Grade 12 The Coming of Democracy and Coming to Terms with the Past

SOURCE 2A The source below has been taken from a biography of FW de Klerk, the leader of the National Party, titled A Question of Balance: A Biography of FW de Klerk written by John Cameron-Dow. … The National Party supported the idea of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in order to avoid responsibility. Their approach was built around the concept of amnesty. In their view, a disclosure of past misdeeds should be rewarded with exemption (exclusion) from prosecution. It wasn't that simple; black South Africans were entirely justified in their demand for explanations. Furthermore, the vehicle of their liberation, the African National Congress (ANC), was now in power. The scope and nature of the commission would be determined by Mandela and his government. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) followed the passing of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act in 1995. Three committees were set up to carry the commission's mandate, described by the Minister of Justice, Dullah Omar, as 'a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation'. FW de Klerk maintains that he was of the opinion that a process was required in order to enable South Africans to come to terms with the conflict of the past in a spirit of reconciliation and to get on with the future without recriminations (accusations). He is known to have favoured a general amnesty for perpetrators of politically inspired violence. A general amnesty went very much against ANC thinking. It is now common knowledge that appalling (terrible) atrocities (crimes) were committed in the name of state security, particularly in the closing years of PW Botha's presidency. But how could FW de Klerk, a senior member of cabinet, not have been aware of the atrocities that were being committed; there was surely a collective complicity (involvement) at cabinet level. [From A Question of Balance: A Biography of FW de Klerk by J Cameron-Dow] 2.1.2 Define the term amnesty in your own words.

SOURCE 2A The source below has been taken from a biography of FW de Klerk, the leader of the National Party, titled A Question of Balance: A Biography of FW de Klerk written by John Cameron-Dow. … The National Party supported the idea of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in order to avoid responsibility. Their approach was built around the concept of amnesty. In their view, a disclosure of past misdeeds should be rewarded with exemption (exclusion) from prosecution. It wasn't that simple; black South Africans were entirely justified in their demand for explanations. Furthermore, the vehicle of their liberation, the African National Congress (ANC), was now in power. The scope and nature of the commission would be determined by Mandela and his government. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) followed the passing of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act in 1995. Three committees were set up to carry the commission's mandate, described by the Minister of Justice, Dullah Omar, as 'a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation'. FW de Klerk maintains that he was of the opinion that a process was required in order to enable South Africans to come to terms with the conflict of the past in a spirit of reconciliation and to get on with the future without recriminations (accusations). He is known to have favoured a general amnesty for perpetrators of politically inspired violence. A general amnesty went very much against ANC thinking. It is now common knowledge that appalling (terrible) atrocities (crimes) were committed in the name of state security, particularly in the closing years of PW Botha's presidency. But how could FW de Klerk, a senior member of cabinet, not have been aware of the atrocities that were being committed; there was surely a collective complicity (involvement) at cabinet level. [From A Question of Balance: A Biography of FW de Klerk by J Cameron-Dow] 2.1.3 Why do you think black South Africans demanded explanations from perpetrators, and not only disclosure by the National Party?

SOURCE 2A The source below has been taken from a biography of FW de Klerk, the leader of the National Party, titled A Question of Balance: A Biography of FW de Klerk written by John Cameron-Dow. … The National Party supported the idea of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in order to avoid responsibility. Their approach was built around the concept of amnesty. In their view, a disclosure of past misdeeds should be rewarded with exemption (exclusion) from prosecution. It wasn't that simple; black South Africans were entirely justified in their demand for explanations. Furthermore, the vehicle of their liberation, the African National Congress (ANC), was now in power. The scope and nature of the commission would be determined by Mandela and his government. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) followed the passing of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act in 1995. Three committees were set up to carry the commission's mandate, described by the Minister of Justice, Dullah Omar, as 'a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation'. FW de Klerk maintains that he was of the opinion that a process was required in order to enable South Africans to come to terms with the conflict of the past in a spirit of reconciliation and to get on with the future without recriminations (accusations). He is known to have favoured a general amnesty for perpetrators of politically inspired violence. A general amnesty went very much against ANC thinking. It is now common knowledge that appalling (terrible) atrocities (crimes) were committed in the name of state security, particularly in the closing years of PW Botha's presidency. But how could FW de Klerk, a senior member of cabinet, not have been aware of the atrocities that were being committed; there was surely a collective complicity (involvement) at cabinet level. [From A Question of Balance: A Biography of FW de Klerk by J Cameron-Dow] 2.1.4 Explain the implication of the statement of the Minister of Justice, Dullah Omar, about the TRC: '... to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past ... to advance the cause of reconciliation'.

SOURCE 2A The source below has been taken from a biography of FW de Klerk, the leader of the National Party, titled A Question of Balance: A Biography of FW de Klerk written by John Cameron-Dow. … The National Party supported the idea of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in order to avoid responsibility. Their approach was built around the concept of amnesty. In their view, a disclosure of past misdeeds should be rewarded with exemption (exclusion) from prosecution. It wasn't that simple; black South Africans were entirely justified in their demand for explanations. Furthermore, the vehicle of their liberation, the African National Congress (ANC), was now in power. The scope and nature of the commission would be determined by Mandela and his government. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) followed the passing of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act in 1995. Three committees were set up to carry the commission's mandate, described by the Minister of Justice, Dullah Omar, as 'a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation'. FW de Klerk maintains that he was of the opinion that a process was required in order to enable South Africans to come to terms with the conflict of the past in a spirit of reconciliation and to get on with the future without recriminations (accusations). He is known to have favoured a general amnesty for perpetrators of politically inspired violence. A general amnesty went very much against ANC thinking. It is now common knowledge that appalling (terrible) atrocities (crimes) were committed in the name of state security, particularly in the closing years of PW Botha's presidency. But how could FW de Klerk, a senior member of cabinet, not have been aware of the atrocities that were being committed; there was surely a collective complicity (involvement) at cabinet level. [From A Question of Balance: A Biography of FW de Klerk by J Cameron-Dow] 2.1.5 What, according to the source, were the opinions of the following regarding the granting of general amnesty by the TRC? (a) De Klerk (1 x 1) (b) ANC