Tag: South Africa

Blind justice–or blind to justice?

Posted on by kathiemm

Americans are expected to pledge allegiance to a flag that symbolizes “liberty and justice for all.” But, as one of our readers asked recently, “What is justice?”

One common distinction is between retributive justice and restorative justice:

Retributive justice:

  • Focuses on punishment for perceived transgressions
  • Is imposed unilaterally on a weaker party by a stronger party
  • Argues that the severity of the punishment should be proportional to the severity of the offense—e.g., an eye for an eye
  • Is viewed as having a strong basis in Western values, particularly those of men

Restorative justice:

  • Rejects the notion that punishment of an offender adequately restores justice
  • Views transgressions as bilateral or multilateral conflicts involving perpetrators, victims, and their communities
  • Recommends bringing together all parties to exchange stories and move toward apology and forgiveness.

Depending on our family and community values, we are exposed to varying levels of these forms of justice and develop ideas regarding which form is best. For example, in families:

  • Authoritarian parents expect their children to be obedient and to follow strict rules and punish them if they don’t—consistent with retributive justice beliefs
  • Authoritative parents are more democratic, more responsive to their children’s needs and questions, and favor understanding and forgiveness over punishment—consistent with restorative justice beliefs

And in nations:

  • The U.S. incarcerates the largest number of people, including the most women in the world
  • Under Nelson Mandela, South Africa created a Truth and Reconciliation Commission “to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation.”
  • The video above shows how the Rwandan government has approached the issue of justice in the aftermath of that country’s genocide

Which type of justice is embraced by each society? On what basis is one approach more just than the other? Which do you favor? Why?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

No causes to kill for

Posted on by kathiemm
Gandhi in 1944
Gandhi in 1944 (Image in public domain)

“There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for.”     (Mahatma Gandhi, The story of my experiments with truth, 1927)

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, often known as Mahatma (“Great Soul” in Sanskrit) was born October 2, 1869. In 2007, the General Assembly of the United Nations approved a resolution to create an International Day of Non-Violence on October 2 to commemorate his birthday.

In anticipation of his birthday, we provide a list of some of the relatively recent non-violent movements and their goals:

  • Martin Luther King’s campaign in the 1960s to achieve his dream: “that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal'”
  • Anti-nuclear protests in the 1970s and 1980s—for example, at the Montague Nuclear Plant site where the actions of one man, Sam Lovejoy, led to cancellation of plans for a nuclear power plant
  • The Chinese pro-democracy movement of 1987-1989, most memorable for the protests in Tiananmen Square
  • The end of apartheid in South Africa in the early 1990s
  • The Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions of 2010 and 2011
  • The current demonstrations against economic and political control of the United States by Wall Street

To start a non-violent campaign of your own, you may find the steps offered in this document helpful.

Non-violence can achieve results.

Some wonderful examples can be found in the book A force more powerful: A century of non-violent conflict by Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission: What did it achieve?

Posted on by kathiemm

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today’s post is written by Ross Berriman, a rising senior at Middlebury College in Vermont, majoring in psychology and sociology. He lives near Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, and is currently a student in Psychology of War and Peace at Boston University and a regular commenter on this blog.]

Apartheid sign: For use by white persons
Image in public domain

When I was asked to comment on my views about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), I was immediately struck by how little I knew about the process. As a South African, I feel that I should know more about my country and its involvement in one of the most revolutionary reconciliation processes in modern history.

What shocked me even further was that I do not even remember learning or even talking about the TRC during school. In fact, the TRC seemed like something that people wanted to forget.

From the perspective of a white South African, I can understand this notion of wanting to put the past behind us, as it is shameful to think of what we and our forefathers did to generations of people of color. And yet, if I were a black person in South Africa, I might feel angry and frustrated that some of the enforcers and leaders of the regime have literally gotten away with murder.

I find it very difficult to understand the courage that it must take to be a person of color in South Africa and to forgive white people for centuries of injustice suffered at their hands.

Today South Africa is a beacon of light for countries experiencing conflict. It provides the world with a reason to believe that nations can overcome their pasts and move forward into peaceful democracies without discrimination, where everyone is respected by the constitution.

Personally, I think that the TRC was the best thing for South Africa, and I doubt that we would have had such a successful and peaceful transition of power and 17 years of freedom without it.

Ross Berriman

In honor of President Lincoln: Moving towards freedom

Posted on by kathiemm

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we welcome the first of several contributions by our guest contributor Majed Ashy. Dr. Ashy is an assistant professor of psychology at Merrimack College and a research fellow in psychiatry at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He was born in Lebanon and is a Saudi Arabian. He earned his B.A, M.A, and Ph.D. in psychology from Boston University. His research in psychoneuroimmunology and political psychology focuses on childhood experience of adversity and its psychobiological consequences. He authored the Saudi Arabia chapter in State Violence and the Right to Peace: An International Survey of the Views of Ordinary People Greenwood Publishing Group / Praeger series. He is contributing several chapters to two volumes to be published by Springer Publishing Co.: Handbook on War, Torture, and Terrorism, and Handbook on Protest, Peace, Reconciliation, Apology, and Forgiveness.]

By Majed Ashy, Guest Author

Two arguments are presented repeatedly in discussions of the evolution of democracy in the Middle East: “Arabs are not ready for democracy,” and “If Arabs get more democratic rights, then some Islamic extremists will come to power and that is a threat to the whole world.”

Army trucks surrounding Tahrir Square, Cairo
Army trucks surrounding Tahrir Square, Cairo (Photo by Ramy Raoof; licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic; from Wikimedia Commons)

I heard similar alarmist arguments against women’s suffrage, African American civil rights movements, and Black liberation in South Africa. President Lincoln, whose birthday is this week, did not accept the arguments against freeing the slaves in America, but millions of people still lack freedom.

With advancements in communication technologies, Internet resources, social networks, media, satellite TV stations, and international travel, the evolution in individual empowerment and the rise of social collective awareness are natural consequences. Masses of people are rejecting as self serving and racist the “old” narratives about the necessity of oppression.

One of the problems faced in the Middle East is the communication gap between governments and the general populations. Many Middle Eastern governments are still using a “language” that does not speak to people who are educated, aware, and able to see through the narratives of oppression. The image of men on camels and horses in Tahrir square in Cairo beating protesters summarize this divide.

We have in the Middle East youth who represent the future, are linked through the Internet to people all over the world, watch satellite TV stations from almost every country, and call for human rights. On the other side we have people who come from the ancient past and deal with their problems by riding camels and beating people up.

The current conflict in the Middle East is about narratives. One narrative that has not been given a chance yet is that the Middle East can evolve into a responsible democracy that takes into account human rights, international law, and democracy. All lovers of freedom and democracy should respect and help sustain this effort.

Majed Ashy