INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION OCCASIONAL PAPER NUMBER 19 and particularly the backlash that has occurred as a result of the enshrinement of women’s legal rights post-apartheid. Du Toit notes a final explanation that requires an interrogation of “ontological violence”. She argues this approach can reveal both the perpetrator’s motives of power as well as the damage suffered by victims. She suggests this provides the best explanation for understanding levels of sexual violence since it is not reductionist about masculinities and/or class and offers critical insight into accountability for sexual violence.113 international and national commitments, women continue to face specific socio-economic challenges in the aftermath of conflict. These include limited access to health care, education and other social facilities that are often destroyed during conflicts, or are denied under authoritarian rule.118 As such, Sarah Glatte contends that “the reinforcement of the public/private distinction … has often led to situations in which political and economic structures (traditionally public) are fundamentally overhauled while the marginalisation of gender and equality concerns are reasserted”.119 Nonetheless the violence of South Africa’s past cannot be divorced from the present. It is thus important to question whether South Africa in fact remains “imprisoned by its history” and what is needed for a “gender-inclusive” reconciliation. As Susan McKay observes, reconciliation should incorporate “processes which are equitable, not privileged by and for men, and which distinguish the nefarious forms of injustice women experience during and after … conflict”. 114 Indeed, South Africa’s current unrest calls into question what is needed for a “gender-inclusive” reconciliation. Mahmood Mamdani has argued that the South African TRC missed an opportunity to influence post-apartheid discourses on reconciliation. He suggests this could have been achieved through the creation of public education campaigns “about the structural horrors and social outcomes of apartheid as a mode of governing society…to make the argument that the political reconciliation of adversarial elites could only be made durable if followed by social reconciliation of the population at large”.120 This reconciliation will be incomplete without recognising how power, race, class and gender were, and remain, related to structural and social inequalities. As a 2015 poster by the South African student movement #RhodesMustFall poignantly stated: “Dear History: this revolution has Women, Gays, Queers and Trans. Remember That”. Conclusion Since reconciliation has become part of the peacebuilding vocabulary it is important to reflect on whose “reconciliation is being desired: by whom, for whom and what for”.115 Despite contestations over the definition of the word there is general consensus that reconciliation should involve a variety of processes, is long-term and complex but to date, has involved “sets of claims rather than objective outcomes”. As Schaap reveals, it is important not to allow the capture of reconciliation by “conservative appropriators” and instead differentiate “the concept of reconciliation from its various conceptions”.116 As has been shown, a significant challenge to reconciliation processes remains ensuring the protection and participation of marginalised sectors of societies. A holistic concept should thus include a gender perspective and, as recent efforts at peace-building have consistently displayed, its absence compromises the process of reconciliation. Bibliography Andrew Schaap, “Reconciliation as Ideology and Politics.” Constellations: International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory 15, 2 (2008), pp.249-264. Anne Outwater, Naeema Abrahams and Jacquelyn C. Campbell, “Women in South Africa: Intentional Violence and HIV/ AIDS: Intersections and Prevention.” Journal of Black Studies 35, 4 (2005), pp.135-154. While the inclusion and participation of women in reconciliation processes is necessary, it is important to move beyond empty terms such as “gender mainstreaming” and “add women and stir”. Sarah Glatte and other have noted, to date, existing unequal power relations between women and men are often perpetuated and reinforced by reconciliation processes. As a result these processes often “inhibit meaningful and sustainable”  transformation.117 As outlined when gender issues do appear in reconciliation processes, the preoccupation with sexual violence has created a hierarchy of gender-based harms, which has led to socio-economic violations receiving limited, if any, consideration. Further, many analysts have identified that limiting gender-based violations to the rape of women obfuscates the lived experiences of affected communities that gave rise to violence in the first place. Annelies Verdoolaege, “Dealing with a traumatic past: the victim hearings of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission and their reconciliation discourse.” Critical Discourse Studies 6, 4 (2009), pp.297-309. Antonia Potter, “Gender sensitivity: nicety or necessity in peace-process management?” (OSLO forum 2008: The OSLO forum Network of Mediators). Beth  Goldblatt  and Sheila  Meintjes, “Dealing with the Aftermath: sexual violence and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.” Agenda 13, 36 (1997), pp. 7-18. Brandon Hamber and Gráinne Kelly, “A Working Definition of Reconciliation” Democratic Dialogue, (September 2004). Charles Villa-Viccencio, Walk with Us and Listen: Political Reconciliation in Africa  (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2009). As has been revealed above, even though women’s needs and rights have been increasingly recognised through 11