims to analyze the social structure of South Africa and make a full review of the process of South Africa’s racial reconciliation with the purpose of revealing comprehensively the essential characteristics of racial reconciliation, the dilemma of forgiveness and their causes.To maintain their colonial rule, white South Africans began to develop racist language to provide legitimacy for their white supremacist rule. The evolution from racial segregation to apartheid was the very attempt to meet the grave challenges to white rule and respond to the national liberation movement and decolonization after the end of WWII. Apartheid was incorporated into the social, political, economic and cultural aspects of South Africa, using such terms as "national diversity", "separate development" and "diverse cultures" to cover up racist oppression and structural inequality in the capitalist social structure. Structural inequality, as the root cause of racial conflicts in South Africa, manifested itself in the political, economic, social and cultural structures of this country. In South Africa, parliamentary democracy was intended for the whites, not for the non-whites, particularly the Africans (blacks). The blacks were left powerless politically. Economically, the blacks were reduced to exploited laborers with no freedom of migration. Wage standards depended on races rather than on types of job. Culturally, the whites preached white supremacy and racial superiority, practicing obscurantist policies to the non-whites. Cultural exclusion, accompanied by social exclusion, political oppression and economic exploitation, made racial conflicts in South Africa inevitable.It is structural inequality that led to conflicts of interests among various racial groups and social strata in South Africa. Such conflicts took various forms, with the conflict between the whites and the blacks being particularly fierce. In addition, there were conflicts within various racial groups and between political parties. Racial contradictions were sometimes intertwined with class contradictions. Conflicts in South Africa occurred along the lines of races and ethnic groups rather than social classes. Compromises between the two white groups were made at the expense of non-white interests. The original primary purpose of the non-white movement was to seek freedom by achieving equality instead of independence. Most of the non-white people envisioned various forms of a multi-racial country. They stood for a peaceful settlement of the racial problem. All the conflicts showed that what the conflict parties cared about was interests instead of positions, which made it possible for them to sit at the negotiating table and seek a solution through political negotiations.The Soweto Massacre in 1976 represented brutal suppression of the black uprising by the South African government. At the same time, it marked a turning point in the black movement from non-violence to armed struggle. Anti-apartheid forces represented by the blacks adopted peaceful means of non-violence instead of armed struggle at the beginning. It was the Nationalist government’s intensified policy of suppression that forced the ANC to take the road of armed struggle. In spite of this, the ANC did not abandon its efforts to seek a settlement through peaceful negotiations. After the mid-1980s, the idea of a peaceful settlement won even more support within the ANC. Rapid socio-economic development after the 1960s had made apartheid an obstacle to social progress. Domestic calls for reform had been increasing. The international community had changed its previous policy from merely moral condemnation to practical sanctions, which constituted the external pressures for reforms in South Africa after the 1970s. In the face of internal and external pressures, the white regime of Presidents Balthazar Johannes Vorster, Pieter Willem Botha and Frederik Willem de Klerk made gradual adjustments to apartheid, which eased South Africa’s racial contradictions, changed its isolation, and, more importantly, started its democratic reform process. Such changes, made by the Nationalist government either willingly or unwillingly, laid the foundation for the settlement of the racial problem in the early 1990s.Faced with internal and external pressures, the conflict parties struck some sort of balance and began to seek racial reconciliation through peaceful negotiations. However, the road to peace was by no means smooth. Divisions and regroupings occurred among conflict parties which were undergoing rise or decline of their strength. On the journey to peace, the compromises made by the conflict parties were the decisive factors, although third party efforts also played a significant role. Peace in South Africa was the result of joint efforts by various forces. Of course, the peaceful settlement was also closely related with the international situation during that period of time. What the negotiating parties sought was common interests and a common destiny rather than differences, contradictions and antagonism, which enabled South Africa to organize the society on the basis of tolerance.After its founding, the new South Africa did not follow the way of the Nuremburg Trials to punish crimes of human rights violations during apartheid. Instead, it established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to mediate and handle cases properly on the basis of finding the truths, so as to promote national unity and racial reconciliation. A prominent feature of South Africa’s reconciliation is "Amnesty for Truth". Amnesty is the price South Africa had to pay for its peaceful transformation. Therefore, the truth and reconciliation sought by the Commission were also the result of compromises. Only in this way can justice be balanced with truth and forgiveness, paving the way to reconciliation. In the process of reconciliation, victims have demonstrated admirable capacity to forgive, which, in turn, proves what Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said, "No Future Without Forgiveness." Of course, racial reconciliation in South Africa is also inseparable from the spirit of Ubuntu.South Africa’s racial reconciliation was, to some extent, realized at the expense of justice. The country would certainly be embroiled in a new wave of violence if justice were over-pursued. Reconciliation, indispensable as it is in building lasting peace, should not be achieved at the expense of social justice. The lack of justice and equity in the society would also undermine its peaceful development in future. Therefore, social structure and economic structure should not be ignored in the process of building peace. Balance between reconciliation and justice must be considered as a long-term issue. Otherwise, what we achieve is only negative peace. There still exists the possibility of structural violence. It is, therefore, of paramount importance to build structural peace. Although the South African government has recognized this structural inequality and has been making every effort to eliminate it, yet it is not a problem that can be addressed in a short period of time. For this reason, complete and lasting reconciliation in South Africa will be a long process.