Session 2: The Aftermath of Colonialism
2nd Global Conference
Friday 13th March – Monday 16th March 2009
Salzburg, Austria
Conference Programme, Abstracts and Papers
Session 2: The Aftermath of Colonialism
Chair: Avihay Dorfman
Forgiveness Through Land Reform: The South African Experience
Anél Terblanche
Faculty of Law, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa
In the period between 1948 and 1991 the South African government implemented and endorsed a political policy known as apartheid. The effect of this political regime was that the white minority ruled over the black majority. It was a policy that enforced racial segregation, discrimination and oppression in all spheres of life, including rights in and access to land. When apartheid was officially abolished in 1994 approximately 87% of all agricultural land vested in the hands of the white minority. Consequently the South African White Paper on Land Policy of 1997 sum up the land issue in South Africa as: “Land ownership in South Africa has long been a source of conflict. Our history of conquest and dispossession, of forced removals and a racially-skewed distribution of land resources, has left us with a complex and difficult legacy.”
Post-apartheid South Africa gave rise to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Constitution). In accordance with section 1 of the Constitution, South Africa is a sovereign, democratic state founded on the values of (amongst others) human dignity, equality, human rights and freedom. One of the aims of the Constitution (as formulated in the preamble to the Constitution) is to “heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental rights.” Therefore, for purposes of this contribution, one can refer to the theory of “restorative justice,” namely that in order to heal the divisions of the past it is crucial to address the unfavourable consequences that racially discriminatory laws have left behind.
The South African government recognised the importance of addressing the disparities with regards to rights in and access to land by adopting a comprehensive and far reaching land reform policy. The land reform policy is based on three land reform programmes, namely land restitution, land redistribution and land tenure reform.
However, when referring to the Constitution’s aim of “healing the divisions of the past” and the restorative justice purpose of land reform, the question to be asked is whether the land reform policy is truly improving the lives of the previously disadvantaged? It is only when this question can be answered in the affirmative that we can say that land reform is righting the wrongs of the apartheid legacy with regards to rights in and access to land.
Download Draft Conference Paper (pdf)
When Saying Sorry Just Isn’t Enough
Francesca Dominello
Division of Law, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
On 13 February 2008 the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, delivered a long awaited apology to the stolen generations for past removal practices of indigenous children from their communities. Media publicity surrounding the apology suggests wide spread support for the apology from most quarters and in particular from the very indigenous communities that had been affected by the removal policies in the first place. In this paper I will argue that saying sorry was the right thing to do, but it is still not enough to secure the forgiveness of the State by the Australian indigenous communities. In this paper I will explore aspects of the “unfinished business” that remain outstanding and require resolution before there can be any talk about forgiveness. Among these matters I will first consider the failure of the government to offer a compensation package to those who were affected by the policy of removal. The need for the provision of such reparation by the state will be illuminated by the failure of state courts to award compensation in these cases. Secondly, the paper will consider the state’s record in relation to other important issues facing indigenous peoples particularly in the area of land rights. Just as the apology to the stolen generations has been viewed as act of reconciliation, so too was the recognition of indigenous native title property interests in the High Court decision Mabo v Queensland. However, while this decision may too be seen as a positive step towards reconciliation, more recent developments show there is still a long way to go in the area of land rights as well. Thirdly, the paper will consider the adoption of the policy of practical reconciliation and the impact of this policy on indigenous communities. Developments in the laws and policies relating to indigenous peoples suggest that reconciliation has not been achieved and casts doubt on whether it is achievable on any level.
The state’s poor record in relation to achieving reconciliation in Australia casts doubt on the state’s real commitment to resolving the unfinished business that exists and is still experienced by indigenous peoples. In light of the state’s failure to assist in overcoming these problems the paper will argue that by saying sorry, the state does not even appear to be seeking forgiveness (and in fact forgiveness was not sort by the state). In the absence of any real beneficial change (and in some contexts the status of indigenous peoples is deteriorating) the paper will argue that by saying sorry the state can feel good about itself, without there being any need for forgiveness. The paper will consider whether it is indeed the case that saying “sorry”, just like most other government initiatives, has been imposed on indigenous peoples and the apparent absence of the state’s need for forgiveness merely confirms their inferior status. If that is the case, are indigenous peoples better or worse off now that the government has apologized? In any case, if indigenous peoples continue to depend on state support for change, will they ever be effectively in a position where they can forgive?
Download Draft Conference Paper (pdf)
Forgiveness is the only Final Solution: A Reading of the play Final Solutions by Mahesh Dattani
Angelie Multani
Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India
1947 is identified as the year that India and Pakistan gained independence from British Colonial rule. It is also the year that saw the formation of two separate states from one nation – one, Pakistan apparently founded on a theocratic principle and the other, India, founded apparently on principles of democracy and secularism. While the political establishment was celebrating the achievement of Independence and the formation of sovereign states, ordinary citizens were reeling from the shock of neighbours turning on each other, dislocation and being uprooted from the homes their families had lived in for generations.
Although there have been several literary representations of the violence, of this traumatic severing of countries on religious and ethnic lines, there has been very little attempt in literature to link what is now obvious to most sociologists and even to the layman – that the communal tensions and fault lines in contemporary India have their origins in the trauma of partition and the lack of resolution or forgiveness. How does one deal not only with crimes that were committed against oneself or one’s family in the name of religious belief, but also with crimes that one committed oneself? While neighbours and friends turned against each other, much more than countries or political allegiances were divided – it was the very notion of self and family that suffered. Mahesh Dattani’s play ‘Final Solutions’ is a rare literary/dramatic text that connects our contemporary context with the unforgiven trauma of 1947. This play places a modern liberal family in the middle of a communal riot – while two Muslim men seek sanctuary from the fundamentalist Hindu mob baying for their blood outside the house, inside the Hindu family must face their own demons – of the past as well as the present. How far is the past from our here and now?
Entries (RSS)