1. Reconciliation and T & R Commissions: Part 2 Dynamics and Insights

2. Blurred Lines Among and Between Victims and Perpetrators Rsch in South Africa reminds us of the dangers of oversimplification and homogenization. That is, not all victims are the same, not all perpetrators are the same, and some victims are also perpetrators of injustice or atrocities. This is relevant to issues such as amnesty and compensation. Thus, it would be helpful to employ a more precise terminology than merely “victims” and “perpetrators”. e.g., “Secondary Victims” – e.g. dependents of a jailed breadwinner “Beneficiaries” – as distinct from perpetrators “Direct vs Indirect Perpetrators” – to take into account persons issuing orders “Institutional Perpetrators” – e.g., Security Service in S.A. “Sectoral Perpetrators” – e.g., mass media, health agencies, business “Passive Perpetrators” – i.e. those who committed acts of omission

3. Moral Generosity Danger of Excessive Reliance on It Repentance, transformation and restitution by perpetrators take place in a context of ‘grace or acceptance’ that comes from the moral generosity of victims who want to build an inclusive society. However, reconciliation can become overly dependent upon the moral generosity of victims. In other words, it is not self-evident that morally transformative approaches are suitable or politically workable. In South Africa, national reconciliation was premised upon moral transformation of victims: as forgiving rather than angry, and generous rather than demanding. The strong pressures to forgive misplaced the burden of reconciliation on victims rather than on those who were responsible for apartheid.