As preparatory discussions continue around the country on the proposed Truth and Reconciliation Commission, YB flashed back to similar debates held the first time this topic was discussed pre the 2006 uprising.
Many of the same fears about accountability, or lack of, and whose version of the truth would be heard were raised and the answers have not changed.
It is important for all to understand the purpose of a Truth and Reconciliation process. The most famous example was South Africa’s, led by Bishop Desmond Tutu post the fall of apartheid. South Africa faced the same dilemma as Fiji does, but on a much bigger scale. How do you hold generations of perpetrators to account for atrocities and crimes committed over a lengthy period of time and on a national scale.
In a perfect world everyone who committed an offence would face their day in a court of law giving the victims the opportunity to challenge their accused and see the guilty punished. Sadly, in the real world the resources required to hold everyone, going back generations, to account via a legal process would just not be possible. Even if we could commit the resources finding sufficient evidence when many of the perpetrators and victims have passed on would make it impractical.
The solution, for South Africa, was a Commission where victims and perpetrators could come to speak their TRUTHS understanding that this wasn’t a court of law but a place where they could vent their pain and in many cases seek forgiveness for crimes committed. This was not to be a place of punishment but one of reconciliation.
This process is not perfect and there are many in South Africa who still question its value, but it did provide some kind of a base for national healing. After all healing cannot began until TRUTHS are spoken.
The idea of a Truth and Reconciliation forum has long been promoted by the Prime Minister who, to give credit, has spoken his truth and sought forgiveness for his actions consistently for around thirty years. YB understands from those close to him that he understands the process will not portray him in a particularly good light, but he is said to remain committed to it no matter the outcome for him personally.
He has chosen a good person to lead the conversation in Assistant Minister Sashi Kiran, who through her own reconciliation work, knows the challenges that rise when you seek to open up national wounds to the sunlight.
The first thing to appreciate is that this process is NOT about punishment. Many struggle to get past this and that is understandable. Our whole legal system is about establishing guilt and seeking some form of retribution. Remember this isn’t about retribution, this is about listening and healing.
Next is an understanding that there is no one TRUTH. The events that we will as a nation, uncover will be viewed and interpreted differently for all sorts of HUMAN reasons. In addition, if we are to take this all the way back to 1987, some have suggested cession, then recollections will inevitably vary and may be inaccurate. This isn’t necessarily the result of untruths. It is well known that subconsciously we all adjust our memories over time. This in turn can lead to bitter disputes and debates.
This must be about each of us as Fijians being able to go to a place and speak OUR TRUTHS express OUR PAIN and then hopefully having vented all of that, be able to sit back and listen to the TRUTHS and PAIN of others.
The goal, of what will be a traumatic exercise, is to develop understanding of why and how events occurred so we can work towards making sure we do not repeat the same mistakes.
While focus will be on some of the more public “mysteries†like, who was the mysterious figure who did not turn up to lead the uprising in 2000 ???? There will be a multitude of less well-known tragedies that will be revealed and likely more than a few plain misunderstandings that have haunted people for years.
This initiative is bold and could go a long way to building a foundation upon which a new Fiji can be built but at the same time there is a real risk that it may collapse into bitter finger pointing and vicious back biting resulting in even deeper divisions. YB understands there is at least one legal suit ready to be filed over just the preliminary public discussions.
Critical to the success of the process is the person chosen to lead the Commission. We need the equivalent of a Bishop Desmond Tutu. This is critical, in fact so important that if that person cannot be found it would be wiser to avoid starting down this path at all.
