ARCHBISHOP Desmond Tutu should have been in semi-retirement by now, settling into a tranquil year as a visiting professor at Atlanta's Amory University.
After 20 tumultuous years at the heart of South Africa's freedom struggle, it was a rest for which the Nobel Prize-winning Archbishop of Cape Town had dearly longed.
Instead, at 65, Archbishop Tutu now finds himself in a seventh-storey corner office in Cape Town, facing at least two more years of turmoil, vexation and - in all likelihood - personal abuse.
As chairman of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, his new job is to co-ordinate and oversee 16 commissioners and dozens of investigators, researchers, lawyers and administrators as they try to determine who did what to whom in the bloody apartheid struggle.
It would, he says, with a characteristic cackle, have been nice just to sit in the Atlanta sun and watch the Olympics. So why did" he agree to abandon his rest and take on the job?
"I agreed because in September last year at our synod my brother bishops unanimously decided to nominate me for the Truth Commission ... [and] it would be the height of arrogance to say No. In a way, I accepted with very deep reluctance, because we were looking very much forward to getting away from what you could call a cauldron."
The Truth Commission may not be a Nuremberg tribunal, but it is still required by South Africa's interim constitution to investigate gross human rights abuses and identify those responsible. Was this inquisitorial role not a great change from the moral and spiritual role which the archbishop had previously played?
"I'm not sure. It, is perhaps a question of emphasis because, in a way, what we are trying to do is to bring to the consciousness of those who were ruling this country the truth. The truth that the majority of the people in this country were those created by God like them, of infinite value like them, and that there was no way that injustice and oppression would have the last word.
"Of course, there is the fact that people will be applying for amnesty and people will want to tell their story, to be declared victims. In both of those circumstances . . . yes, you are sitting in judgment.
But it is [important] to stress that there are different forms of justice. The western form of justice is largely retributive seeking to be punitive. African jurisprudence is different. It is largely restorative. It seeks to make up deficiencies that have resulted, from acts of injustice. It seeks to bind up, to heal relations. That is what we are really about."
Born of compromise between the African National Congress and the fading apartheid regime, the Truth Commission is itself a compromise between two strongly opposed positions.
"[First] the position of those who want a general amnesia - let's forget the past, let bygones be bygones. That's a position that is taken largely by those who came from the privileged section of our society, who are very bad psychologists. Because you don't deal with the past in that fashion. They should know that most psychotherapy deals with healing the memory.
"And the other side, represented by people like the Biko family for instance, says `We want justice', retribution really. And we have said that you could have justice and ashes, because most of those who are perpetrators will have been and are still in the security forces of this country.
"You have to recognise the grim reality that many of those who might have to appear before, if you want - a Nuremberg trial, that they have guns. And when you read some of the stuff that is beginning to come out and you see at least what appears to have been going on, we are fortunate that we are here."
The ANC's justice minister, Mr Dullah Omar, has called for a moral distinction to be drawn between those who used violence to fight apartheid and those who bused violence to defend it. Does he agree?
"As a normal human being -and despite all appearances to the contrary I am normal - most human beings do make a distinction in the moral quality of violence . . . And I think yes, there is, a moral difference in violence that is used in [defence of] an evil system and the violence which is to oppose it."
But as far as the commission is concerned this is beside the point, he says: the legislation setting it up specifies that amnesty must be granted - irrespective of moral judgments - in all cases that meet four simple criteria.
The crime must have been committed between March 1st, 1960, and December 6th, 1993, been politically motivated, and in line with the policy of the then government or a liberation movement. Finally, full disclosure must be made.
"There is no requirement for those applying for amnesty even to say `I am sorry for what I did'. You would hope that people who apply for amnesty will be aware of the pain they have caused and that at least they would be able to say they are sorry. But no, there is no way in which we can insist."
Since he was appointed chairman last year, Archbishop Tutu has portrayed the commission in almost sacramental terms, making it seem like a ritual to promote forgiveness, healing and reconciliation. How important does he think this religious dimension will be for the commission's task?
"Crucial. Absolutely essential. Who has ever been aware that forgiveness and reconciliation are normal categories of political discourse? The very words - truth, reconciliation, forgiveness, amnesty - are religious words. The fact of the matter is that our whole nation needs healing."
Apart from soliciting their, prayers, Archbishop Tutu wants the organised religions to help his commission by persuading offenders to come forward and assisting victims to prepare submissions. "Also, to be helping, those who will be needing to forgive to be ready to forgive".
The 17-member commission consists mainly of lawyers, psychologists, health workers and ordained ministers. How does he see his role?
"Patriarch," he laughs. "Don't say that. We've got some very powerful women on the commission . . . I give them [the commissioners] all the room that they to display their capacities. In the end I think the captain will get the credit when they are doing well, as they will be doing well. We will be a winning team."
It is only four weeks until the commission's human rights committee is due to hold its first public hearing for victims. In the meantime there is still a lot of confusion over many of the key's legal definitions on which the commission's work will hinge: the definition of a gross violation of human rights, for instance, or how much information will be made public by the amnesty committee. Is he still satisfied things are going well?
"I think we are doing very well. We have already got accommodation. We are getting staff into place. Obviously we would wish to have had this a month or so earlier. But when you think that we were first promulgated on December 15th and had our first meeting on the 16th. . There are some hiccups, but no, we have not done too badly. I would say we seem to be getting there."