Deepening democracy through community dispute resolution: problems and prospects in South Africa and Chile

Abstract

Post-apartheid South Africa and post-Pinochet Chile have taken significant steps to democratize justice. This article acknowledges conventional reforms of both countries’ criminal justice systems but focuses primarily on case studies of participatory and restorative initiatives that have attempted to expand the theory and practice of public safety practices in non-state settings. The experience of resolving interpersonal disputes in new democracies and what it means for the people who do it is examined. The research hypothesized that public participation in matters of justice and security can foster more active citizenship, a contribution to deepening democracy in countries in transition, as South Africa and Chile have been since the early 1990s. The experiences of the Community Peace Program and the Barrio Sin Violencia shed light on both the potential and the limitations of efforts to deepen democracy through community dispute resolution. They suggest that whether or not public participation in matters of justice and security fosters more active citizenship in democratizing countries depends on complex cultural and historical influences, including perspectives on sources of authority, institutional patterns of justice, and mutual trust.

Keywords:

• community dispute resolution
• restorative justice
• citizenship
• Chile
• South Africa
• democratization

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to thank the Mellon Foundation for generous research support, as well as colleagues Marcia Esparza, Martin Schönteich, and Clifford Shearing for comments on a draft of the paper.

Notes

1. Interviews conducted in Xhosa and Afrikaans were transcribed and translated by the interviewer; interviews in Spanish were transcribed by the interviewer but translated by the author, who also conducted and transcribed the Spanish interviews with scholars and professionals. Coding and analysis were completed by the author.

2. The Code of Good Practice reads as follows: ‘We help to create a safe and secure environment. We respect the South African Constitution. We work within the law. We do not use force or violence. We do not take sides in disputes. We work in the community as a co-operative team, not as individuals. We follow procedures which are open for the community to see. We do not gossip about our work or about other people. We are committed to what we do. Our aim is to heal, not to hurt.’ It was read at the start of every gathering.

3. Although I asked for only new members to interview initially it turned out that several had already served on a Peace Committee for a year or two. Their incentive for deception about this seems to have been financial; we paid the interviewees the equivalent of $5 at the request of the program organizers. In Chile we did not pay the interviewees, also at the request of the program organizers, reflecting different views about the nature of this kind of voluntarism.