Dissertation Proposal Defense: Gerhard Botha - What is the nature of witnesses “being heard” in the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

Dissertation Proposal Defense: Gerhard Botha 
What is the nature of witnesses “being heard” in the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

Wednesday December 9th 
3:00pm - 5:00pm
Metropolitan Building  Room 5145

Committee:
Prof. Leslie Dwyer (Chair) 
Prof. Sara Cobb
Prof. Jo-Marie Burt.

What is the nature of witnesses “being heard” in the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
When those impacted by conflict are presented with an opportunity to tell their stories it is often said that they have “voice,” and increasingly these stories are told in Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRC’s) or some similar quasi judicial forum. However, having voice, or more broadly the opportunity to be heard, does not necessarily mean that witnesses are being heard. There is in fact a tension in these TRC proceedings between the more formalistic procedural fairness demands of a quasi-judicial forum (such as the impact of prior witness statements on the subsequent narratives) and the circumstances which could be more conducive and important for witnesses to tell their stories and be heard from a narrative perspective, such as the need for public narrative spaces, or the importance of restoring their moral agency.
This research will explore the above question based on a critical narrative and text analysis of the SA TRC testimonies, also incorporating elements from the literatures on procedural fairness, procedural justice, “voice,” and particularly critical narrative theory. The purpose is to develop a broad framework in order to analyze the narratives and texts of the South African TRC as a case study, in order to deepen our understanding of the nature of witnesses “being heard” in that forum.
The proposed analysis will also contribute to our understanding of how TRC’s through a critical narrative approach could mediate the underlying conflict potential present in a transitional society. In this sense, as Sanders (2007:19-20) remarks, the SA TRC assumed the “unacknowledged responsibility of the perpetrator for the deeds of the past (and) functioned as a national clearinghouse between victims and perpetrators.” Could the TRC from a narrative perspective be more active and nuanced, rather than just being a fact finding, truth seeking or even in a narrow sense, a reconciliation enabling institution?

To read the full abstract, click here