ongoing advocacy for a comprehensive reparations programme in south africa for survivors of...

R E C I P I E N T S ’ R E S P O N S E S I N 2 0 0 5

SOUTH AFRICAN TRC REPARATION PAYOUTS

Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / 2016 / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA

1

CONTEXTUALIZATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS PRESENTED

•  This research study was conducted in 2005 at the Khulumani office in Johannesburg. Nineteen (19) Victims/Survivors of Human Rights Violations who had previously been interviewed about the TRC, were interviewed regarding their experience of receiving reparations.

•  Researcher: Dr Catherine Byrne, a South African, who was at the time an Assistant Professor at the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC), USA. Dr Byrne was supported in the write up of the data by then graduate student and now Dr Jenny Escobar.

•  We believe that although 10 years have passed since the data was collected, and though we have not at this point published it in academic journals, that as the reparations process seems still yet to be completed that such data – though with its limitations/generalizability due to a small number of interviewees – that it might be helpful for Khulumani, the South African government, NGOs, the media, etc. Particularly as this year marks the 20th Anniversary of the South African TRC and other countries look to it as an example to be copied.

Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 2

SUMMARY FINDINGS: THE IMPACT OF REPARATIONS PAID OUT

-  Survivors’ Meanings of Reparations: Literal & Symbolic -  Survivors’ Plans to Spend Reparations Money -  Actual Ways in which Reparations Money was Spent -  Survivors’ Current Socioeconomic Suffering and Needs -  Socio-emotional Impacts of Reparations -  Critiques of the Reparation Amount and Process -  Survivors’ Perceptions of the Current Government -  Survivor’s Recommendations for Improving the Process


HOW SURVIVORS MADE MEANING OF REPARATIONS PROVIDED

•  LITERAL MEANING Money to meet basic needs: e.g., for buying food

SYMBOLIC MEANING -  A gesture of “welcoming back” victims into society - An act of justice -  A reminder of those who had

died -  A way to reconcile with the

perpetrators -  A comforting gesture/sign of

acknowledgement from the government

-  A show of remorse -  A way to “wipe away tears” -  A sign of the government

making a mockery of their sacrifice


SURVIVORS’ PLANS TO SPEND REPARATIONS MONEY

•  For TRAINING PROGRAMS to ensure their future employment

•  For their CHILDREN’S FUTURE: School Education •  For RITUAL CEREMONIES/TOMBSTONES for their

deceased loved ones who were killed during apartheid •  For opening a SMALL BUSINESS •  For PAYING DEBTS •  For HOME IMPROVEMENTS •  For MEDICAL NEEDS and, •  SAVING the money


ACTUAL WAYS THE MONEY WAS SPENT

•  On BASIC NEEDS: FOOD, CLOTHING & SHELTER

•  On ACCUMULATION OF MUNICIPAL DEBTS: WATER, RENT & ELECTRICITY

•  On HOUSEHOLD REPAIRS (police had broken doors etc) •  On MEDICAL NEEDS •  On OPENING UP A SMALL BUSINESS •  On BURIAL RITUALS/COMMEMORATIONS •  MONEY WAS SAVED for the future (accruing bank fees

an issue however)


CURRENT (2005) SOCIOECONOMIC

SUFFERING AND NEEDS

•  Continuing CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATIONS & IMPACT of DISABILITIES •  PHYSICAL PAIN is still being endured •  The impacts of DISABILITIES are still affecting their lives •  BULLETS are still lodged in their bodies •  Employment is a CHALLENGE due to pain and disabilities •  The negative impact of an unearned CRIMINAL RECORD

remains e.g. in terms of employment possibilities

•  LONG TERM income lost due to breadwinner absence •  SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONCERNS

•  Lack of employment opportunities •  High cost of living (water, electricity, rent)


CURRENT (2005) SOCIOECONOMIC

SUFFERING AND NEEDS

•  Survivors’ EXISTING NEEDS: •  Due to violation related disabilities and injuries:

•  A NEED for HEALH CARE •  Due to POVERTY, most in need interviewed could not afford follow up Doctor

visits needed (e.g., for bullet and stabbing wounds, and constant sharp pain) •  A NEED for MONEY TO COVER:

•  TRANSPORTATION to/from HEALTH CARE •  PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS

•  FUNDS to put up a TOMBSTONE for the deceased •  FUNDS to pay for their own or their children’s education

•  Survivors’ WAYS OF COPING FINANCIALLY: •  Some received pensions and/or disability grants •  Started a small business (eg., one person rented out a pool table in

her home) – though it was not enough to live on


SOCIO-EMOTIONAL IMPACTS OF RECEIVING REPARATIONS

•  INCOMPENSATABLE LOSS •  Money cannot erase suffering •  Money cannot heal wounds •  Money cannot bring back the dead •  Money cannot be equated with human life

•  “One’s life is not worth thirty thousand (Rand)”

•  MEANINGLESS MONEY •  The money was just money, without any special symbolic

meaning •  The money was used for basic needs and was not available for

more meaningful things (healing, or to give to grandchildren etc.).



•  Cont. •  DISCLOSING RECEIPT OF REPARATIONS TO

FRIENDS/COMMUNITY •  Some friends and family ASSUMED THEY WERE RICH having

received the reparations •  REQUESTS FOR MONEY was a concern •  Some survivors who had NOTHING TO SHOW for the money felt

ASHAMED when asked about it •  There was a concern that it might be STOLEN by “thugs”



•  POSITIVE FAMILY IMPACT •  Family members reacted positively towards their receiving

reparations •  Family members were happy their family member was one of few

survivors in the country to receive the amount •  Family members participated in deciding how the money was to be

spent •  NEGATIVE FAMILY IMPACT

•  Family members were not happy with the amount received (especially if there was a long term injury/disability involved)

•  Family were not happy with the way the money was allocated •  Family was broken apart as a result of the money tensions •  Survivors felt pressured by family to spend it in a certain way •  Survivors suffered hardships (not having food to eat) while waiting for

the money to be finally paid out Catherine C. Byrne, Ph.D. & Jenny Escobar, Ph.D. / Research Affiliates / University of California Santa Cruz, USA 11


•  Cont. •  OBLIGATIONS TO HELP OTHERS WITH THE MONEY:

•  Felt they were expected to help others financially after receiving the money •  Many used the money to help family members and friends •  Used for others for: medical attention, burial services, or basic needs of food,

shoes and clothes •  For cultural traditions: for example, paying labola to his marriage partner with

his reparations •  Helping others financially as a way to acknowledge and thank them for their

support

•  LACKING SKILLS TO MANAGE MONEY •  Lacking budgeting skills to use reparations wisely •  Not really knowing how they had spent all the money •  Experiencing a feeling of “mismanaging” the money – despite having spent it

on food, rent, municipal debts etc. •  Disappointed as the expectation was that there would be real long term

visible impacts from the reparations



•  Cont. •  ACCOUNTABILITY FOR REPARATION MONEY:

•  A concern arose around the ability to “show others” what they had done with the money when asked about it

•  Explaining was easier if it had been used for something TANGIBLE (house repair) •  Felt guilty and angry if needing to explain NONTANGIBLE uses (bills etc.) •  Frustrated that they had received the money but still lived in a shack (used for other expenses)

•  A CHANCE TO DO IT OVER: •  Survivors said they wanted to do things differently with the money if given the

chance •  Guilt for not spending it “properly” •  Desire to have used it in more constructive ways or on “better things” (something

with long term benefit) •  MONEY RECEIVED WAS BETTER THAN NOTHING •  FRUSTRATION REGARDING THEIR INABILITY TO CHANGE

REPARATIONS OUTCOMES (more say about reparations would have been preferred)


CRITIQUES OF THE REPARATION AMOUNT AND PROCESS

•  Money paid out was TOO LITTLE •  Particularly in light of the basic current needs for which survivors

used the reparations (including for their dependents) •  Not enough to invest in some long-term sustainable project

•  THE WAITING TIME WAS TOO LONG •  It took the government a long time to distribute reparations •  Survivors had unmet needs during the years of waiting •  Survivors lost hope that the reparations would be paid out

•  THE MONEY IS FINISHED •  The amount received was insufficient and it is now finished •  There is no money left to support themselves •  The money is gone but the pain remains, and their lifestyle did not

improve


CRITIQUES OF THE REPARATION AMOUNT AND PROCESS

•  Cont. •  CONCERNS AROUND ALLOCATION OF MONEY:

•  A structural concern was the LACK OF CLARITY regarding the reparations pay out POLICY •  Confusion occurred regarding the AMOUNT of money received per victim •  Survivors did not expect to SHARE reparations with family members •  No planning possibility as the MONEY JUST ARRIVED one day

•  TOO FEW PEOPLE RECEIVED REPARATIONS •  Survivors showed gratitude for having received the reparations •  NOT everyone who suffered from human rights violations qualified for reparations •  Recipients compared themselves to those who received nothing – “so many people suffered

under the old regime” •  SURVIVORS HAD TO PUT UP A FIGHT TO GET REPARATIONS

•  Survivors were frustrated that they had to put up a fight to get government to finally pay out reparations (having to go into the streets and march etc.)

•  LACK OF SURVIVORS INPUT IN DESIGNING REPARATIONS •  Some survivors expressed dissatisfaction with the money received because they felt they did

not have a voice in the process •  Some survivors might have preferred housing, healthcare or psychological help instead of a

financial payout


SURVIVORS’ PERCEPTION OF THE CURRENT (2005) GOVERNMENT

•  Felt BETRAYED by the government •  Believed government officials were BENEFITTING from

high positions in government and getting “fat” salaries (while victims had to take to the streets to be paid reparations promised them)

•  Felt the government had FORGOTTEN about the

CONTRIBUTIONS made by VICTIMS during the fight against apartheid. A LACK OF RECOGNITION of victim sacrifice.


SURVIVORS’ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING THE REPARATIONS PROCESS

•  Distribute LONG-TERM payments vs. a one time payment

•  Issue in installments •  Over time

•  Survivors questioned why the government issued a one time payment of R30,000 versus what was recommended by the TRC of “annual payments for 6 years”

•  Offer CASE BY CASE Compensation •  Reparations should be tailored to individuals most URGENT needs •  Compensation should be in relation to their highest need, depending on their situation. For example, for those disabled,

access to healthcare might have been key. For those who lost a family breadwinner, money to pay bills and rent might be the priority.

•  COMMUNITY REPARATIONS •  ACCESS: Survivors requested that government set up liaisons in various government departments where TRC victims

could get quick access and attention (and not have to struggle with accessing an already overloaded system) •  The exhumation of the bones of loved ones •  Investigative committees to find out information about the disappeared •  Ritual ceremonies to commemorate the dead •  Access to education and healthcare •  Specific employment opportunities for victims and their families •  Special rent subsidies and tax rates for victims •  Psychological services provided for dealing with suffering in the past and present

•  OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS •  The setting up of financial management workshops for recipients •  Skills on how to best invest or use the money for long term returns •  Victims requested receiving an additional reparation payout from the government in the future (in addition to the $30K

paid out)


SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS

•  Limitations: Though the group of survivors we interviewed (19) is small, and generalizability thus limited, those interviewed share similar characteristics with the larger group of survivors who submitted a TRC statement. Also as all those interviewed are Black South Africans, this research may not represent the views of non black South Africans who received reparations.

•  RESULTS SHED LIGHT ON THE COMPLEX IMPACT

MONETARY REPARATIONS HAVE ON SURVIVORS OF GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS


SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS

•  OUR FINDINGS:

•  Indicate an OVERALL DISSATISFACTION with the REPARATION PROCESS

•  The MAJORITY of survivors SPENT THEIR MONEY not on long term support but on IMMEDIATE BASIC NEEDS such as:

•  MUNICIPAL DEBTS •  FOOD •  CLOTHING •  SHELTER

•  SOCIO-EMOTIONAL impacts: •  Most described the PROCESS as more a BURDEN than a relief •  Many whose family members had died during apartheid felt the money could not bring them back – and thus

LACKED MEANING •  Some reported SOCIAL STRAIN once receiving reparations (it caused separation based on us vs. them –

those who got reparations and those who did not) •  FAMILY STRAIN around reparations •  An EXPECTATION from family and friends that you would HELP OTHERS with the money •  The AMOUNT of money was TOO LITTLE to accomplish what they wanted to do •  The LENGTH OF TIME – the WAIT for reparation payout – was TOO LONG •  LACK of PARTICIPATION around the reparations process was frustrating


TAKING SURVIVORS’ SUGGESTIONS INTO ACCOUNT: “WHY DIDN’T THEY ASK US?”

•  Suggestions from survivors: •  Survivors individual NEEDS should be given PRIORITY when determining

what TYPES of reparations to assign them •  Include SURVIVORS at ALL levels of DECISION MAKING when designing

TRCs and reparations process: ask victims directly and set up committees who collect information through interviews, focus groups, surveys etc. Inclusion on the GOVERNMENT’S decision making panel regarding reparation allocation

•  The TRC and Government should provide more TIMELY CLARITY regarding the amount of money that would be allocated and when it would be paid out

•  REPARATIONS should be an ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of PAST SUFFERING and addressing CURRENT NEEDS

•  GOVERNMENT leaders should not forget their OWN and their LOVED ONES CONTRIBUTIONS to the STRUGGLE against apartheid

•  SOUTH AFRICANS should acknowledge the CRUCIAL ROLE victims played in constructing the NEW DISPENSATION of the country


TAKING VARYING VIOLATIONS INTO ACCOUNT: “WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME”

•  Government should take note that NOT ALL VICTIMS ARE THE SAME or EXPERIENCING the same suffering

•  VICTIMS are different from one another •  The TYPE(S) of VIOLATION suffered really matters •  The CONTEXT in which the violation occurred matters •  The DURATION of the violation matters •  The SEVERITY of the violation matters •  VICTIMS may have VERY DIFFERENT NEEDS and CONCERNS •  Giving ALL victims the SAME amount may NOT be EFFECTIVE.

Compensating them according to their need may perhaps be better. •  For example, those who suffered property damage would receive

less than someone disabled for life as a result of the violations


TAKING VARYING VIOLATIONS INTO ACCOUNT: “WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME”

•  Survivors’ FRAMING of reparations as a TOOL for LONG TERM RESULTS (versus short term immediate and basic needs) LED THEM to be concerned how others would JUDGE how they used the reparations.

•  Some felt ASHAMED that in someone’s eyes – who had long term impacts in mind - they “mismanaged” the money (as they had nothing now to show for it).


BASIC NEEDS: A FORM OF REPARATION? OR THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSIBILITY?

•  Offering reparations in the CONTEXT of WIDESPREAD SYSTEMIC POVERTY IS VERY IMPORTANT

•  Survivor’s day-to-day BASIC NEEDS should be met through government agencies AS PART OF REPARATIONS to ALLOW for the allocated money (R30,000) to be INVESTED in LONG TERM and SUSTAINING EFFORTS

•  Government should provide or heavily subsidize water, housing etc. and that alone should not be considered reparations

•  Survivors requested that government: •  Lower or stabilize rents •  Subsidize municipal costs (a number of survivors had spent most of their financial

reparations paying such bills) •  IN SUMMARY: reparations given by the government were in a sense given back to

the government (or private contractors working with government) in the form of municipal debt payments. This circular repayment process should not be what reparations are about. Government should consider erasing/cancelling all municipal/rent debts incurred during apartheid. Those citizens privileged by the apartheid system did not face such financial burdens of municipal debts.


SURVIVORS CONTINUE TO FACE SUFFERING FROM APARTHEID YEARS

•  The suffering and challenges of survivors of apartheid-era human rights violations CONTINUE TODAY

•  We must notice and focus on SURVIVORS continuing RESILIENCE despite challenging circumstances

•  Only THEY KNOW what will help them continue their ONGOING HEALING PROCESS

•  It is VITAL that GOVERNMENT follows through with ALL the RECOMMENDATIONS of the TRC and allocate (and pay out) RELATED NATIONAL BUDGETS in an ETHICAL and TIMELY MANNER


ongoing advocacy for a comprehensive reparations programme in south africa for survivors of...

Government & Nonprofit