Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Attributions of Blame and the Struggle over Apartheid

Abstract

In an effort to put its past firmly behind, the New South Africa created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to document human rights abuses under apartheid and to grant amnesty to those confessing their nefarious deeds. South Africa's democratic experiment depends mightily upon whether truth does in fact bring about reconciliation. Consequently, we examine whether ordinary South Africans accept the theories of blame that underlie the truth and reconciliation process. Based on a formal experiment within a representative sample of South Africans, our results confirm some conventional hypotheses (e.g., leaders are judged more responsible for their deeds than followers), repudiate others (noble motives do little to exonerate violent actions), and modify still others (actors are judged by the severity of their action's consequences, although it matters little whether “combatants” or “civilians” were the victims). We conclude that the dark legacy of the apartheid past makes the consolidation of the democratic transformation problematical.

The olive tree effect: Future time perspective when the future is uncertain

“…The settlement reached between Mandela and De Klerk at the end of apartheid is an example of the potential of the long-term social FTP. With the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, South Africa moved from the acknowledgment of past traumas to the focus on the future of a new inclusive nation, and such a shift allowed for the construction of a stable new social order (Gibson & Gouws, 1999).…”

The Portability of Electoral Procedural Fairness: Evidence from Experimental Studies in China and the United States

“…Hypothetical scenarios are commonly employed in procedural justice research (Thibaut and Walker 1975, chapter 8;Lind et al 1978), and are similar to vignettes, in which a subject reads a story about another person (e.g., Duch and Palmer 2004;Gibson 2002;Gibson and Gouws 1999). In this study, the scenarios asked subjects to imagine themselves in a hypothetical local election (a village election in China, and a city council election in the United States).…”

Gun Policy, Opinion, Tragedy, and Blame Attribution: The Conditional Influence of Issue Frames

“…By highlighting limitations in current policy, focusing events may influence the attribution of blame for disasters, tragedies, or simple failures, and can be key to legislative success (Baumgartner and Jones 1993;Kingdon 1995;Portz 1996). Our interpretation of events aids development of causal theories about why the event occurred and, subsequently, what type of government action might prevent its reoccurrence (Gibson and Gouws 1999;Rochefort and Cobb 1994). Thus, this study does not simply add another case to a growing literature on issue framing, but rather demonstrates how alternative presentations of issues involving guns may influence opinion about related policy proposals and causal attributions associated with tragic events.…”