Restorative Justice and the Regulatory State in South African Townships

Abstract

In South Africa the idea of restorative justice is most famously associated with the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; the concept underpinning the Commission's approach to dealing with apartheid-related violence (Minow 1998; Tutu 1999). Less well known is that restorative justice is also helping play a role in the day-to-day governance of South Africa townships. John Braithwaite (2000a) has suggested that the work being done by Clifford Shearing and his colleagues, establishing local peace committees in South African townships, illustrates how criminologists can work within the new regulatory state to enhance access to justice and safety. This article analyses these peace committees, placing them within the context of the emerging restorative justice movement. In broad terms, it argues that the peace committees display the core elements of restorative justice that distinguish them from other forms of private and informal justice, while at the same time pursuing a more ambitious and radical agenda than most restorative justice programmes. Part I of the article provides an overview of the peace committees established by the Community Peace Program, and attempts to bring some sort of clarity to ongoing debates about the meaning of restorative justice. Part II draws some similarities between peace committees and other restorative programmes, and contrasts these with other forms of private policing. These similarities are no accident: in promoting their work in townships, peace committee members are at pains to emphasize the core restorative elements of their programme so as to distinguish themselves from the other informal bodies that have sought to rule townships. This article argues that the differences between peace committees and other forms of township policing provide a dramatic example of a more general contrast between restorative justice programmes and other