South Africa has a long history of a system of legal segregation known as apartheid. Apartheid began in 1948 (Dorell, Oren). This form of institutionalized racism denied South Africans of their civil liberties. South Africans experienced segregated education, health care and other public services. “The government banned intermarriage between races required people to be classified as white, black or colored, a classification for other races and people who were mixed-race. Blacks were required to carry passbooks and permits when entering white neighborhoods, and the best jobs, education and economic opportunities were reserved for whites” (Dorell, Oren). Apartheid was finally abolished in 1991.
The …show more content…
Was the TRC successful/fair in meeting its objectives?
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission can be said to have both failure and success. The TRC did record many human rights violations that can no longer be denied. Some people who were found guilty of human rights crimes were granted amnesty. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission engaged the people of South Africa in a healing process after apartheid. “Truth commissions are associated with multiple democratizing effects, which lead to the view that truth commissions are essential for democratization processes” (Michal Ben-Josef Hirsch).
However, although there was some success with the TRC there are some people who think the commission’s work was inadequate. The government is said to have failed to follow up and prosecute the perpetrators of violence who did not apply for amnesty. In addition, it has not fully implemented recommendations for reparations for victims of human rights violations (Meintjies, Frank). According to Frank Meintjies, paid reparations were given to only a quarter of the victims. In other words the TRC did not do enough. According to Nahla Valji, the government did not hold businesses, and individuals who profited from apartheid responsible. Some people feel that people who were found guilty of horrific crimes during apartheid did not get adequate …show more content…
Is it possible that Eugene ‘Prime Evil’ de Kock is a ‘changed man’?
Eugene de Kock is known for his horrendous and notorious crimes during the apartheid regime in South Africa. De Kock is infamous for killing many innocent people. Eugene de Kock applied for amnesty and testified his crimes in front of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. De Kock received some amnesty for the crimes he had committed. The crimes he committed for political reasons had been pardoned. However, many of his crimes have been unpardoned. South Africa found “him guilty on 89 charges and sentence him to 212 years in prison” (Krog, Antjie).
Although Eugene de Kock was found guilty in multiple charges in “gross human rights violations”, he began to help those who were victims of apartheid. De Kock helped the sufferers of apartheid find the remains of their loved ones, as well as confess his regret of the crimes he had committed (Krog, Antjie). From his recent actions many people are confused. This man once was known as ‘Prime Evil’. Can a man with this nickname really change? According to Krog Antjie, some people believe de Kock is a psychopath, faking his repentance, and others believed he has really