IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v93y1999i03p501-517_21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Attributions of Blame and the Struggle over Apartheid

Author

Listed:
  • Gibson, James L.
  • Gouws, Amanda

Abstract

In an effort to put its past firmly behind, the New South Africa created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to document human rights abuses under apartheid and to grant amnesty to those confessing their nefarious deeds. South Africa's democratic experiment depends mightily upon whether truth does in fact bring about reconciliation. Consequently, we examine whether ordinary South Africans accept the theories of blame that underlie the truth and reconciliation process. Based on a formal experiment within a representative sample of South Africans, our results confirm some conventional hypotheses (e.g., leaders are judged more responsible for their deeds than followers), repudiate others (noble motives do little to exonerate violent actions), and modify still others (actors are judged by the severity of their action's consequences, although it matters little whether “combatants” or “civilians” were the victims). We conclude that the dark legacy of the apartheid past makes the consolidation of the democratic transformation problematical.

Suggested Citation

  • Gibson, James L. & Gouws, Amanda, 1999. "Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa: Attributions of Blame and the Struggle over Apartheid," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 501-517, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:93:y:1999:i:03:p:501-517_21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400218157/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Geoff Dancy, 2011. "Choice and Consequence in Strategies of Transitional Justice," Chapters, in: Christopher J. Coyne & Rachel L. Mathers (ed.), The Handbook on the Political Economy of War, chapter 20, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. James L. Gibson & Gregory A. Caldeira, 2013. "Judicial Impartiality, Campaign Contributions, and Recusals: Results from a National Survey," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 76-103, March.
    3. Gates, Scott & Binningsbo, Helga Malmin & Lie, Tove Grete, 2007. "Post-conflict justice and sustainable peace," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4191, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:93:y:1999:i:03:p:501-517_21. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.