The Marikana Massacre of 16th August 2012 was a watershed moment for post- Apartheid South African politics. News headlines and images depicting an ANC-led South African police killing 44 unarmed miners, striking for a wage increase, ruptured the TRC's official narrative that state violence of this proportion belonged to a bygone colonial, or Apartheid past. Following the massacre, the Marikana Commission of Inquiry was launched as an official inquiry into what was referred to as the 'tragic incidents at Marikana'. However, as the Commission conducted its work its actual role became increasingly ambivalent and ambiguous to the public, as well as to witnesses who testified. Legally, it was a judicial commission of inquiry with a strict fact-finding mandate, yet the official discourse invoked suggests it had additional distinctive aims to achieve 'truth, restoration, and justice', which are functions traditionally associated with Truth Commissions, in the field of Transitional Justice, and more particularly with South Africa's TRC. This ambiguity in the Marikana Commission's function points to the larger issue that this thesis addresses – the ambiguity in the exact role and function of, as well as the relationship between, generic commissions of inquiry and Truth Commissions. The functions are interrogated using the concept of 'tumult commissions', introduced by Adam Sitze-- a subtype of commission of inquiry used by colonial administrations in lieu of criminal tribunals, to investigate political violence following the State's violent suppression of some major insurgency. Over and above 'fact-finding', Sitze claims that 'tumult commissions' were political tools deployed to 'whitewash' and justify State killings as unfortunate necessities in order to restore peace and order, and to legitimate the authority of the state. I anchor the current ambiguity in the role of the Marikana Commission, both in legal capacity, its method and official discourse, in a longer historical trajectory that extends from the Jamaica Royal Commission (1866) to the Sharpeville Commission (1960) and the TRC (1996-1998). The notion of official truth-seeking is problematised using an analytical framework that distinguishes between objective 'fact-finding', 'truthseeking' and the various associated narrative genres of 'tumult commissions' and 'truth commissions'. Through a critical analysis of canonic academic literature, official commission reports and legislation, the thesis highlights glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in claims to official 'truth-seeking' when combined with quasi-judicial aims to achieve accountability and 'justice'. It concludes that the 'truth' of 'official' truth-seeking commissions is always constrained by the overall objectives of the government of the day. Although the TRC was able to promote a more open and inclusive institution to deal with the intractable issues of 'truth' and 'accountability' following state-sanctioned violence, the cases show that when broader social and economic issues are excluded from the 'regime of truth' of official commissions, it only creates fertile soil in which similar tragedies may reoccur in a post-colonial, and post- TRC South Africa.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:uct/oai:localhost:11427/25342 |
| Date | January 2017 |
| Creators | Lester, Claire-Anne |
| Contributors | Du Toit, André |
| Publisher | University of Cape Town, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Political Studies |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Master Thesis, Masters, MPhil |
| Format | application/pdf |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds