South Africa’s much lauded transition to democracy between 1990 and 1996 saw multiparty negotiations, the official ending of apartheid, the first universal adult franchise in 1994, the institution of a progressive Constitution based on a Bill of Rights in 1996, and the repeal of much discriminatory legislation. It also saw several Commissions which were intended to provide remedy for apartheid and colonialism and to deal with the unfinished business of negotiations. Hopes were high. Democracy was heralded by some as bringing new opportunities for folding into a global economy and a human rights dispensation. Critique existed but was muted in the general euphoria that greeted the end of apartheid and the opportunity of entering what was imagined as a global world order. The Constitution was underpinned by two principles, both intended to perform the work of historical repair. Dignity was understood as the basis for instilling respect for human rights, autonomy and for radically revising the racial ordering of society. Reconciliation was seen to be both a solution for the immediate problems of history (e.g. how to deal with perpetrators and how to address what was euphemistically called “race relations”) and for grounding a new social order and new nation-state. By focusing on the work of Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission some thirty years after its institution, I ask about the circulation, longevity and value of political concepts, in this case, reconciliation. What work do political concepts do? To what extent are they tethered to the historical conditions of their emergence and circulation? What happens when their potential is not met? As democracy comes under pressure, how do our concepts fare?