De Kock parole exposes reconciliation weakness

Eugene de Kock's lawyer is still trying to find him. File photo: Themba Hadebe

Eugene de Kock's lawyer is still trying to find him. File photo: Themba Hadebe

Published Feb 3, 2015

Share

I am filled with ambivalence following the announcement by Justice Minister Michael Masutha on Friday that the so-called symbol of the “Prime Evil of Apartheid”, Eugene de Kock, will be released after only serving 20 years of his 212-year prison sentence.

During South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation hearings in the 1990s, De Kock confessed to perpetrating close to 100 acts of murder, kidnapping and torture.

Some anti-apartheid activists contend that there were more atrocities that De Kock and his death squad at a farm called Vlakplaas committed but did not reveal.

De Kock has shown remorse for his misdemeanors according to Masutha, hence his parole will promote nation-building and reconciliation.

Masutha has not fully explained how exactly De Kock’s release is going to promote nation-building and reconciliation 20 years after the end of apartheid.

Moreover, given the large number of his crimes, it is palpable that not all of De Kock’s surviving victims and the families of his murdered victims were consulted regarding his parole.

There are already a few media reports indicating that some of De Kock’s victims and their families are unhappy about the decision to parole him. There are, however, hints in reports attributed to Masutha that De Kock indicated he will help authorities to recover the remains of some of his victims.

Given the significance of providing loved ones a decent burial in keeping with African tradition, De Kock’s help in finding the remains of his victims may assist some families who are seeking much-needed closure. Such meaningful gestures will no doubt help in the process of personal and social reconciliation at a grass-roots level. One of the key weaknesses of South Africa’s reconciliation process is that it exonerated the political architects of apartheid who perpetrated crimes against humanity. De Kock’s release may expose and remind us about this flaw.

Many high-ranking apartheid politicians and policymakers never took responsibility, nor were they held accountable for their role in apartheid atrocities.

De Kock’s imprisonment made him an easy scapegoat for the heinous crimes commissioned by high-ranking apartheid officials. In the more than 100 cases in which De Kock testified before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, he repeatedly identified his superiors who gave the orders for the atrocities he committed.

In some cases he specifically named former apartheid presidents PW Botha and FW de Klerk as the supreme commanders who gave the instructions to implement these atrocities.

In a paradoxical sense De Kock’s parole is emblematic of South Africa’s reconciliation process.

His release on compassionate grounds is a symbol of the humanity of South Africa’s reconciliation process. It acknowledges that a single person cannot be held responsible for all of the atrocities committed by the apartheid regime.

De Kock showed some integrity in admitting to many of his crimes; he faced some of the families of his victims, but his complicity was to be an operative who followed political instructions and implemented a state-sanctioned ideology.

In some sense, De Kock’s complicity would be analogous to what the Jewish political theorist, Hannah Arendt described as “the banality of evil”. Observing the trial and imprisonment of Adolf Eichmann for his role in the Nazi atrocities committed during World War II, Arendt noted that while Eichmann was performing his regular duty in his job by following the orders of his superiors, his routine work-a-day complicity in the Holocaust during World War II could not be excused.

While Eichmann was hanged for his role in World War II atrocities, some of the chief Nazi ideologues and operatives were not held accountable.

One Twitter feed has aptly captured the irony of De Kock as “prime evil of apartheid” in the following manner: “Eugene De Kock is called ‘Apartheid Killer’, but F.W. De Klerk is never referred to as ‘Apartheid President’.”

* Dr A Rashied Omar is Imam of the Claremont Main Road Mosque and a Research Scholar of Islamic Studies and Peacebuilding at the University of Notre Dame, USA.

* The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.

Cape Argus

Related Topics: