Peter Harris – South Africa 2017 Transcript
June 27, 2017
Johannesburg, South Africa
Ubunye Project – Mount Madonna School
Ward Mailliard: So, by way of introduction, you can’t say what a man is, only a man knows what a man is, what he is, or a woman knows what she is. But, what I can tell you is that Peter’s one of my heroes, I know that’s slightly embarrassing, but people who live lives of being committed to something that’s larger than themselves, to me, is a prerequisite to a life of meaning. And that’s a big part about what we’re trying to create the conditions under which you can start to understand that yourselves. There’s no reason why you can’t do good while you’re doing well, but the doing good part really does come first. If you, at the end when you look back say, ‘yeah, I did some good.’ You’ve all read his book, so you understand a little bit about that. There’re a couple books following that as well. But the reason I bring you here is there’s- the people who’ve done it, have a certain something, gravitas I would say. People who have done that, and I think that’s where the transference happens the best, is talking to people who actually were there and did the work. Peter’s one of the people who was there and did the work. So, thank you, thank you for seeing us.
Peter Harris: Pleasure, pleasure, kind words, unwarranted, but kind, thank you. How do you want to proceed Ward?
Ward Mailliard: Well, they have questions, as always we’ll give you an opportunity if there’s something you want to say to them, by all means please do to get started. But if you want to take questions, we can start wherever you want.
Peter Harris: Ok, well let me just say that it’s a pleasure once again, there’ve been a couple of these sessions over the past couple of years, and Ward has brought some remarkable people to meet me, for which I’m very grateful. And also, I think just to commend the work of your school, and particularly of Ward, in terms of what they do both in your country and in my country. It’s very valuable and much appreciated, and it makes a difference, which I think is very important. So thank you for that. And good to meet you, so if you have questions, I’m sure we’ll have a discussion, and if there’re issues, we can pursue it. But Ward has told me about some of the things that you’ve been doing, and some of the people you’ve been meeting, particularly Desmond Tutu, the Arch has we call him, very enormously significant human being.
Ward Mailliard: So you want to leap in guys?
Gracie Howley: Hi, I’m Gracie. In ‘A Different Time,’ you wrote, “this is a story that has never left me, it has visited and haunted me from the very days on which the events took place.” Is that still true today and/or has your perspective shifted over the years?
Peter Harris: I think perspectives shift, but at the time I wrote that book and had those thoughts, it was- I think it was a story I hadn’t put into words in a sense. I hadn’t written a book about it and I hadn’t told the story. And I think since telling it, in a sense, it’s addressed some of those, I won’t say demons, but some of those issues. But not completely I think.
Ruby Bracher: Hi, I’m Ruby again. You have a new fiction novel coming out this year, and I was wondering if there was a difference in the process of writing fiction versus the non-fiction you’ve written in the past?
Peter Harris: You know, writing is a lonely business. So whether you’re writing fiction or non-fiction, it’s always kind of you in front of the computer. So you know, if any of you have written an essay for example, I’m sure you all have numerous times, you’re on your own out there. I think some authors use a lot of researchers and so on, I don’t, I prefer to do it myself. So the process is much the same. Of course it’s a different- you know writing non-fiction; you’re bound by the truth, you’re bound by history and what happened. You know, writing fiction; you’ve got a lot more latitude, if you don’t like someone, you can kill them, or you can have them, you know, wander off into the sunset. But you can’t distort real-life events, or what took place. So you know, non-fiction is very binding. And I think because of the way people approach history, you know, the challenge is to put it in a form that people might find interesting. So the form I chose was what they call narrative non-fiction, where you’re telling a story but through non-fiction, and you know, it also tells a story about an epic or a time and one of the easiest ways to tell an epic is through individuals and telling their story. Of course fiction is a very different thing, and you know, as I said you’ve got a lot more latitude, but at the same time it’s quite challenging because you’ve really got to be quite creative in terms of what you invent and what you put it and what you leave out. So that’s quite a big challenge.
And of course you’ve got to make it into a story, and what you might find interesting as a story, others may not. You know, so for example, the first book is really a story about the Apartheid Era and the struggle and the Treason Trial that took place and all that. The second is about our transition and the first democratic election. And this one is about what we’ve become, and it’s in novel form.
Ruby Bracher: Thank you.
Cyrus Kamkar: I’m Cyrus.
Peter Harris: Hi Cyrus.
Cyrus Kamkar: A few days ago we spoke with Pregs Govender, author of ‘Love and Courage.’ She wanted to know what we thought about the relationship of love, courage, and insubordination, which fueled her career during the Apartheid years and later as a member of parliament and in the human rights commission. Can you talk about how you see the relationship between love, courage, and insubordination, and how it played a role in your life?
Peter Harris: Yeah look, I mean I think Pregs is a very special person. I was chatting to Ward about her earlier, I’ve known her for a long time, and she has led a remarkable career and life. And she writes from a very personal perspective, in terms of her relationships and so on. And I think one has less opportunity for that in non-fiction, you know obviously more so in fiction. I’ve tried to, in a sense, in the two non-fiction books, to sort of tuck myself in the background as a narrator, even though I’m a participant. So in a sense, I don’t deal with my personal relationship with my wife or my friendships with x or y, I prefer to tell other people’s stories, which is about their courage and their conviction. I can’t talk so much about their love because I don’t really go into their personal lives to that extent, other than the histories of their families and the events that really marked them as individuals in terms of the path that they chose. But I think in everything one does there’s love of country, there’s love of people, there’s love of principle.
Ward Mailliard: So you guys- before we go on to the next question- she asked this question to the kids because she wanted to know, what was it about love and courage that made them feel as though they wanted to speak with her. Can one of you maybe say something about that relationship between love, courage, and insubordination as you said it to her? Go ahead Will.
Will Murphy: So when we were talking to her, it wasn’t so much an interview as it was a discussion and we eventually came to the consensus that love is necessary for courage- to have courage, and love is also necessary to form a group of people that have the courage to be insubordinate against a higher power. So they’re all intertwined.
Peter Harris: Yeah, I would agree with that.
Ward Mailliard: Difficult question.
Peter Harris: Yeah, yeah. I think it’s about principle, you know, as well, to be honest. You know, it’s about what’s right, it’s about principle, and you know to be honest, I haven’t really thought about it in terms of love. Maybe more commitment to principle. But I think it’s a very good point.
Lucas Caudill: Hi, my name is Lucas, and fighting against Apartheid from within the Apartheid system must have been an incredibly daunting task, and I was wondering whether there was ever a point where you lost hope, and if so, how you found the will to persevere through that.
Peter Harris: I think it’s about what we just discussed, about commitment to principle and to what one’s doing and actually thinking- you could of course be wrong- that you’re right. And it’s about choosing sides. And it isn’t to say that once you’ve chosen a side, you can’t change it, or alter your position on a particular perspective, or a particular commitment. But you know, once you chose that side, particularly in a fight like that, you tend to get carried along with it in a sense if you know what I mean. And you go through some dark times because at the time that this particular trial was taking place, when they were arrested, you know, in 1986, we were in our second set of emergency, there were over 10,000 people in detention, the (can’t understand) were occupied by security forces and there was a lot of oppression in the country.
And I think, you know, it is- it’s a challenge not to lose hope. I have to say, I think people face much greater challenges than I did. You know, I didn’t spend long periods in detention or anything like that, and I think if one did, you truly have to confront your commitment, or the level of what you’re doing. So I don’t know if I was really tested to that degree. But you know, I think it’s also a conviction that you will win, and that it can’t continue indefinitely.
Lucas Caudill: Thank you.
Aimee Kerr: Hi, I’m Aimee, and as a follow-up to the last question, I was wondering if there was someone who provided strength or inspiration to you.
Peter Harris: You know, I think there were a lot of people that provided strength and inspiration to all of us. You know, firstly my family; my wife massively. People in jail, you know like the four people in the book. So there were a lot. You know, there was no shortage of role models. You speak about Desmond Tutu for example, you know, what a remarkable man. And he, you know, Desmond, I think he was detained from time to time, I mean- or arrested, he wasn’t really detained for long periods of time. So he was out and in the communities, preaching in his church, so he gave a lot of inspiration. And there were others as well. You know, people who were released off the island, like Kgalema Motlanthe, you know he was the former President and former Deputy President as well.
So there were a lot of role models that we drew inspiration from, and there was a lot of support. But I think you’re talking about a small band of people, you know, you’re not talking about- and I’m talking about those that were sort of really actively involved, and so you know, you tended to have close relationships, strong bonds, strong loyalties, and that makes a big difference.
Phoebe Grant: Hi, I’m Phoebe and my question was, did having your child during the time of struggle affect the perspective you have on the need for change in South Africa?
Peter Harris: Look, I think having a child affects your perspective on everything. So yes, it did. Yeah, I think it brings it down on a very personal level when you’re defending people, because you are defending the sons and daughters of parents. So yes, it also affects you in a way in the sense that you’ve got greater responsibility to be on you and your partner, and you fix your perspective. But yes, I think it does, it brings a much greater poignancy to it as well I think. The value of life.
Phoebe Grant: Thank you.
Elias Moreno: Hello, my name’s Elias.
Peter Harris: Hi.
Elias Moreno: You must have had strong feelings about what was going on both in the Delmas Four trials, and in South Africa in general, but had to restrain yourself in order to participate in the process. If you could have spoken out about what was truly on your mind, what would you have said?
Peter Harris: Then?
Elias Moreno: Yes.
Peter Harris: Well, we did speak out, a lot. You know, and there were a lot of- one’s involvement was a multiplicity of levels, like most people who were involved. So our involvement was not just as a lawyer, I mean we were in a sense, a political law firm, so we represented the ANC, the trade unions, you know the churches, catholic bishops, (can’t understand), consulate churches, a range of organization, COSATU the trade union movement, and so on.
So you know, in representing those people, you were involved in a number of (can’t understand), or sites of combat as it were, if one could use a struggle term. So, for example, while we were involved in this Treason Trial, the same time we were bringing emergency applications to stop detainees being tortured, we were bringing applications against the state of emergency regulations which restricted press freedom, and we were launching cases against Durban, we were representing individual detainees who were in detention, and because the only people they were allowed to be visited by were their lawyers, very occasionally their family, that gave us special access. And we were then representing organizations like COSATU for example, whose headquarters got bombed, and whose leaders were frequently detained and some were murdered.
So there were inputs at a variety of levels and in a sense, being a lawyer, one was able to make statements on behalf of one’s clients, to express their views and to express your own view of a particular course of activity that the security police or others may have undertaken. So there were a lot of you know, press conferences, there were a lot of opportunities to engage at a variety of levels. So, for example, you know, one of the initiatives was the End Conscription Campaign to persuade young, white, boys- because it was just for males- not to go to the army and fight. And that was the beginning of the End Conscription Campaign, and we used to assist them a lot in that. And you’re making statements around conscription and what you feel about that, and the morality of conducting a war in a foreign country like Namibia or Mongolia or Mozambique and so on.
So there was that opportunity to make statements. At the same time, you needed to be quite careful, because if you said, ‘I personally support the objectives of the ANC,’ you’ll be arrested on the spot and you’ll go to jail. Just merely for wearing an ANC t-shirt you could get eight years in prison. So you had to be careful because that would compromise the work you were doing, and being able to represent your clients. Because you’re not doing them any favors by making a statement that’s going to get you put away and they’ve got no representation. So there was a very thin line everyone had to walk between representing your clients and doing something that may jeopardize their interests.
Jordan Willis: Last week, we spoke with Arch Bishop Tutu, and Thulani Mabaso, who was one of the last prisoners on Robben Island, about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the idea of forgiveness. We are interested in knowing if you think the Truth and Reconciliation Commission achieved its goals and if it had any personal impact on you.
Peter Harris: I think it’s important to understand that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission arose out of the constitutional negotiations. Now you’ve got to understand that at the time those negotiations were taking place, this was a country in which there were extreme levels of violence, particularly between the ANC and the Guard of Freedom Party, and some of which is detailed in my second book. But it was a very volatile place, and there were very real concerns that the security forces- particularly police, and defense force with all of its arms and security components of those- that they would not accept the outcome of an election, and those constitutional negotiations. And so a number of compromises were made by both parties, and I’m really talking about the main parties which was the National Party, which was representing the minority government, and the ANC. And one of those in a sense, areas of agreement was that firstly, no public servant would lose their job, and secondly, that a commission of truth and reconciliation, a commission would be established. And that if you showed remorse, and there was a vague component of political motive in your acts, that would get amnesty.
So in a sense, it was a compromise that was the outcome of those negotiations. And the fact of the matter is that I think it was the correct compromise of the negotiators at that point. Because if they hadn’t, and if it had become clear that the ANC was going to pursue and put behind bars, if not execute-although they weren’t proponents of the death penalty- those who perpetrated unlawful acts in Apartheid’s name, there would never have been a settlement and we would have gone further down the road to conflict.
So I think one has to understand the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in that context. That it was less about justice, and more about the exchange of information, forgiveness- as you correctly pointed out-, and what was supposed to be a process of national healing, and saying, ‘this is where we’ve come from, it should never happen again.’ And I think there was, to a greater or lesser degree, a process of national healing. But I think the fact that justice was not visited on some of the perpetrators who committed terrible deeds in the name of Apartheid, is something that still wrangles in the national psyche. And one mustn’t forget that the ANC were also responsible for committing acts of murder and unlawful acts in the pursuance of their liberation struggle. I’m not even putting them on a par in terms of morality, what the ANC did, there’s no comparison to the oppression of the Apartheid government.
So I think you need to understand it in that context in terms of the Truth and Reconciliation. Did it serve a purpose? Yeah, I think it did. And I think it served a valuable purpose and I think Desmond Tutu did a remarkable job with his other commissions. A lot of what came up there, didn’t come as a surprise to me personally because we knew who was responsible for what acts by and large. And would I have liked some of them to have gone to jail? Absolutely, I think they should’ve. As it happened, a number of sort of extreme right wing groupings, and right wingers, who placed bombs in super markets and so on, and committed other acts, were so right wing that they believed they would compromise themselves if they went before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for forgiveness and expressed remorse. So they never went before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and they’re still sitting in jail. Because unless you went before the commission and got amnesty, you had to pay for your crimes.
And it may well still transpire that evidence emerges in relation to the wrongful acts of some perpetrators who didn’t apply for amnesty, and they may well still go to jail.
Ward Mailliard: What did Thulani tell you guys? Because we asked him a little bit about this. What did Thulani say about this? This is Thulani Mabaso, do you know who he is?
Peter Harris: I don’t.
Ward Mailliard: There were twenty-five people left on Robben Island, he was one of them. And they thought they were never going to get out. He planted a bomb, in the process he called up the building where he planted the bomb and said, ‘get everybody out of there, there’s a bomb.’ He told us the story of how he was caught and tortured, and while he was in prison, his father was shot to death. And I mean it’s just a calamitous story. And the poignant part for me was when, I mean, some of the guys that were left thought, ‘we’re in here forever,’ and were even contemplating suicide at that point because they thought they would never get out. But Nelson Mandela went back to the island and said, ‘there will be no negotiations if you’re not set free.’ Which changed the whole thing. But we talked about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, do you remember what he said about that, in terms of his response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
Elias Moreno: He said there’s no future without forgiveness, because he realized that for the whole nation to move forward that they need to have the Truth and Reconciliation Commission so that way at least everybody could at least come to terms with it. Because he realized that it’s better for the nation to move forward than to dwell on these horrific crimes.
Ward Mailliard: And what else did he say? Anybody?
Ruby Bracher: Forgive, but never forget.
Ward Mailliard: Yeah, he said, ‘I’ll forgive, but I’ll never forget.’ What struck me about that was that these people who had sacrificed so much, were asked to actually sacrifice further in the Truth and Reconciliation because the reprisals or the justice, they had to sacrifice that, and I think that was very difficult.
Peter Harris: Yeah, I mean I would certainly agree with what he says. I mean I’m not familiar with his particular circumstances, there were a lot of people on the island, but it was a process of national- it was meant to be a process of national healing and forgiveness. And there were frequent scenes of extraordinarily moving forgiveness, on all sides. I think it’s hard without the justice, which makes it all the more remarkable. But there are people that criticized that process, but I think it’s like the people that criticize our constitution now. You had to be alive there and then to understand why certain agreements were reached. And certainly I think the ANC in reaching those agreements was absolutely correct.
Zac Clark: Hi, my name is Zac, and I was wondering, after being a part of setting up the first democratic election, are there any concerns you have about the current election process that you wish you had addressed back then?
Peter Harris: You know, it’s- firstly, let me say that in terms of the machinery of the current electoral process and the independent electoral commission, I think they’re doing a great job, and I think they run an independent, an impartial, and a fair electoral process. It’s not to say that they won’t get criticized for a particular bi-election year where an official might behave stupidly and impartially, but I think as a whole, they run pretty good elections, particularly that last local government elections in 2016.
You know again, the constitution of the IEC arrive from the constitutional negotiations. And so I think if there’s one area in which the parties might want to revisit- the ANC probably wouldn’t now- but firstly, the legislative provisions establishing provinces as an arm of government, so we have provincial elections as well. So you have nine provinces, you have national elections which votes for your parliament, and then you have provincial elections which is part of the same- you get two ballots on election day where you vote for the government that will be in government, or the people that will be in government in a particular province, like the Western Cape, or Gauteng. And that was a constitutional compromise in a sense, because they wanted to be able to say- the negotiators wanted to be able to take account of differences within each province, both ethnic differences, and ethnicity, as you probably may know, is based on language, religion, color, yeah I think those are the three main ones, and they wanted to be able to take account of that. So for example, because there were a virtual war in KwaZulu-Natal between the IFP and the ANC, if they hadn’t had allowed KwaZulu-Natal to have its own legislature, it would have been a national problem and the war would’ve continued.
Similarly, in arriving at a- what’s the word- proportional representation electoral system, they did so because there are a number of minorities in this country like whites, Indians, so called ‘colors’ as they’re called, and others, in a ‘first past the post’ system, it’s the winner takes all. So minorities are not necessarily represented electorally, ok? So for example, let’s just take an example, if there’re a hundred people in this particular suburb, there are 10 Indian- people of Indian decent, there are 10 white people, etc., etc. And you must remember that voting along race often mirrors electoral party votes in this country sadly. And so if it’s a ‘first past the post’ system, whoever wins takes all the seats, ok? By and large, ok? In terms of government. Whereas in a minority system, you get each vote counts, ok? And I think proportional representation as a form of allowing, or giving minorities a voice, was deemed to be very important as a sort of olive branch towards minorities in those constitutional negotiations.
The problem with proportional representation is that you have, unlike ‘first past the post’, you don’t have direct representation, ok? So- I’m sorry it’s getting quite complicated- but in proportional representation, the political party compiles the list, ok? So proportional representation: you have a list compiled by the party leaders according to how much democracy there is in the party, and they put up 300 people for parliament. If they get two-thirds of the vote, they’ll get 200 people into parliament, that’s proportional representation. In ‘first past the post’, ok? Which is the Westminster system, you have direct representation, so you’ll have Peter Harris standing for this suburb, and the residents of this suburb will say, ‘we like Peter Harris because he’s looked after our interests in the past.’ And they will vote me in or out. So you might even have a situation like you’ve had in the most recent elections in Britain where although the conservatives win the election, because individual constituents were unhappy with the people that represented them, you had a number of ministers who didn’t get a seat, ok? That’s direct representation.
And I think the flaw in proportional representation is that the list gives enormous power to the party bosses, and there’s no direct democracy. So the people cannot really hold individuals accountable for their performance as their representatives. And I think in hindsight, that was a mistake. So, but that was a mistake that was made honestly and sincerely, because they wanted- the negotiators wanted minorities to get seats in parliament, which is what happened. Sorry, long answer to a simple question.
Will Murphy: Hi, my name’s Will. Given your extensive experience here and abroad working with managing electoral processes, do you see any common challenges that face other governments that also face the South African government?
Peter Harris: You know gosh, yeah I mean I think there’s an international trend of incumbent parties, in other words those that are in power, misreading the facts, as it were. And I think in your own country, for better or for worse in terms of the President you ended up with, you know the pulse has got it completely and utterly wrong. They didn’t read it, and I think Hillary Clinton didn’t read it, as to whether she should and what form goodness know, it’s not for me to say. But I think certainly, and if you look at BREXIT- you all know what BREXIT is yeah? Ok, well if you look at BREXIT, again if you look at David Cameron, he got it completely wrong, he thought it would be a landslide. If you look at Teresa May, Teresa May calling an election now to consolidate the majority that she enjoyed because she thought she would get a landslide, and she’s had her majority massively cut and you’ve essentially got a hung parliament, unless she’s now having to team up with a tiny party in Northern Ireland.
It’s been a classical misreading of the vote. If you look at what happened in this country, and I think it’s a lesson for incumbents. It was inconceivable in this country 15 years ago that the ANC would lose the majority of the massive metros in this country- that’s the metropolitan cities: Joburg, Cape Town, Nelson Mandela Bay, and so on, (can’t understand) city. And so it was just inconceivable that a party- that the party of Nelson Mandela, which had swept (can’t understand) with an overwhelming majority could lose that, those majorities. In all of them- I won’t say in all- but in some critical metros, including Pretoria, (can’t understand). So there was a fundamental misreading of what people were thinking, and I think it’s one of the great lessons for incumbents, is to not- don’t take people for granted. I think the ANC’s in grave danger of having done that here, and we’ll see what happen in 2019. They were certainly given a massive smack in 2016. And you know, I think it’s a lesson for politicians to be less arrogant, to be more accountable, more in touch, and to make sure that constituencies are addressed.
The very sad consequence of that is that it can give rise to populist politicians, peddling politics based on racial prejudice, narrow class politics, and right wing politics, to take advantage or people’s prejudices and feelings in a way in which I don’t feel is good for any country, but that’s a personal view.
Indigo Kelly: I’m Indigo, and in South Africa you’ve experienced the attempted disruption and danger produced by hacking in the 1994 election, do you have any thoughts about this type of external interference, especially given the recent impact on our election in the U.S.A?
Peter Harris: You know, unless you are extraordinarily vigilant, and have checks and balances in any democracy, it is subject to manipulation, yeah. And you know, frankly, it’s very difficult now with, I think the people who do these kinds of activities such as hacking or whatever, are extraordinarily skilled and it’s very difficult to stop. But I think it’s also a lesson- you know the South African one was different because in a sense there, it was an algorithm which deliberately miscounted the votes for particular parties. So there you’re actually literally going into the heartland of it and cheating essentially. You know, I think that the release of certain- or the flood of certain emails in the U.S. election was designed to influence voters to a particular conclusion, particularly in relation to Hillary. It wasn’t actually multiplying the votes; do you see what I’m saying? So I think there’re different types of hacking and different types of consequences, but they’re all extremely dangerous.
Sienna Clifton: My name’s Sienna, and in a past interview with Mount Madonna, when talking about how to create a more just South Africa, you stated, “well I think we need to focus on the basics, you know, there’s still far too much poverty and democracy still has not delivered to the majority of poor South Africans what it should have. And that’s not a question of lack of money, it’s a question of the capacity and the competence to deliver it.” Do you think South Africa has made any progress since that statement?
Peter Harris: No, I think we’ve probably gone backwards. I think that the level of corruption within government and those seeking to influence government, has been profound. And you may or may not have followed it since you landed in the country but there’s been a massive dumping of emails, a sort of WikiLeaks almost type dump of emails, implicating everyone from the President’s family, to government ministers, showing manipulation of tenders, and theft of money. So I think that there’s been a significant and fairly unrestrained looting of the national fiscus by certain individuals. And my sincere wish is that they should go to jail. The national prosecuting authority however is led by Zumera Appointee, so there’s little prospect of that.
But with every rand, every billion rand, and tens of billions of rands, that get stolen from the national fiscus, there is less money to build clinics, to deliver education, provide social services, and human security. And the fact of the matter is that people in the middle class, and those wealthier than the middle class, remain largely unaffected by that because their children are going to private schools, private hospitals, they have private security, they have a generator in their home in case the lights go out, and so on. But it is the poor that suffer the most, because they can afford none of those things.
So simply answered, has it got better? No, I think it’s got worse.
Zach Wagner: I’m Zach, since arriving, we have noticed there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the political system. Do you think the judiciary is acting as an affective check and balance on the executive and legislative branches? Do you think the post-apartheid legal system is functioning as it should, and if not, what would you like to see change?
Peter Harris: No, I think it’s functioning as it should. Again, it was a, you know, it arose out of constitutional negotiations. We wanted a constitutional court, we wanted a bill of rights. I think that particular work group in the constitutional negotiations did a great job, and I think they took amongst the best in the world and they crafted a fine constitution. A fine constitution is one thing, but you need the institutions to deliver it. Institutions of justice; you need a proper national prosecuting authority, you need a proper court system, and you need a proper legislature and you need other institutional arms of government. I think the courts have functioned exceptionally well, particularly the constitutional court. I think the Supreme Court of Appeal is strong and has behaved exceptionally well too. And there’s every prospect of them continuing to do so.
I think where the justice system fails, is at the level of the criminal justice system, where the national prosecuting authority is pretty close to hopeless. And that’s the interaction that most South Africans, particularly black South Africans come into contact with justice, it’s in the magistrate’s courts. And you know, it’s the difference between whether someone can be brought to trial in two weeks, or spend two years awaiting trial in a very overcrowded and shocking correctional services facility.
So to answer your question, I think yes at the upper levels, but at the level of the criminal justice system, which is the level at which most people interact, I think there’s great room for improvement. But I think constitutional court’s done a great job and I think it’s a, you know- thank goodness for that.
Zach Wagner: Thanks.
Carl Ward: Hi, I’m Carl.
Peter Harris: Hi.
Carl Ward: Given the violence that you encountered during the Apartheid years, what is your opinion about violence as a tool in seeking social change?
Peter Harris: That’s a good question, I mean they’re all good questions that you’ve been asking. I mean, I think firstly let me say, I defended people who murdered people, you know. But I chose my side, as I said. I firmly believed at that point- and I still believe it I think, that if there is a system which is unjust, if there’s a system of administration in which people are being denied their rights, particularly in their own country in which they are the majority. I mean Apartheid had been declared an international crime by the United Nations, it had been declared heresy by the churches- the world council of churches. So those individuals that eventually took up arms to fight against the Apartheid regime, I had every sympathy with. I might not have agreed with or condoned their methods of what they did- some of them, others I did. But I understood them. And you know, sometimes in a conflict of that nature, you’ve got to choose your sides. I chose mine, and I don’t have any regrets about that.
But I think violence has to be a last resort. I think in the case of the ANC; it was a last resort. You know, Oliver Tambo said in his speech in the (can’t understand), he spent decades patiently knocking on his door. The resort to arms, or the liberation struggle and the formation of (can’t understand) was a last and final resort after decades, and decades of peaceful protest. So I think that every situation is different, I don’t think you can take it as a rule of thumb that violence is justified to achieve ends. I think it depends on the morality of that conflict and the positions that people take within it, and I think it should only be used as a last resort. I think if there are legal and constitutional means available, those should be the first resort, and I think where people have those available and choose to ignore those and commit acts of violence and terror; I think that’s terrorism.
Ruby Bracher: You wrote a lot about your relationship with the Delmas Four in ‘In A Different Time’. Can you talk in general about the impact of relationships in your career?
Peter Harris: Yeah look, you know in a sense, I think for all those representing clients in those times, it wasn’t just about client-attorney relationship. So relationships were important, and I think the fact that we believed in what they were doing, made it even more important. So you know, we were on the same side in that sense as I’ve said. So it wasn’t just about representing a client who had hit someone over the head, or stolen their purse, or was being sued by an insurance company. There was a lot of empathy, and of course, as you see in this book for example, there were visits to Lusaka, there were discussions taking place. And even in representing particular clients, it was done in a way which was not purely legal, it was also done to achieve maximum political advantage for that particular cause.
So relationships were very important. And I think frankly, if you spend any time with anyone in a stressful situation, whether it’s running a 42km race, or a marathon, or you know, being in a lift overnight that’s stuck, or in a death-sentence trial which is extremely stressful for all the parties, particularly those that face the prospect of being sentenced to death, the bonds that you form are very close.
Gracie Howley: Hi, I’m Gracie again.
Peter Harris: Hi.
Gracie Howley: I noticed you dedicated this book to your mother, can you tell us about her impact on you in general, and if that had any relationship- or if that had any relationship to the book?
Peter Harris: Yeah, I mean I think one’s parents always have a huge impact on one, and particularly my mother. You know, she was a very non-racial person, strong sense of justice, and I think that had a very significant impact on me, yeah.
Ward Mailliard: So what have you guys, I want to ask you the question about what have you heard so far that has struck you?
Elias Moreno: I just think it was a really good point that how you said violence doesn’t always justify the means, it’s very case to case basis, and how you said the ANC was sort of last resort because of how long the war had been going on for, I just think that was interesting.
Peter Harris: Yeah I mean essentially; I’m not justifying violence in that sense. You know, and your analysis of what I said is completely correct, so I think you’ve got it right. But what I’m saying is that where an unjust situation prevails and there are no other means for addressing it, other than the taking up of arms, I think it’s justified. You know, I think those resistance fighters who took up the fight against fascism in Nazi Germany were justified in doing so, I think it was the honorable thing to do.
Cyrus Kamkar: What struck me is when you said in response to the question about, how did having the child during the trial impact you, or the trial, when you said how you’re defending people’s sons and daughters and you know, that makes it more you know, personal, and less, ‘this is my client and I’m going to defend them.’ It’s more- it has a bigger meaning for the result, and that impacted me.
Peter Harris: Yeah it does, I mean when you deal with people’s parents who stand to lose their child, it’s very emotional.
Ward Mailliard: Yeah, we saw that in the videos on truth and reconciliation, of the parents speaking about the loss of their child, and that has to be the biggest wound I think you can get in this life, just about.
Will Murphy: I’ve got a question.
Ward Mailliard: Yeah, go ahead.
Will Murphy: In response to Sienna’s question about the inability to create better welfare systems, I was wondering, do you see any hope for creating a, not perfect, but a system that most people will think is good?
Peter Harris: Yes, I do, I think if there’s a change of leadership in the ANC, there’s every prospect of leaders behaving in a more accountable way, which would lead to better government, which would lead to better delivery. I think that the current leadership in the ANC, and particularly the President and those around him, have exhibited- have shown that they care absolutely zero for the majority of people this country. And I think his building of 256-million-rand home in his village in KwaZulu-Natal is a manifestation of that, when people outside of that particular area don’t have running water. You know, we had hoped that the time of Presidential palaces in Africa was past, and yet we find ourselves, in this country, in exactly that situation, and with a fine constitution. But you have a national prosecuting authority that refuses to prosecute corruption.
Ward Mailliard: So that’s a weakness in the judiciary that we have exactly the same thing going on in the United States right now.
Peter Harris: Yeah, it’s a criminal justice system which is failing the people frankly.
Zach Wagner: I was really struck when you spoke on the origins of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. I thought it was really interesting how that arose out of the negotiations and was sort of seen as a systematic step towards the country’s progression.
Peter Harris: Yeah, you know there were a range of checks and balances and processes that in a sense, arose out of the constitutional negotiations which took place over a number of years. So you know, we call them chapter nine institutions because they’re listed in chapter nine of the constitution. So you know, the Public Protector is one. You know, we had a very good Public Protector; Thuli Madonsela, who was a remarkable woman, and now her successor has clearly indicated that she is captured so to speak. You know, there is the human rights commission, there is the gender commission, what are the other ones? The language commission. All of which were put in place as checks and balances in the institutional system of the democratic framework, to ensure that never again would the kind of abuses that took place under Apartheid ever be allowed to occur.
Now, despite the fact that they exist, you know, their efficacy, or their functioning, largely depends on the people that you put in to run them. And you know, you can’t blame that on the institution, you can’t blame that on the constitution itself, you can’t blame it on the people who negotiated the constitution, but it is one of the weaknesses in the system. So some of them are functioning well, and others are functioning very badly.
Will Murphy: Yeah, my name’s Will again.
Peter Harris: Hi.
Will Murphy: If we were South African youth, what advice would you give us that would lead us to a meaningful life?
Peter Harris: I’d say, take an interest, get involved, if you feel you don’t want to get involved with a political party, or the t-shirts associated with that political party, then get involved at a social level to make a difference. And I think that every young South African should be doing that, I think it’s an obligation. That doesn’t mean to say you’ve got to go out and build houses for the rest of your life in a rural area, you can play a very valuable role in whatever you do, but contribute to social justice. And don’t be silent, you know, speak up.
Ward Mailliard: Do you have hope for this next generation coming up? Because we keep sort of hearing it again and again, I think it’s actually kind of an unfair statement, ‘we’ve messed it up and now you need to fix it.’ We hear that a lot from adults. It’s like, ‘oh ok, you’re going to be the guys to fix it.’ But my question is, from a cultural and institutional perspective, we can’t expect young people to make a difference, if they don’t have the support of the community, and I wonder if we’re failing to create the context in which the next generation can take another step forward.
Peter Harris: You know, look, I mean I would disagree with the view that it’s up to the next generation to fix what goes wrong. I think it’s got to be fixed here and now by people that are willing and able to make a contribution whether they’re 75, or 25. So I don’t believe it’s a generational thing, for one generation to be absolved of its responsibilities in terms of a democratic framework and delivery and say, ‘well it’s the next generation’s problem.’ So you know, I think the responsibility lies on everyone as soon as you can start thinking sensibly, regardless of your age. And I think that responsibility, as I say, starts as soon as you’re able to possess critical thought.
I do think that it is up to those persons in society who have influence, whether it’s at a social, or economic, or religious, or political level, who have influence, to address the current issues in the leadership of the country. And I want to tell you, people are doing that. I mean there’s not a newspaper that comes out in most of the sensible press that doesn’t talk of campaigns like Save South Africa, led by the head of (can’t understand), who’s a remarkable guy, himself spent many years in prison. Organizations like Corruption Watch, Section 27, churches, business leaders, civil society organizations, political groupings, groupings within the ANC, counter-military veterans, hundreds of them who are saying, ‘what is happening now is absolutely wrong and not in our name.’ And they’re standing up.
So, for me, it’s now. It’s about changing the leadership now, of the country. Whatever leadership that may be, whatever the color of the t-shirt, and getting the right people to lead this country who are not going to steal the country until it’s just bare ground left.