Vlok’s act of contrition

As minister for law and order a title that dripped with bitter irony Mr Vlok followed zealously in the footsteps of his odious predecessor, Louis le Grange, in presiding over all manner of human rights violation, ranging from gratuitous detention of apartheid opponents to their torture and, not infrequently, state-sanctioned murder.

News, therefore, that Mr Vlok has discerned the evil of his old ways and seeks forgiveness for them must be welcomed.

As reported, Mr Vlok, in a meeting with former South African Council of Churches leader Reverend Frank Chikane acknowledged responsibility for gross human rights violations under his watch, and asked for forgiveness. As a sign of his contrition and humility, he washed Rev Chikanes feet.

There is no reason to believe that Mr Vlok, a born-again Christian, had an ulterior motive in making such a dramatic gesture. His political career is long over unlike many of his apartheid associates, he has not followed the path of political expediency by joining the ruling party and he has been out of the public eye since the demise of apartheid. We must presume that his contrition was genuine.

Mr Vlok’s act of repentance has marked him out as an extraordinary leader of those white South Africans who must bear some form of responsibility for apartheid, by their commission or omission of acts. Many of these have still to come to terms with the past, not using standard excuses and accepting that apartheid was objectively evil.

Mr Vlok has shown that the desire to move on without acknowledgment of some form of accountability is misplaced, an uncomfortable truth that has generated much criticism from those resistant to admitting this.

Many people have accused Mr Vlok of raking up the past, of not letting bygones be bygones. Such criticism points to the problem his act of contrition highlights: white South Africans cannot impose a reprieve on past violations. The reaction from some quarters to Mr Vlok proves that not all white South Africans who were in some way complicit in maintaining apartheid are willing to acknowledge their tainted past and make reparations if only in attitude for it.

At the same time, the lukewarm response by organisations such as the South African Council of Churches, and indeed Rev Chikane himself, points to two problems.

On the one hand, Rev Chikane wants full clarity on the circumstances surrounding repeated attempts on his life in the 1980s. To qualify for unconditional forgiveness, Mr Vlok should be ready to offer full disclosure to the victims of his political activities, as a way of making restitution, and one symbolic apology may not be enough to secure Mr Vlok a general absolution.

On the other hand, however, Mr Vloks apparently sincere gesture has been met with a superficial lack of grace. How much better an opportunity might represent itself to show a public conciliation between two erstwhile enemies than of these two potent symbols Vlok and Chikane coming together in a spirit of Christian brotherhood, with repentance, forgiveness, reparation and redemption as its theme?

This might have served as a powerful symbol of South Africa s search for resolving its troubled past. It would have been the Christian way.