Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa

Instructor Introduction

The second formal writing project of the semester asks students to analyze an academic text, reading like writers to identify rhetorical patterns and their effects. In “Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa,” Luca deftly leverages the tools of rhetorical analysis to show how a student essay about South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission changed his mind about the subject. With a mind to his readers, Luca begins by providing essential context for both the TRC and the rhetorical concepts we practice in English 125. He goes on to make a compelling case for the success of the essay by identifying specific strategies and writerly choices and unpacking how they work together to convey the author’s point. What makes Luca’s essay so successful is his capacity to occupy both writerly and readerly perspectives, taking seriously his own experience of reading the text and insightfully teasing out the factors that led to this experience. In this way, Luca’s analysis showcases what we can learn by reading like writers, as well as his own impressive grasp of the writer’s toolkit.

— Madeline Hennessey

Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa

Oxford Dictionary defines restorative justice as “a system of criminal justice which focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large.” ^[1] It was on this principle of reconciliation that the aptly named Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was founded in South Africa amidst the transition from Apartheid to democracy. The goal of the TRC was to use publicly stated truths about the horrors of Apartheid as a way to promote national healing, and, as such, worked by allowing people who had committed crimes to apply for amnesty by admitting their crimes truthfully and on the record. It inherently functioned under the belief that the truth was the best way to move forward as a nation, and prioritized truth over retributive justice — punishment for those who committed crimes. The paper “Transitional Justice?: The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Socio-economic Rights” works to explore and analyze the true effectiveness of the TRC and comes to the conclusion that it largely failed to accomplish its goals. The essay’s main argument is that the newly formed democratic government failed to address one of the most glaring legacies of Apartheid, institutionalized economic oppression, and that the TRC’s legacy is indicative of the shortcomings of the transition of power. As such, it treats the TRC’s flaws as evidence of the government’s and proceeds to give a detailed analysis of why the TRC wasn’t as successful as many think it was. The author does this by incorporating rhetorical strategies like acknowledging a counterargument, making connections to modern-day South African life, and blending qualitative and quantitative evidence, all of which combine to build an argument strong enough to sway the opinion of a reader.

John Swales’ describes in his “CARS Model of Research Introductions” methods of presenting an argument clearly and convincingly in a research paper. He outlines three “moves'' that an author can make to present themselves as reliable and authoritative. What Swales calls “move two” is the concept of the writer creating a niche that they then occupy, and a way he gives to accomplish this is “counterclaiming,” which he defines as “the author refuting or challenging earlier research by making a counterclaim.”^[2] Essentially, the author presents an opposing argument to the one that they are actually making, with the purpose of later dismantling it and highlighting the flaws of the opposition and the strengths of their own position. This is, to a tee, what this paper does to make it so compelling.

As such, the author of this paper begins their discussion of the transition of power in South Africa and the TRC’s role with a seemingly illogical move: they highlight its successes. The author writes “The transition from the apartheid government to a fully functioning democracy in South Africa is often lauded as a prime example for other countries to follow. And for many reasons it should be,” and goes on to cite examples such as the peaceful transition of power and the Human Rights Watch assessment of 2008 that verified the government was still a democracy that supported various civil rights. The paragraph finishes with the sentence “On the surface, South Africa appears to embody a governmental transition done right.” This format, beginning by presenting a hedged version of the counterargument, perfectly aligns with Swales’ second move. The author addresses the naysayer right from the start here by presenting opposing evidence. However, they are extremely deliberate with the language they use throughout the paragraph. In “Academic Writing Analysis,” Laura Aull writes “experienced writers use hedges to...acknowledge other research and account for a critical reader who may have an opposing view.”^[3] Phrases such as “on the surface,” “appears to embody,” and “is often lauded” are classic examples of hedges that allow the writer to present an opposing argument while not claiming it as their own and giving themselves the ability to dismantle it later on. What this paper does is a prime example of this structure of presenting a counter argument to account for the naysayer.

After highlighting the majority perception of both the TRC and the South African transition of power, the author works to rebut the opposition and build their own argument by proving the TRC’s weaknesses through its impact on modern-day South Africa, completing the other part of Swales’ “move two”. “The continual violation of social and economic rights in South Africa displays the failure of the transitional government to address the economic oppression institutionalized by the apartheid regime. The focus on civil and political rights during the transition, while at times necessary, obscured the real problem in South Africa: institutionalized economic oppression.”^[4] The paper claims the TRC focused on cosmetic issues, like murders and kidnappings, that were undoubtedly horrific but that only affected a select few, while ignoring the deep-seated issues that reinforce inequality far more than any individual crime. This serves as a direct rebuttal to claims made earlier in the essay, which lauded South Africa for its improved civil rights but neglected to mention its severely lacking social and economic rights, issues which the author argues are more persistent in the country today. This counterclaim is illustrated by the language the author uses, citing civil and political rights as the ones focused on, acknowledging they were necessary at times, but finally saying they “obscured” the real problem. The paper backs up this bold claim by citing current descriptions of life in South Africa, saying “The Bill of Rights promises universal education, however at least 50% of students attend schools that lack basic necessities such as electricity or proper sanitation facilities, not to mention are taught by under qualified teachers with few materials. Health care...is severely lacking. Many South Africans live in shacks or have no home at all.”^[5] The author pinpoints the Bill of Rights, a piece of legislation regarded as evidence of the progress made, and meticulously details the areas in which it falls short of its promises, again undercutting the notion that South Africa and the TRC were overwhelmingly successful in the transition from Apartheid. Through this they further bolster their own argument, effectively doing what Swales would call “occupying the niche they created” by rebutting the counter argument with facts that prove the quality of life for many in South Africa is not vastly improved.

A final way in which the author makes their point more compelling is by varying the type of evidence they present. As opposed to giving only a specific type of evidence, which can more easily be refuted, the writer mixes quotes from experts, evaluation from reliable organizations, and statistics to paint a holistic picture of the TRC’s legacy. They write, “[Kadar Asmal, Minister of Education for South Africa] and [Nicoli Nattrass, historian and economist] believe the commission could have delved beyond the realm of civil and political rights, but simply chose not to,” and quote Asmal as saying “in a system that killed far more infants through malnutrition and unavailability of water than it killed adults with bullets and bombs, the drama to be had from placing militarists on trial might easily overshadow the equally real atrocity of the system itself.”^[6] In her piece “Engaging with evidence and with readers,” Laura Aull discusses the importance of providing context for sources as a way to bolster the strength of evidence.^[7] “Engaging with evidence and with readers.” This structure is employed when the writer cites the people who worked through the governmental transition as their sources, emphasizing these credentials by starting each piece of evidence with an acknowledgement of its source. The author also draws attention to the neglect of the TRC here, writing the commission “could have'' done more but instead “chose” not to, hammering home the point that the disregard of the committee was willful. By pairing these primary sources with hard facts like “economically, South Africa has surpassed Brazil as the most unequal society in the world,” that are highlighted as coming from objective studies, the author is able to put forth an argument backed by a diversity of evidence.

In “Academic Writing Analysis,” Aull talks about the idea of linking evidence back to the main argument of the paper. This is something that the author of this essay does extremely well, linking the failures of the TRC – an abstract concept – to the current socio-economic state of South Africa – something far more tangible. It is connections like this, along with the rhetorical structure of counterclaiming the author employed, that combined to sway my opinion as an initially-critical reader. I had learned about the work of the TRC in the past and had been led to believe they were an entity that had been extremely effective in pursuing justice and change. However, this paper presented the information I had learned, and then proceeded to highlight the shortcomings of my prior knowledge. As such, I was convinced over the course of the essay that the author's more nuanced analysis of the TRC and post-Apartheid South Africa was indeed accurate and witnessed firsthand the power of a blend of rhetorical strategies when utilized correctly.

[1] Oxford English Dictionary. n.d. “restorative justice.”
[2] Ibid.
[3] Aull, Laura. n.d. “Academic Writing Analysis.” 
[4] “Transitional Justice?: The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Socio-economic Rights.” n.d. 
[5] Ibid. 
[6] Ibid.
[7] Aull, Laura. n.d. 

Works Cited 

Aull, Laura. n.d. “Academic Writing Analysis.”

Aull, Laura. n.d. “Engaging with evidence and with readers.”

 Oxford English Dictionary. n.d. “restorative justice.”

 Swales, John. n.d. “"Create a Research Space" (CARS) Model of Research Introductions.”

“Transitional Justice?: The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Socio-economic Rights.” n.d.