Twenty five years ago, South Africa was a brutally repressive police state. Four million whites ruled a majority population of over 20 million nonwhites in a segregationist, racist apartheid regime. Blacks possessed second class citizenship at best. They had virtually no rights: they lacked freedom of speech and assembly; they could not vote; their travel was severely restricted; they lacked basic healthcare; they could not own businesses in wealthy districts. For schools in black Bantustans (homelands or ghettos), the state spent about one tenth of what it spent on education in white neighborhoods. Amid the horror of segregation, widespread discrimination, and racially motivated murders and beatings, domestic and international resistance was building, and it became increasingly clear that the regime couldn't sustain itself. Most speculated that when the regime let go, an unprecedented bloodbath would ensue.

Yet, nearly miraculously, no bloodbath erupted. Instead, under the inspired guidance of Nelson Mandela, the charismatic African National Congress leader who had been imprisoned by the apartheid regime for over thirty years, South Africa managed a remarkable transition to democracy and majority rule. But miraculous as it was, this transition alone was not enough. How would black South Africans deal with their history and experience? If violence was averted in the transition, what would prevent its eruption as South Africans dealt with their past and called for vengeance and retribution?

The answer came in the form of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. With Nobel Prize winner Bishop Desmond Tutu, now President Nelson Mandela organized the Commission in 1995 to help South Africa work through the crisis. Its goal was to provide, on a national scale, an effective and productive way to allow blacks who had been mistreated or subjected to violence to seek justice. The Commission would also allow perpetrators of racially motivated crimes to seek amnesty from the government.

The experiment worked brilliantly. Tutu and Mandela became international heroes and received numerous awards, but more importantly, their leadership helped a nation avoid a civil war, or at the very least the rampant internal instability that seemed imminent at the time. Other countries have since followed South Africa's example by setting up similar organizations to mitigate conflicts stemming from injustices directed at particular groups. These organizations, however, have generally been less successful than the South African Commission. Clearly, each country's situation during a phase of political transition is unique, but I'd like to focus on two reasons that South Africa's Commission was especially effective.

First, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was respected nationally and internationally as a legitimate body. The fact that no person was exempt from standing trial at the Commission lent it credibility. Similar committees that followed the South African example elsewhere have not always been as inclusive and, as a result, lacked legitimacy. Past political leaders have been given free passes or pardons to avoid trial, and as a consequence, those commissions have not been as efficient or successful in yielding complete and honest records of what crimes were committed, who committed them, and why. Such commissions have thus failed to provide victims and their families with a sense of justice or closure. By holding all parties accountable for their actions, civilians and political leaders alike, regardless of wealth or previous power, the Commission brought many perpetrators of crimes to justice and established that future rights violations would not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Second, it was equally important that the Commission didn't appear to be a vengeful, retaliatory body. By giving those charged with crimes opportunities to apply for amnesty, and by taking their application seriously, the South African government showed that in efforts to avert continued violent conflict, being reasonable and forgiving to a degree could be beneficial. Out of over 7,000 people who applied for amnesty, about 850 were granted it by the Commission. To be granted amnesty, the South African government established two conditions: First, the applicant's crimes must have been purely motivated by politics; and second, the applicant must tell the entire truth concerning the situation that led to his or her crime. By demanding absolute full disclosure of the truth, the Commission compiled vast amounts of testimony which, it was hoped, could help South Africa confront its terrible past and avoid racist oppression in the future. By establishing the truth and taking action, South Africans could look forward, not merely backward, and make social and economic progress.

Genocide, institutionalized racism, and crimes against humanity require a response that is honest and just. Many who have suffered might prefer vengeance and retribution. But such a response might simply perpetuate and undermine any real chance for peace and advancement. South Africa has pioneered an approach that might allow others to address the horrors of their history without letting the memory destroy them.