The supposed ‘global village’ is filled with internal contradictions, which if not addressed constructively could have detrimental consequences to the question of human co-existence. The more aggressively the ‘global village’ heads towards the direction of globalism, the greater the chasm between contradicting entities. And ultimately, the ones that suffer most are the common people, who are struggling to survive. Such has become the situation of the human condition itself.
The supposed war on terrorism is globalized and yet the definition of an ‘act of war’ is not. The definition of what constitutes an ‘act of war’ is selective and dependent upon the power of the perpetrator or the status of the victim. The missing perspective in this power struggle is the fact that the people are not just against terrorism, but are searching for the realization of a genuine peace, which demands the transformation of unjust structures. It is here that we must draw the distinction between legality and legitimacy; after all, what is legal is not necessarily legitimate.
The understanding of the rule of law is quire essential while drawing the difference between legality and legitimacy. For instance the Laws and Policy of Apartheid were considered to be legal by the government of South Africa, and yet they were very illegitimate in the face of the international community. Over the years, there is an increased stipulation demanding that the rule of law of a country to be consistent with acceptable universal standards that respect the dignity of people.
The tension between legality and legitimacy causes a dilemma to the notion of truth, both philosophically and practically. Such a dilemma results in the dichotomy of truth. According to Mamdani the two kinds of truth are – ‘truth that brings unresolved tensions to light; and truth that obscures, hides veils, masks the unpleasant facet of reality’ Tragically a status quo of power promotes and constructs a truth which obscures and suppresses the unpleasant facet of reality, which becomes extremely difficult in the context of conflict where even what the conflict is about, is contested.
The reductionist ‘use’ of truth in situations of an unjust status quo, is often equated to that of an act when an admission of guilt or wrong doing is acknowledged. This limits the usage of truth to an act of acknowledgement. While the essence of truth as a component of the acknowledgement process is fundamental, yet the reductionist use effectively nullifies the understanding of truth as an essential virtue that is required to liberate the status quo. In other words, truth – the holistic truth – is crucial towards transformation.
Truth is the key to transformation because it brings to public expression the consequences of human subjugation and the inequalities that are further intensified by the initial injustice. Truth is not an outcome, but an underlying virtue existing within a process to ensure that all the core issues of contention are addressed in a positive way, so that the ideals of a shared humanity becomes possible. Truth is that aspect which is necessary to create accountability, to enable closure of the past; and to sow the seeds of peace. It would be wise not to confuse legality with truth!
