Introduction:Forgiveness
Derek Poole

Let the church be church
Brian Moore

From the Director - Statement in response to IRA and IICD Announcements
David Porter

Decommissioning - How do I feel?
David Clements

Embodying Forgiveness
Patrick Mitchel

Forgiveness in the New Testament
Bill Addley

Better than Bitterness
David Clements

Necessary Miracles - Thoughts on Forgiveness and Politics
Duncan Morrow

Faith and Practice - Moyna Bill
Ruth Hutchinson

Embodying Forgiveness Project
Stephen Graham

Tutu Book Review
Stephen Graham

Jones Book Review
Alice Swann

Transformation 2002

< Past Issues Archive

NO FUTURE WITHOUT FORGIVENESS
by Desmond Tutu

No Future Without Forgiveness is the memoir of Desmond Tutu about the South African experience of dealing with apartheid. Desmond Tutu provides many examples from his experience of working within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The book also gives many personal insights into Tutu himself, and is not simply an objective and detached analysis.

I intend to comment on those parts that deal with Tutu’s thinking on forgiveness and justice. I do not think a summary of the many examples he presents of various cases dealt with by the TRC would be fair or even possible – the cases are very much unique.

Understandably for Tutu a big issue is that of justice. He quite rightly observes that we should be careful to avoid what he calls ‘victor’s justice’ in which harsh punishment is meted out to the losers and the victors are generally treated as complete innocents even though this is far from the truth.

Regarding justice, Tutu also warns against two extremes of justice and forgiveness. One of these extremes is a liberal, lax attitude that ignores justice and calls for people to ‘forget it and move on’. He rightly points out how unrealistic such a position is and how untenable it would be in terms of victims with gross hurts. The past cannot disappear, it is persistent and cannot be forgotten. It needs to be confronted and dealt with. George Santayana wisely said: ’Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’.

The other extreme is that of punitive justice. This punitive justice is the sort that deals out harsh punishment to criminals but has no concern to correct or change the offender and the situation/society that lead to the crime. It also shows little concern for the victim. Tutu believes that this could not have worked because the perpetrators of violence, whose support was needed in any settlement, still had great power to sabotage peace and would never have agreed to such a method.

Many perpetrators were not brought to justice in the sense that many of us might consider justice. However, Tutu seems to indicate that the fact they were not was a price worth paying for a new era. The idea that peace and stability are more important seems to be a running thread in Tutu’s work, yet it would be unfair to charge him with belittling justice. He simply has a different view of justice, or at least realises that justice is a much bigger concept than mere retribution. Tutu sums it up,

‘We have had to balance the requirements of justice, accountability, stability, peace and reconciliation. We could very well have had a retributive justice, and had a South Africa lying in ashes.’

Tutu re-echoes the descriptions of South Africa taking a ’Third Way’ between the two extremes of laxity and harshness. This ‘Third Way’ was amnesty in return for full disclosure of facts - possible freedom in exchange for truth.

Some people at the time criticised the process and argued that amnesty would encourage crime. This shows a lack of understanding of the process and Tutu points out that there were many restrictions on what cases qualified for consideration of amnesty. Furthermore, it was a temporary aid in a difficult situation and was never going to be the norm of justice.

From the testimonies given by Tutu it seems that many victims were in the end grateful for such a process, were willing to forgive. Many applicants expressed remorse and asked for forgiveness. This seems very strange to many Westerners. However, Tutu explains why it was possible in South Africa using the concept of ‘Ubuntu’. It means that a person’s humanity is bound with others. We all belong to each other and together form a greater whole – humanity. This whole is diminished when others are afflicted. Social harmony is the greatest good. Things contrary to this must be avoided. Tutu writes:

‘To forgive is not just to be altruistic. It is the best form of self-interest. What dehumanises you inexorably dehumanises me. Forgiveness gives people resilience, enabling them to survive and emerge still human despite all efforts to dehumanise them.’

‘Ubuntu’ means that even apartheid supporters were victims of the system because of this intertwining of humanity. Perpetrators were dehumanised in the act of dehumanising others.

Tutu goes on from this to discuss justice again and argues that there must be more to justice than retribution. There is restorative justice - a theme from traditional African jurisprudence. The main concern here is not retribution or punishment. Restorative justice is grounded in ‘Ubuntu’ and involves healing divisions, realigning imbalances and restoring the severed relationships. The rehabilitation of victim, perpetrator and society is paramount. So it can be said that while there is indeed little justice in terms of retribution there is certainly justice in terms of restoration.

The South African situation appears to be freedom and peace at a high price but it yielded a high level of stability in return. Victims helped negotiate the settlement and it should be acknowledged that it was massively endorsed in the election. It was truth in exchange for freedom. This might not seem perfect or ideal but realistically speaking it was the best that could happen, so argues Tutu.

Tutu believes that forgiveness was the way South Africa overcame its problems. This forgiveness was not forced as such. Tutu and many others who were involved recognised that victims had a right to be angry, although a vindictive mindset would ultimately lead to the creation of further victims. However, for their own good, to avoid becoming enslaved to the past, to ensure a better quality of life in the present and to give hope for future generations, forgiveness is the only way.

Stephen Graham is Research Assistant with ECONI’s Centre for Contemporary Christianity in Ireland.