Burning the Midnight Oil ~ 12/12/2007

A few thoughts came to me last night around 140 a.m. I was thinking about something a classmate had said about South Africa and its transition to democracy. Part of the ANC/Mandela legacy was how it dealt with the reconciliation process. It was heralded a success because the ‘new’ power (the ANC) was willing to wipe the slate clean and move forward. This cought my attention because of its parallels to the W. German transition after the war. Later, as E. Germany was collapsing, one of the criticisms from the Neues Forum was how W. Germany had failed to really deal with the Nazi past, forgoing serious dialogue over the genocide and crimes against humanity in order to move forward as a nation.

I have to say, that is a legitimate accusation. I would throw the same one at the ANC. There is this dangerous and flawed tendency to see a quick transition to democracy as a panacea for social, political and economic inequalities. In theory this is correct, but not necessarily in reality. South Africa is still a very problematic place with high crime, severe income inequality, and high levels of corruption. Perhaps a national dialogue would not necessarily have made a difference in these matters, but it would in social relations.

The quick transition and cosmetic reconciliation has set a dangerous precedent that oppression, racist ideologies, and Human Rights violations will not get you in serious trouble. A clean slate is never realistic; as humans we carry too much information, experiential baggage, and historical narratives for us to ever “wipe the slate clean.” Trying to do so undermines the whole idea of reconciliation. How can you ever forgive someone, get along with them after such a horrifying experience as Apartheid, if you cannot take into account historical context, economic conditions, etc? I think you cannot.

But we are also impatient as a species, and perhaps there was no other way to do this transition. If ANC had insisted on a long, protracted period of dialogue, developing narratives and really getting to the core of the issues (such as racism, colonial legacy, etc), then maybe the whole country would have collapsed and fallen into civil war and be even worse of than today. In a sense, reconciliation is an deeply personal experience, so much so, that it is questionable whether it is even an option at a national level.

Bob and I had a conversation before class over the Nixon pardon, which I though was only good for Nixon. Bob disagreed and used the National reconciliation argument to justify Ford’s actions. But again, was it good for the nation? Or did it only send a message that you can commit serious crimes in office and expect a pardon for them? Bob thought history was the final judge and thus Nixon was never absolved of his crimes, and thus didn’t get away with it. Maybe so, but that will only deter people with a profound respect for history and its place in our lives. Those types never run for office…