National Assembly - 14 March 2001
WEDNESDAY, 14 MARCH 2001 __
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
____
The House met at 14:04.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS - see col 000.
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES - see that book.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Miss M N BUTHELEZI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes the third round of the South Africa/Nigeria binational commission taking place in Nigeria;
(2) believes that this meeting takes place at a critical time in the history of the continent when African countries have outlined their own recovery plan for the continent; and
(3) commends the South African Government and the Nigerian government for their efforts to improve economic, trade, social and cultural relations and to bring the two peoples closer together.
[Applause.]
Mr N S BRUCE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the DP:
That the House -
(1) notes with dismay that state lottery funds that should have been distributed to struggling charities are being used to subsidise the operating company’s capital costs and for investment in the business;
(2) further notes that, apart from subsidising elite shareholders, these funds are benefiting foreign shareholders in a gambling machine distributing company and in one running gambling operations elsewhere; and
(3) in consequence, calls on the ANC Government to impose a special gambling tax on the operating company, which diminishes as payments to charities increase.
Dr R RABINOWITZ: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) calls on the hon the President to make use of three existing mechanisms to acquire cheaper Aids medicines within the scope of existing legislation by -
(a) putting out a tender for HIV and Aids medication whereby
Government automatically acquires medicines at one tenth or less
of the price to the public sector;
(b) negotiating directly with pharmaceutical companies to obtain the
best possible prices, as have been offered by Merck in its
pricing of crixovan and stocrin at prices below those offered by
generic drug producing companies from India, such as Hetero and
Cipla; and
(c) calling, if the first and second actions show that manufacturers
exploit their patents, for compulsory licences to import
medicines in a transparent manner; and
(2) notes that these avenues which have not been taken by Government are preferable to clause 15C, which is at present being challenged in the courts, as it exposes the public to counterfeit medicines …
[Time expired.]
Ms N R BHENGU: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes with pride the report of the World Health Organisation that put the South African crusade against smoking amongst the best in the world;
(2) believes that our Government’s anti-tobacco policies count amongst the best in the world;
(3) commends the SA Football Association’s commitment to ban public smoking during soccer games;
(4) encourages other sporting codes to emulate this initiative;
(5) commends the Ministry on a job well done; and
(6) therefore calls on all South Africans to unite and ensure that the ban on smoking in public is adhered to. [Applause.]
Mrs S M CAMERER: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House -
(1) notes that the latest member of the executive to give our country a bad name internationally is the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development, Penuell Maduna, through his public condonation of the monstrous actions of his counterpart in Zimbabwe, Minister Patrick Chinamasa;
(2) further notes that when Minister Chinamasa claimed that reports that he had intimidated Zimbabwe’s judges and forced the Chief Justice to resign were media propaganda, our Minister reportedly said he was satisfied with this explanation;
(3) also notes that the influential Washington Post this week described
Minister Maduna as a feckless outsider'' whohad the gall’’ to
say he believed Chinamasa; and
(4) accordingly calls on the Minister to clarify his statements and to reconfirm his commitment to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in this House.
[Interjections.]
Mr M E MABETA: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UDM:
That the House -
(1) takes note of the appointment of Chief Ndaba Zwelodumo Mtirara as the acting Paramount Chief of the Tembus in the Dalindyebo region;
(2) further expresses its deep appreciation for the important contribution he has made in this House and the UDM in particular; and
(3) wishes him every success in his new position and endeavours to ensure that traditional institutions play a positive and constructive role in the transformation and democratisation of our society.
Mr M M Z DYANI: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Western Cape premier, Gerald Morkel, is trying to stall a probe by the Public Protector into alleged corruption and mismanagement in his administration to the tune of over R1 million;
(2) further notes that the alleged corruption took place with money that was intended for the poorest of the poor, given to former welfare MEC, Peter Marais, for poverty relief;
(3) notes that the premier says he is in a bad position and will co- operate once he is in a better position to do so … [Interjections]
(4) calls on the DP’s Raenette Taljaard and the DP’s other gurus in Scopa to force the premier to desist from his delaying tactics and immediately assist with the investigation.
[Applause.]
Dr S E M PHEKO: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the PAC:
That the House -
(1) notes that the PAC congratulates the squatter community of Itsoseng in Gauteng which has been granted leave by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein to appeal against a High Court order for their eviction;
(2) calls for an investigation into why 150 members of the African Farmers Union in the Northern Province have received letters from the Land Bank threatening to repossess their farms;
(3) warns that the land issue in our country remains a fundamental problem that must be resolved before it explodes; and
(4) observes that out of 63 000 land claims submitted only about 12 000 have been settled.
Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the UCDP:
That the House -
(1) notes that notwithstanding the fact that the promulgation of the anti- smoking legislation will affect South African soccer finances adversely, the authorities of football have taken it upon themselves to promote nonsmoking;
(2) appreciates that the SA Football Association is the first of the sporting codes to team up with the World Health Organisation in the fight against smoking by launching the South African Smoke-Free Soccer Initiative;
(3) appeals to other worthy sponsors to enhance the SAFA kitty; and
(4) challenges all smokers, particularly in this House, to practise what they preach and to give up smoking so that the public out there can take the legislators seriously.
Mr S L DITHEBE: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Democratic Alliance has announced that it will take disciplinary measures against its members who marched on its Orange Grove party offices in Johannesburg;
(2) further notes the statement by Reverend Cyril Mokoto that: ``We have canvassed and moulded for the DA to become a force in the township, but after elections we were dumped’’;
(3) believes that the DA uses people to gain votes and does not care for their wellbeing, and more people regret having wasted their votes; and
(4) calls on all patriots to resist being used by the DA and to join the progressive forces for change.
[Applause.]
Mr R JANKIELSOHN: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move:
That the House -
(1) notes the continued dissatisfaction of the Interim Political Authority in Lesotho with the manner in which the Lesotho government is treating its decisions;
(2) further notes that representatives of the South African Government assisted in the composition of the IPA and that it therefore has a responsibility to ensure that the Lesotho government -
(a) carries out all agreements with the IPA; and
(b) assists them with the necessary finances and infrastructure
needed to ensure that they are able to carry out their primary
function of ensuring a free and fair election in Lesotho under a
suitable electoral model; and
(3) calls on the Department of Foreign Affairs to meet with both the IPA and the Lesotho government in order to ensure that elections may take place in a manner and at a time that is acceptable to all parties.
Mr M F CASSIM: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the IFP:
That the House -
(1) notes that -
(a) the hon the President, Thabo Mbeki, in a reply earlier this
afternoon to a question by Dr J Benjamin, left us as MPs with a
clear injunction to develop and take new initiatives to mobilise
society;
(b) the hon the President specifically required that Parliament
should take a lead in mobilising fellow South Africans to unite
in action for transformation and reconciliation; and
(c) present-day South Africa presents many challenges such as
infectious diseases, crime, educational deprivation and abiding
racial intolerance; and
- resolves to meet expeditiously in workshops, facilitated by the hon Speaker, to begin a process that would lead to the necessary mobilisation envisaged by the President in order that unity, reconciliation and social harmony are better engendered.
Ms P GOVENDER: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I shall move on behalf of the ANC:
That the House -
(1) notes reports that some inhabitants of a suburb near Fish Hoek intend to erect an electrified fence between that suburb and the township of Masiphumelele which means ``Let us succeed’’;
(2) believes that such action would lead to increased racial polarisation and hostility between black and white people;
(3) recognises that the way to develop sustainable solutions to the problems of unemployment, poverty and crime is for all those involved in that community to work jointly towards these solutions; and
(4) notes and commends, in contrast, the goodwill of those residents in Fish Hoek who donated food and money to the poor and needy in that community.
[Applause.]
Mnr I J PRETORIUS: Mevrou die Speaker, ek gee hiermee kennis dat ek op die volgende sittingsdag namens die Nuwe NP sal voorstel:
Dat die Huis -
(1) met kommer kennis neem van die negatiewe gevolge van die sentrale Regering se begrotingstoedeling aan die Wes-Kaapse Provinsiale Regering;
(2) verder kennis neem dat die toedeling onder andere dienslewering weens die toename van 43 000 leerders en 500 000 pasiënte uit ander provinsies belemmer;
(3) die DA-beheerde provinsiale regering van die Wes-Kaap gelukwens met sy hoë diensleweringsvlak ten spyte van die sentrale Regering se weiering om die Wes-Kaap sy regmatige aandeel van die begroting te laat toekom; en
(4) ‘n beroep doen op die sentrale Regering om op te hou om die Wes- Kaapse regering te penaliseer omdat die provinsie deur die DA regeer word. (Translation of Afrikaans notice of motion follows.)
[Mr I J PRETORIUS: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day I shall move on behalf of the New NP:
That the House -
(1) notes with concern the negative consequences of the budgetary allocation from central Government to the Western Cape provincial government;
(2) further notes that this allocation among others hampers service delivery, owing to an increase of 43 000 learners and 500 000 patients from other provinces;
(3) congratulates the DA-controlled provincial government of the Western Cape on its high level of service delivery despite central Government’s refusal to give the Western Cape its rightful share of the budget; and
(4) appeals to central Government to cease penalising the Western Cape government because the province is being administered by the DA.]
Dr G W KOORNHOF: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that on the next sitting day of the House I will move on behalf of the UDM:
That the House -
(1) takes note of the statement of intent by the Government to sell a majority shareholding of Denel Airmotive to a French company by June 2001;
(2) notes that such a privatisation will give Denel access to the world defence market, and will create job opportunities; and
(3) urges Government to accelerate its privatisation programme even further, and to use the proceeds, as far as possible, to reduce interest on state debt, and at the same time, to expand employment creation.
CONGRATULATIONS TO ARCHBISHOP NAPIER ON BEING NAMED CARDINAL
(Draft Resolution)
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) notes that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Durban, Napier, has been named Cardinal by Pope John Paul II;
(2) further notes that Cardinal Napier will become a close collaborator of the Pope in caring for the Roman Catholic Church worldwide; and
(3) congratulates Cardinal Napier on the honour bestowed upon him by the Pope.
Agreed to.
GOLD QUILL AWARD FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION UNIT
(Draft Resolution)
Mr I S MFUNDISI: Madam Speaker, I move without notice:
That the House -
(1) appreciates that an in-house educational comic ``A Day in Parliament’’, that is being produced by the Public Participation Unit of our Parliament, has won a Gold Quill Award from the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC);
(2) commends the unit for producing the award-winning comic as this feat was achieved in a stiff competition out of 1341 entries involving 58 countries; and
(3) wishes the unit more success for the future as they strive to provide basic tools and guidelines on how to get involved in Parliament and contribute to strengthening democracy.
Agreed to.
ADOPTION OF REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE ON REPORT 13 OF PUBLIC PROTECTOR
(Decision of Question on Report and on amendment moved thereon)
Mr A C NEL: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper. [Interjections.]
Agreed to.
Mr G Q M DOIDGE: Madam Speaker, I move:
That the decision of the question be postponed.
I also wish to give notice of the following amendments:
That the Report be adopted provided that, with reference to the recommendation in paragraph 5(4)(d), the matters concerned be referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration and report and be submitted to the Constitutional Review Committee.
Mr D H M GIBSON: Madam Speaker, I hereby give notice that I intend moving the following amendment to the amendment of which notice is being given:
That the report be accepted with the exception of paragraph 6(3) thereof, and that the House approves the following statements:
(1) Minister Maduna made statements in Parliament and outside of it. Those statements were untrue and unjustified. More than two years later his lawyers conceded that within days of making the statements he realised that it was not justified and that he had been wrong. It must be noted that legal costs of some R13 million have been incurred as a result of Minister Maduna’s statement. The taxpayers have paid those costs. Had the Minister done the proper thing and expressed sincere regret at the appropriate time, those costs would not have been incurred.
(2) The report of the Ad Hoc Committee creates the erroneous impression that Parliament is powerless to do anything and that it cannot do what the Public Protector says it should. As a result of an incorrect emphasis placed on the wording of the judgment in the De Lille case, together with some selective quoting out of context, the Report seeks to draw an analogy between the De Lille case and that of Maduna. It must be stressed that the cases are not comparable. Minister Maduna was investigated by the Public Protector, who made a finding that the Minister had violated the Constitution. In the De Lille case, she had been subjected to what may be termed a strange form of justice by a committee of Parliament and Parliament had then tried to suspend her from the proceedings of the Assembly. It was that punishment that was found to be not permissible.
(3) Having applied its mind to an appropriate punishment, as suggested by the Public Protector, the House resolved that Minister Maduna should appear in the National Assembly to express his apologies and his regret about violating the Constitution and to be reprimanded for his actions, which have cost the public millions of rands in legal costs, instead of being able to use this money for welfare purposes.
[Applause.]
Decision of Question postponed.
STEPS TO IMPROVE RELATIONS BETWEEN COMMUNITIES AND COMPLETE THE TASK OF RECONCILIATION AND NATION-BUILDING
(Subject for Discussion)
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Madam Speaker, in 1948, when the leader of the old NP heard the results of that election, he said ``at last we are at home again in our country’’. That was the reaction to the Afrikaners’ feelings of exclusion and treatment as second-class citizens after the Anglo- Boer/South African War, which ended in 1902.
Instead of doing the right thing, the ruling Afrikaner class after 1948 simply reversed the situation and started to exclude those communities which they regarded as potential competitors. That vicious circle continues. I would like to refer to what a senior ANC member said at a commemoration of Freedom Day:
To whites, Freedom Day is a reminder of the day their own liberty … ended. For blacks 27 April marks the beginning of their freedom.
The cornerstone of the new South Africa is that Freedom Day should be Freedom Day for all South Africans. President Mandela, in his inauguration speech on 10 May 1994 … [Interjections.] I hear some members objecting to my quoting Mr Mandela. I can quite understand that, after his recent interviews. [Interjections.] He understood how important it was to stop the vicious circle repeating itself when he said:
We enter into a covenant that we shall build the society in which all South Africans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall, without any fear in their hearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignity.
I sometimes wish that the people of this country can be put in a position to see the respect and decency with which members of all parties treat one another when they are outside this Chamber. Unfortunately, the moment we are back in this Chamber and the television cameras are switched on, everything changes.
All of us who sit here, of course, understand the basic rules of politics. There must be tough debates. It is viewpoint against viewpoint. Vigorous, healthy debate is the lifeblood of democracy. But the debates in this Chamber have started to degenerate into the pre-1994 style of debate where undercurrents of racism and racial slurs are often seen as a way of attempting to win debates, or as a defence mechanism against criticism, despite its merits or demerits.
I know that most ANC members have difficulty understanding this, but for many of us outside of the ANC, the year 2000 has been the year of repolarisation, of old divisions being given new names. It was the year of the ``two nations’’ speech. What the two nations speech did was to legitimise playing the race card in a very sophisticated way, which was very difficult to do between 1994 and 2000. But even if it is a more sophisticated way of doing it, it remains wrong. It enables people to deflect criticism, any criticism that they do not like, simply as a form of racism, subliminal or blatant.
In two recent interviews, former President Mandela commented on the ANC’s sensitivity to criticism and the tendency to play the race card. Let me immediately say that we respect the fact that Mr Mandela’s criticism must be seen in the context of his unquestionable loyalty to the ANC, to which he devoted - and still devotes - his life.
In those interviews Mr Mandela calls for tolerance of political differences. He said that the opposition is proud of this country. He talked about patriotism transcending party-political divisions. He criticised some in the -
… arrogant black elite who throw their weight around and breed insecurity among minority groups.
He specifically referred to some leading members of the ANC for making matters worse with their, in his diplomatic words, ``unhelpful comments’’. He pointed to growing polarisation between race groups.
There are three ways of looking at Mr Mandela’s criticism. [Interjections.] One is to gleefully latch on to it, and mistakenly interpret it as a sign of a growing rift between Mr Mandela and the ANC. [Interjections.] The second is to downplay it by attempting to deflect it by saying that he was misinterpreted and hinting that he has really lost touch, as some in the ANC attempted to do. The third is to understand the deeper meaning and the important message contained in his comments. Mr Mandela ended one of the interviews by saying:
The ANC has to do something.
We all have to do something. Where Mr Mandela is correct is in pointing out the ANC’s special responsibility as a governing party in this country. Why? It is because the ANC sets the tone of the debate on such an issue. To a large extent, they define the boundaries of the debate and what they think and say, in many instances, becomes law.
Mr Mandela’s observation about growing racial polarisation is supported by research of reputable institutions, for instance the 2000 Markinor poll. Thus, objectively and subjectively, we have a challenge that we have to deal with, and that is growing racial divisions. We do, however, take note that President Mandela defended the DA’s right to criticise against the ANC’s charge that DA criticism normally equates to racism.
Let us analyse what is happening here in Parliament. We from the New NP, DP and FA respect the right of every member of the ANC - whether black, white, coloured or Indian - to belong to the ANC. Membership of a party and commitment to the party’s ideals go much deeper than skin colour. We do not, for instance, call a white, coloured or Indian member of the ANC a puppet or his master’s voice because of their race, as the ANC has done on many occasions with black members of some of our opposition parties. [Interjections.]
The ANC can never resist the temptation - and the hon Mr Tshwete said that it is right - to hurl abuse at black members of the DA when they address the House from this podium. The courage and commitment of the Joe Seremanes, Bernice Sonos, Johann Durands, Cobus Dowrys and others to stand up against the intimidatory and derogatory remarks from that side is admirable and it testifies to an inner conviction that, in the words of Dr Mamphele Ramphele: South Africa has enough conformists. Sorely needed are people who have the courage to follow their vision of a better society, even if it takes them to unexplored places.
As a matter of fact, one of the saving graces of this country is a situation where political parties have the ability to consist of more than one racial or ethnic group. Dr Ramphele went further and said:
There is a disturbing culture of silence in this country that, if not dealt with, will negate the gains of our infant democracy. Black academics do not criticise the Government because of misguided loyalty born out of comradeship with its roots in the struggle. These misguided loyalties and a culture of silence are putting South Africa’s democracy at risk.
There are enough yes men in South Africa.
Daar is genoeg jabroers in Suid-Afrika. Die jabroers in ons land kan in twee kategorieë verdeel word: eerstens, diegene wat in die ou Suid-Afrika jabroers was, wat saamgery en saamgepraat het, en nou net so gemaklik in die nuwe Suid-Afrika kritiekloos met die maghebbers omgaan. Eenmaal ‘n jabroer, altyd ‘n jabroer. [Tussenwerpsels.] Tweedens, diegene wat ‘n rol gespeel het in die ANC se bevrydingstryd, en wat kritiek beskou as dislojaliteit en wat enige vorm van opposisie en kritiese debatvoering vertolk as ondermyning van die ANC. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[There are enough yes men in South Africa. The yes men in our country can be divided into two categories: firstly, those who were yes men in the old South Africa, who went along with everything and agreed with everything, and now in the New South Africa are just as easily associating uncritically with the powers that be. Once a yes man, always a yes man. [Interjections.] Secondly, those who played a role in the liberation struggle of the ANC, and who regard criticism as disloyalty and interpret any form of opposition and critical debate as undermining of the ANC.]
Silence, the absence of criticism and the intolerance of criticism are fertile breeding grounds for undemocratic and antidemocratic behaviour. The first but vital step for the ANC is to accept that the bulk of criticism has nothing to do with racism: it has a lot more to do with patriotism. The second step is to ensure that blacks, whites, coloureds and Indians can all win in the new South Africa.
Mr Mbeki said in his opening speech at the national conference on racism:
If white South Africa is fearful of the future because of what it might lose, black South Africa looks forward to the future because of what it will gain.
We strongly disagree that the future of our country is a zero-sum game between black and white and that what the one will lose, the other will gain. If a white person loses his job, it does not necessarily mean that a black person will get the job.
We must get away from the zero-sum game thinking that blacks and whites are actually competitors. We must rather think in terms of winning together, and thinking in terms of new partnerships. Mr Mbeki, despite party- political differences, would enjoy a much higher degree of trust and credibility if he had succeeded in making the minority communities part of his vision of a successful new South Africa. Instead, he created the image that he is satisfying a black sense of revenge for constantly wanting to portray white South Africans as rich and guilty. [Interjections.]
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: [Inaudible.]
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Madam Speaker, the Minister says it is true. Minister Tshwete says it is true.
The Democratic Alliance believes that to give concrete substance to our desire for improving relations between communities and … [Interjections.]
The MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY: [Inaudible.]
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Madam Speaker, Minister Tshwete is the best assistant in actually proving what I am saying here today. He is the best example of somebody inciting racial feelings in our country.
There are four ways to assist us in solving the problems that Mr Tshwete and others are creating.
Eerstens, ons moet ophou om die rassekaart te speel. [Firstly, we should stop playing the race card.]
We must stop playing the race card in Parliament and in other legislatures. We are not two nations - we are one nation. For the ANC this means a return to the values of the Freedom Charter and their original ideals. The two nations concept is an aberration … [Interjections.]
Mr J H DE LANGE: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for someone to say that another member is the prime example of someone who incites racial hostility? I would like you to rule on this matter. It is clearly unparliamentary and it probably even transgresses what is said in the Constitution about racial hatred and gender hatred. I really want a ruling on this, Madam Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Van Schalkwyk, I think you have been in this Parliament long enough to know that that is not a comment to make about another hon member.
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Madam Speaker, I did not say the member is racist. If he wants me to withdraw, I will. But I did not say he is racist. I know it is unparliamentary. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please withdraw that, hon member.
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr N J GOGOTYA: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: If the hon member believes what he is saying is true, is he prepared to take a question?
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Madam Speaker, if I had enough time left I would certainly take it.
Mr N J GOGOTYA: Is jy bang vir die vraag? [Are you afraid of the question?]
Mr M C J VAN SCHALKWYK: Secondly, we must stop making race-based laws. We should make laws which apply to all South Africans irrespective of skin colour. Where affirmative action is needed because of our history, let us build in sunset clauses, so that we know that the anomaly of new race-based laws will come to an end. It is important that state-sponsored racial discrimination does not become a permanent feature of our society. Where affirmative action has already been entrenched as a form of racial discrimination, we must eliminate it root and branch.
Thirdly, we should start giving content to Mr Mbeki’s commitment that national consensus will be sought on issues of national importance. As a first step to building national consensus, this means a new civility in political discourse, even on issues on which we hold different views. It means putting an end to the unhealthy trend of centralised executive lawmaking, where Parliament is being sidelined, and its role as representative of the people is being diminished.
Fourthly, we must start encouraging individual efforts at reconciliation and nation-building. The recent positive experiences of two black journalists when returning to the Ventersdorp NG Church, 44 years after being chased out of the church, as a result of the kindness and generosity of spirit of a nine-year-old Afrikaans girl, and the series in Drum magazine on the Anglo-Boer War, are examples of such efforts.
In conclusion, our message to Mr Mbeki and the ANC is that it is time to tear down the wall that divides our country. We have said it before, and we will say it again: There are many hands on this side of the House willing and ready to help with that task. But the South African public look to the President to advance the stalled process of reconciliation and nation- building in our country.
Let us resume the building process and complete the house, so that our country can truly become a home for all who live in it. [Applause.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS: Madam Speaker and hon members of the House, the concepts nation-building and reconciliation have pervaded ANC thinking and political education and debate for many years. They are part of the key pillars of our policy of peace, justice and democracy, and the basis for the establishment of a free, united, nonracial and nonsexist South Africa.
The ANC has always been alive to the fact that, concomitant with the building of our new national reconciliation, a system of addressing the aspirations of black people and the fears of whites would have to be introduced. This view was conveyed to Mr P W Botha by Mr Nelson Mandela before their meeting on 5 July 1989. In a document that was sent to Mr Botha before the meeting, Mr Mandela wrote, among other things, that, and I quote:
The key to the (resolution of the deepening political crisis in our country) is a negotiated settlementÿ … Two central issues will have to be addressed (as part of such settlement): firstly, the demand for majority rule in a unitary state; secondly, the concern of white South Africa over this demand.
It was this approach that informed our attitude at the World Trade Centre negotiations. We understood that the aspirations of black people needed to be satisfied. But we also accepted that white people had genuine fears that needed to be part of the equation, hence the sunset clauses, the interim Constitution, the new electoral system and the Government of National Unity.
Some of the opposition parties in this House become hostile when we recall the past. They do this to hide their fear of the past. It was that fear that influenced Mr F W De Klerk during the NP submission to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to say, and I quote:
The glory of the past seven years is that together we have been able to overcome the divisions and bitterness of our history. Together we have been able to create the basis for reconciliation, for forgiveness and for a better and more peaceful future for all our people … (We) dare not allow this historic achievement to be torn apart by reviving the bitterness and the animosity of the past.
The irony is that these words, wonderful as they may sound, were uttered barely three months after Mr De Klerk had led the NP out of the Government of National Unity.
As members of this House will recall, the Government of National Unity was one of the tools the peace negotiators at the World Trade Centre had put in place to advance reconciliation. Mr Mandela, while upholding the right of parties to decide whether or not to participate in the Government of National Unity, said in a statement on 9 May 1996, and I quote:
Unity and reconciliation within our society … are indelibly written on the hearts of the overwhelming majority of South Africa’s people. This is a course that Government and the ANC have chosen to pursue in the interest of our country. It is a course that we will pursue with even more vigour in the coming months and years.
It was common cause that, on a number of occasions when he was still president, Mr Mandela asked the opposition parties in this House to join Government. His plea was, of course, spurned. President Thabo Mbeki has nonetheless appointed the hon Mosibudi Mangena, in order to take forward Mr Mandela’s wish. Like Mr Mandela before him, the President invited the IFP to remain in Government in order to continue to contribute to our transformation programme, as part of the answer, not the problem. That relationship with the IFP has contributed tremendously to the cause of nation-building and reconciliation. The people of KwaZulu-Natal are today enjoying an atmosphere of greater stability, peace, unity and reconciliation.
Siyabonga kuShenge. [Ihlombe.] Siyabonga naseqenjini lakhe futhi siyabonga nasesifundazweni saKwaZulu-Natali. [We would like to say thank you to Shenge. [Applause.] We say thank you to his party and the province of KwaZulu-Natal.]
Meanwhile the New NP are negotiating themselves into a new arrangement with the DP and the FA to become the Democratic Alliance, a convergence - or perhaps we should say a covenant - of predominantly white political parties for greater opposition to Government. [Interjection.]
Intussen is ons besig om die NP se gemors van die tafel af te vee. [In the meantime we are getting rid of the mess the NP made.]
The New NP’s motion may give an impression that nation-building and reconciliation can be an event. We are certain though that, like us, they must recognise that it cannot be an event. It is a process that will extend over many years and there will be many pitfalls on the way. But if we move forward together as a united people, we will stand together against racism, crime and all kinds of diseases, including HIV/Aids.
We do not rely on surveys to determine whether or not there is racism in South Africa. We know there is racism, because we see it. We will speak with one voice on matters that impact on the national interest. We will not try to score cheap political points. Of course it is acceptable that parties must place on the political agenda their own views on issues that we are grappling with in our country.
The responsibility to ensure that movement away from our past happens as smoothly as possible, is principally on Government’s shoulders. The ANC-led Government is supported by the great majority of our people and has been given a mandate since 1994 to establish conditions in the country to consolidate and advance democracy, unity, nonracism and nonsexism. There are many elements of this that are in place and all of us must defend what we built together.
As hon President Mbeki stated in this House the other day:
The burden of our prayer to you today has been that all of us must hold firm to the correct course we have chosen and hold firm to our resolve to walk that road together.
We believe that it is possible to build national consensus that will unite our country. This ideal is supported by many who united in action and developed and strengthened the concept of oneness, a sense of South Africanness, so to speak, that will be forged in accordance with the best tenets of democracy. There is a lot that is happening in our country to support this view. There are many people out there who have been showing goodwill to their fellow South Africans.
En ons moet daarvoor baie dankie sê. [And for that we should be very grateful.]
Baninzi abantu bethu ekukudala besokola. Abanye babo abakaboniswa zindlela zakuzikhulula kwiintsokolo zabo. Baninzi abakhutshwa kwiindawo zabo zokuhlala, abangekabuyiselwa kuzo. Asinakho ke ngoko ukulindela ukuba bayamkele lula le nto sithetha ngayo yoxolelwaniso, iimeko zabo zingekatshintshi kweli lizwe.
Nangoku bakhona abasebenza emaplasini abasaphetheke kakubi. Bayangcikivwa. Bayabulawa. (Translation of Xhosa paragraphs follows.)
[There are a lot of our people who have been living in poverty for a long time. Some of them have not been shown ways of relieving themselves from poverty. There are many of them who were removed from their homes and they have yet to return to them. We cannot, therefore, expect them to accept easily what we are talking about, namely reconciliation, while their conditions have not changed in this country.
There are others who work on the farms and are ill-treated. They are victimised. They are killed.]
There are some who will say: What about white farmers who are being killed? I would answer by saying that those who kill, whether the victims are black farmworkers or white farm owners, must face the full wrath of the law. Those who torture, whether the victims are black farmworkers or farmers, must be prosecuted. Those who evict workers from farms must be dealt with in accordance with the law.
Only a better life for all will make it easier for us to reach our goal of a united and reconciled nation. While the Government must take the lead in ensuring that this happens, all South Africans should contribute in whatever way they can to ensure that we defeat starvation, homelessness, unemployment and the debilitating diseases that still afflict our people.
Mr E K MOORCROFT: Madam Speaker, if our South African history has taught us one truth, then it is that South Africa is an interdependent society. It took a long time for that truth to sink in. But eventually, the previous government realised that no one part of our society could prosper if that other part felt alienated or excluded. It seemed that the ANC realised this when they pursued a policy of reconciliation following their accession to power in 1994.
However, while it was abundantly clear that former President Mandela was sincere in his commitment to reconciliation, this commitment has apparently not extended to the rest of the party. For many in the ANC leadership, reconciliation has just been a temporary tactic employed to prevent a white rebellion as the party extended and tightened its grip on the levers of power.
Once this goal had been achieved, the policy of reconciliation was abandoned and the ANC began pursuing an aggressive policy of transformation. Expressed in Orwellian terms, the new party position became no reconciliation without transformation. The guiding ideology of the ANC can best be described as racial Leninism. Whites are conflated with the so- called privileged classes of Leninism. Their overriding objective is a defence of privileges. The task of the ANC, in terms of this ideology, is to overcome this opposition and thereby effect social transformation.
In its public pronouncements, the ANC shifts from honeyed assurances to minority groups to ominous threats. Then, when too much opposition is provoked, it is back to assurances again. President Mbeki uses the argument that if whites do not roll over on issues of racial redistribution, then there will be a racial explosion. The ANC’s underlying assumption is that the major obstacle to transformation is the white minority. This leads the ANC to govern against the white minority, just as the old NP used to govern against the black majority.
No, this approach has led to a major loss of confidence among South African racial minorities. Many young South Africans do not see a future for themselves in this country. According to a recent poll, 63% of young whites and 59% of young Indians say they will probably emigrate. The ANC’s doctrine of demographic representivity must bear the major share of the blame for this tragic state of affairs.
It is a matter of simple arithmetic. If the ANC’s racial targets are to be achieved, nonblack South Africans will have to be discriminated against and excluded for the foreseeable future. A recent report in the press in which it is alleged that the Minister of Education is considering introducing racial quotas to regulate the admission policy of universities provides a good example of this. If this policy is applied, then thousands of deserving nonblack students will be denied admission to universities because of the colour of their skins, shades of apartheid.
Truly, the more things change in this country, the more they stay they same. The ANC has created and promoted a vicious circle. Alienating South Africa’s minority has led to increasing emigration and decreasing foreign investment. This has meant that it has become increasingly difficult to deliver on the promise of a better life for all. To explain their failure to deliver on this promise, the ANC seeks to lay the blame on ``a disloyal minority badmouthing the Government in foreign capitals’’. These attacks lead, in turn, to a further loss of confidence and the vicious circle is complete.
As the Zimbabwean example shows, a racial explosion is far more likely to be engendered by a political elite desperately trying to hold on to the power and privilege, than by ordinary citizens of the country who seek to do no more than earn their daily bread, free from discrimination or persecution.
When this lesson is learned by this Government, then, and only then, will the task of reconciliation and nation-building be completed.
Mr P F SMITH: Madam Speaker, Shenge, colleagues, this is an extremely important topic for discussion, and in five minutes I can barely touch on it. So let me concentrate just on one aspect of it, namely the way we as politicians relate to each other and the impact that has on national unity and reconciliation. And I think that it would be true to say that if we look at the behaviour of both the official opposition and the ruling party, there are justifiable fears that they are not adequately aware of the impact of their words on the body politic when it comes to reconciliation and national unity. Let me start with the DA.
There is a perception, certainly amongst the majority of the people of this country, that the DA is becoming increasingly confrontational, strident, sarcastic, arrogant and racist. I want to amplify the last of these.
Perception is not necessarily truth, may I add. This is just a perception. But there is a perception: That attacks on Government competence are in fact attacks on Government because it is black; that corruption is to be equated with corruption in black government; that public expenditure, for example on the Zulu monarch, is a waste of money because the institution of the monarchy and the incumbent are black; that there is too much emphasis on transformation, black empowerment, affirmative action, because these advance black interests; that the DA in effect sees itself as the conscience of the nation, as it were, as though in slipping inexorably into this abyss and moral turpitude governing black parties are held in check only by the intervention of this ever-vigilant opposition.
In both style and sense there is a widespread perception that this either reflects the real view of the DA’s constituency or that the party itself in fact is taking a lead in this particular direction. And at heart there is a perception, perhaps created by the fight-back campaign, that the DA seeks to mobilise minorities into this mental laager fortress from which its white knight rides forth to battle with the perfidious black dragon. These perceptions are obviously very problematic when it comes to national unity and reconciliation. It is incumbent on parties, the DA in this instance, to ensure that its behaviour is consonant with what it says its positions are.
This also applies, to some extent, to the ANC. They are not entirely blameless in this regard. There are widespread perceptions that the ANC is becoming increasingly defensive, intolerant, aloof, arrogant and also, at times, racist as well. There is also an element of paranoia that has been put into this debate by virtue of accusations of treason if robust opposition gets too robust.
Part of the ANC’s behaviour is perhaps also a reaction to this `fight back’ campaign. Certainly, the disgraceful statements by two senior ANC leaders in KwaZulu-Natal, really strong racial utterances, and as far as we know there has been no sanction yet by the ruling party of those people, are a case in point. But I would stress that, as a rule, the onus is on the ANC, in fact, to behave responsibly and not to react in a particular fashion. It is the price of leadership.
The IFP is distressed by this racialisation of politics between the parties. The IFP’s president has called for a revolution of goodwill in this country, a revolution in terms of which all people of goodwill, patriots if one will, are prepared to make their contribution to the betterment of this country and its people. And this states an acceptance of the fact that no individual and no individual party has the monopoly on wisdom. We all have a contribution to make. We all need to be tolerant.
We are intensely aware, as a party, of the necessity of a mutuality of responsibility in this matter. This notion of one-sided expectations - You guys give, we will receive - is not on here. It takes two to tango, and we each have to do our part to ensure that national unity is brought about by our contribution to the debate.
This also requires greater empathy with others, particularly those with whom we share little in terms of our past, in order that we understand how others see us, how others hear our utterances, and that we engender this empathy, this tolerance to listen hard, in order that we avoid mutual suspicion and disdain.
We also need to listen a lot more. There is a great tendency in parties to talk, to lecture, to hector, to banter, to yell, to be very strident, but not to listen to one another. It is very important that we do that, particularly given the fact that towards the end of this year we will be hosting the third UN conference on racism and we as the national Parliament and, certainly, all the legislatures, should be setting an example on how to behave and how to foster unity and reconciliation. My concluding comment would be: Let us, in this House, set the example.
Ms A VAN WYK: Madam Speaker, it is not possible to do justice to this debate in three minutes’ time. I will thus limit my contribution to a few aspects of the debate.
The first of these is a difference of opinion in so far as completing the task of reconciliation and nation-building is concerned. Reconciliation and nation-building is not an event, but a process. It is a process that does not happen in isolation, excluded from the influences of daily events. It is a way of living, a mindset and an attitude. It is something that each one of us must adopt consciously and, in our daily lives, live deliberately. One isolated event brings back that fear, the mistrust and the scepticism amongst one another. It is only when those who still make themselves guilty of these kinds of violations become the outcasts of society, that we will know that the tide has turned our favour, thus achieving reconciliation as truly one nation.
The second point is that of casting doubts on efforts of others. Several people in this House and I have signed The Home for All pledge of Mary Burton, Antjie Krog and Carl Niehaus. I did not do so, because I was urged to do so by any group, either politically or racially. That would have defeated the very reason for me to sign it and would merely have become the politically correct thing to do.
The Home for All campaign provided me, as a South African reaping the fruits of the liberation of our country - a liberation that I cannot claim that I struggled for; like millions of other South Africans, I do not have struggle credentials - with the opportunity to say that I acknowledge that apartheid was wrong. I acknowledge that I have benefited from a system that was inhumane to the majority of our people. It provided me with the opportunity to commit myself to redressing the wrongs of the past. If we, for very personal reasons, felt the need to publicly support this pledge, why then should we not be allowed to do so? Nobody forced anybody to sign it. In fact, it is not only white South Africans who signed the pledge, because at the launch thereof, South Africans of other groups also signed the commitment spontaneously. Nobody said that those who have signed have now suddenly become first-class citizens and those who did not second-class citizens. Democracy is about choices. I have made my choice.
The political character that the campaign gained as a result of the political utterances of white political leaders in this country is a shame. It reminds me of a day last year when MPs were requested to wear Bafana Bafana shirts in support of South Africa’s soccer bid. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Rev K R J MESHOE: Chairperson, the task of reconciliation is never completed, as the subject for discussion suggests. What we need to talk about is the need to further the task of reconciliation. We need to constantly improve relations between people, individuals, communities, thereby building the nation.
Like liberty and freedom, reconciliation is part of the social fabric. Reconciliation is therefore transgenerational. We must do our part in this generation. We must lay a proper foundation for the next generation to continue the process. There will always be elements in society who will exploit differences between people for personal gain. Fortunately, such people are a minority. We must therefore not allow them to sidetrack or distract us from pursuing the noble goal of reconciliation and nation- building.
The ACDP believes that the family is the most important building block of a nation. Strong families make a strong nation. Happy and stable families create stable individuals. Stable individuals create a stable community. Stable communities create a stable nation. A happy and stable family is the only firm foundation for nation-building.
Apartheid was largely implemented at family level, through improper parental teachings, for it to succeed. Children were and are still taught by some to hate or not to associate with certain race groups. The family is where the battle is. That is why we as leaders must be seen and heard teaching our children the value of reconciliation and not confrontation. Through the family unit, we will best further reconciliation.
The best the Government can do for nation-building is to do everything not to destabilise but to foster the family unit. Promoting a happy and stable family should be the aim of the state. Reconciliation cannot be confined to racial prejudice alone, even though this is the greater problem in our country. It has a spiritual dimension as well. [Applause.]
Ms X C MAKAZI: Mr Chairperson, hon members, comrades and friends, I am honoured to be part of those who are participating in this debate. I am honoured, not because I am a member of the ANC, but because I have just given birth to a baby girl who will not go through what I have been through. My child will only know what has happened to me through history books. It is essential to safeguard the future of our children so that they do not fall into the trap we did. South Africa is a country which is divided not only along class lines, but also along racial lines. In a way, we have two South African nations. One nation is rich and the other is poor. The characteristics of the two nations are the following: The one nation, which comprises whites, is relatively wealthy, literate, and has an abundance of resources at its disposal, access to the best institutions, total command of the economy, and so on. The other nation is poor, ignorant, illiterate, has a high infant mortality rate and the people live in overcrowded conditions.
This experience was not a peaceful one. The members of the poor nation were robbed of their birthright and other basic human rights at gunpoint. Most of our people lost their loved ones, and some of them still bear scars which are constant reminders of their past. Some people have been permanently confined to wheelchairs. All of this was done in the name of preserving white minority interest.
This did not benefit only certain members of the white community, but almost every white person in South Africa. This is not to say that some people in the white community of South Africa did not contribute to the downfall of apartheid. During the negotiation processes, one of the critical issues was how to address the problem of white fears and black aspirations. This was not an easy task. Sacrifices had to be made on both sides.
To achieve reconciliation, certain things have to be done. Among them is the willingness to forgive but not to forget, because if we forget, we would be bound to repeat the same mistake. If we were to do that, this time around, history would not forgive us.
There should be a commitment from all South Africans to address the past imbalances. This entails that some benefits that were enjoyed by certain sections of our population have to be given away. This is a sticky point to which some members of this House are not committed.
The ANC-led Government has been embarking on a process of healing the wounds of our nation since 1994. The TRC process was the first essential step to deal with the past. We need to know the faces behind the guns that killed our people in Kasinga, Lusaka, Maputo, Soweto, Langa, Crossroads and elsewhere in the country. This was not done to persecute those were involved but to heal them too. Other members of this House viewed that as a witch-hunt by the ANC directed at the former Government. Reconciliation cannot be achieved without addressing the imbalances of the past. Howling against reconciliation is not the same as addressing the issue. We need to make those people who were previously disadvantaged feel that they are part of this new dispensation and that their plight is being addressed. [Applause.]
Gen C L VILJOEN: Mr Chairperson, before we can harness communities to voluntarily and enthusiastically embark on better relations and nation- building, we have to formally acknowledge communities and even past national legislation defining the legitimate structures and their powers and functions over such communities.
South Africa could be a country of communities. For a long time our divisions had been on a racial basis, black versus white. If we accept this, we accept the perpetuation of racial lines. I therefore hope that to define communities firstly as a voluntary association of people with specific characteristics, be it culture, language, religion or any other criteria but race.
Secondly, let us use the Constitution to empower communities. We also tend to jump to conclusions that a common new national identity will follow automatically. This assumption of uniformity kills communities. They should, therefore, be put at ease so that they will voluntarily become loyal to the newly created nation state and not feel alienated or threatened. They should be made proud of being building blocks. Freedom actually means diversity.
Thirdly, there should be a speeding up of the promulgation of the section 185 commission and it should be accepted that this has to be a commission with teeth, and not a his-master’s-voice-dominated and slanted commission.
Lastly, credible leadership in the communities should be identified to interact at national, provincial and local levels. With their commitment and the influence that they have within their communities the way to mutual understanding and mutual assistance is open. Working together will bring reconciliation. Too much talking and blaming will bring alienation.
Mr P H K DITSHETELO: Mr Chairperson, with the dawn of new democracy seven years ago, have we achieved reconciliation and nation-building to our satisfaction as South Africans? To what extent can we say that we have managed to reconcile South Africa across the colour bar?
As we know, South Africa is a polarised society. There is no doubt about it. It is also noteworthy that practical steps were taken to address the question of reconciliation and nation-building. With the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, headed by Archbishop Tutu, this commitment to build a new nation with new patriotism was concretised.
It is common knowledge that South Africa has become a world model of democracy in Africa. The country has one of the most complicated and sophisticated constitutions in the world, comparatively speaking. Our Constitution is clear on reconciliation and nation-building. It recognises our past and states categorically what it intends to achieve. Therefore, the foundation for reconciliation and nation-building has been laid by it. We need to adopt bold, practical steps in addressing the question of disparities that exist in our society. It has been scientifically proved that poverty creates animosity between the haves and the have-nots. There are fundamental issues that are core to achieving meaningful reconciliation in South Africa, such as shared vision, improved race relations, wealth redistribution, poverty alleviation and eradication, job creation, access to education, and social support for the needy.
The reality on the ground suggests that South Africa has the potential to become a highly polarised society.
Dr S E M PHEKO: Chairman, six years after the establishment of the `` true wrong’’ commission, this Parliament is today discussing steps to improve relations between communities and complete the task of reconciliation and nation-building.
This proves that the ``wrong’’ commission has not achieved its objective. To the PAC, this is not surprising. The United Nations declared apartheid a crime against humanity. This crime is similar to genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. The Nazis were punished for their crimes against humanity.
After the Second World War the Nuremberg tribunal was established to try the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity. Only allies of Hitler and Mussolini appeared before the tribunal.
In South Africa the norms of international law and precedents governing crime against humanity have been flouted with impunity. Perpetrators of the crime of apartheid have received amnesty, while many of our own former Apla fighters are languishing in South African jails.
This implies that the crime against humanity does not apply to Africans. Richard Goldstone, a South African judge, was appointed to head a tribunal in Yugoslavia and in Burundi to prosecute crimes against humanity there. Flimsy excuses have been given why African freedom fighters must be lumped with the perpetrators of the crime of apartheid. They are all a load of nonsense.
No, the TRC has not achieved its objective. Debates in this Parliament do not reflect reconciliation. The history of liberation itself is still subjected to forces of sectarianism who falsely record it for their despicable political propaganda.
There can be no genuine reconciliation in this country without reparations and justice. In this context, to our African intelligentsia in particular, I say starvation is better in intellectual freedom than obesity in intellectual docility. [Applause.]
Miss S RAJBALLY: Chairperson, the MF believes that preparedness to accept, understand and accommodate our current pluralistic political system is the first step to improve the relationship between communities.
Reconciliation and nation-building in any immensely divided society is a difficult and problematic process, especially when minorities are conditioned to fear power-sharing with the majority.
Therefore, to eliminate black fear and to inspire faith and the culture of collective responsibility in the hearts of our electorals, the MF has aligned itself with the majority party in a working relationship. Reconciling South Africa’s rainbow nation largely depends on carefully complementing individual liberty with equality for all. The common ground to attain this ideal situation is to intensively promote social and economic development, so that the ordinary person’s quality of life can be improved. Providing the poor masses with the opportunity to access the basic needs with regard to housing, health, education, employment, and safety and security, is a prime factor that determines the speed of reconciliation and nation-building.
However, conflicting political strategies and too many divergent political principles are spoiling our people’s faith in democracy. Therefore the MF strongly advises the people of South Africa that in order to achieve peace and harmony and to build a nationhood around competing ethnic causes, they should speak to the ruling parties, negotiate with the ruling parties and, of course, constructively oppose the ruling parties. Although democracy in South Africa is only seven years old, the MF champions that it is not impossible to create a balance between ethnic tranquility and common values. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, it is of paramount importance to read the topic of today’s discussion very carefully. The topic presupposes a few important things. Firstly, there should be the recognition of communities. South Africa is not merely a country of individuals, but a community of communities, or to use the words of Dr Buthelezi, a nation of nations.
Secondly, these communities stand in a relationship to one another. No community functions on an island. Communities are interdependent, are in relationship with each other and share a common destiny.
Thirdly, reconciliation is not a mere individual business, but also a matter between groups and communities collectively.
Fourthly, we should realise that nation-building depends on the state of affairs within and relationship between communities.
Wat sê dit vir ons? Nasiebou sal ‘n illusie bly solank as wat enige gemeenskap wat die boublokke van die nasie is, gemarginaliseer word. Hoe word ‘n gemeenskap gemarginaliseer? Wanneer sy reg om as ‘n gemeenskap te funksioneer, misken word, asook wanneer sy reg om self oor sake wat eie en uniek aan hom is, kollektief en statutêr te kan beslis. Talle erkende internasionale deklarasies wys vir ons die weg aan. Dit is tyd dat ons ‘n akte van groepregte in ons Grondwet insluit, sodat hierdie funksies omskryf kan word. Wanneer ‘n gemeenskap gedemoniseer word deur ‘n onsensitiewe en opportunistiese omgaan met mekaar se verlede, deur sy geskiedenis te degradeer en steeds opportunisties daaruit munt te slaan, deur geïsoleerde voorvalle van onmenslikheid op te blaas en subtiel as stereotipes van die hele groep voor te hou.
‘n Gemeenskap kan ook gemarginaliseer word deur sy kultuureie- en eiendom te reduseer tot die terrein van die private, tot kennetjie speel in die agterplaas. Alleen wanneer die realiteit van die verskeidenheid erken word, alleen wanneer die werklikheid van volke, groepe, gemeenskappe en instellings in ons plurale samelewing sinvol erken word, sal daar van nasiebou sprake wees. Daartoe dra die AEB graag by. [Tyd verstreke.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[What does this tell us? Nation-building will remain an illusion as long as any community, which is one of the building blocks of the nation, is marginalised. How is a community marginalised? When its right to function as a community is disregarded, as well as its right to collectively and statutorily decide upon matters which are unique to it. Many recognised international declarations are showing us the way. It is time that we include a bill of group rights in our Constitution so that these functions can be defined. When a community is demonised by an insensitive and opportunistic association with one another’s past, by degrading its history and still opportunistically capitalising on it, by blowing up isolated incidents of brutality and subtly presenting them as stereotypes of the whole group.
A community can also be marginalised by reducing its culture and property to the domain of the private, to playing tipcat [``kennetjie’’] in the backyard. Only when the reality of diversity is recognised, only when the reality of nations, groups, communities and institutions in our plural society are recognised meaningfully, will we be able to talk about nation- building. To that the AEB will contribute gladly. [Time expired.]]
Mr D A HANEKOM: Chairperson, this debate is clearly an important one. Certainly, the challenge which confronts all of us to achieve real reconciliation and to succeed in our nation-building efforts is extremely important. If we want to do justice to this topic and discuss it intelligently, we need to be quite clear about what we mean by these terms. What kind of nation do we want to build and how do we achieve reconciliation in the process?
I do suspect that the nation that at least two thirds of our citizens dream of, the nation that the overwhelming majority of our people want us to build, and the nation the DA has in mind, are very, very different. Nonetheless, if we are to succeed in this great task which was started by the ANC a long time ago - a dream which has driven us, a task for which many of our leaders have served prison sentences and for which many of our leaders have indeed died - then we do need to tackle this task together. We must succeed. If we fail, we all pay the price. The price is high. We need to be guided by a vision of where we want to go, where we want to be one day as a country and what we need to do in order to get there.
We need to work out exactly what it is that we need to do in order to achieve these dreams of ours, and what we should be doing and what we should not be doing. But, to get from where we are today to where we want to be tomorrow, we need to properly and honestly acknowledge the present situation. What we have today is clearly a product of yesterday - the legacy of our history. We need to understand, appreciate and acknowledge it.
On the one hand, as has already been pointed out by previous speakers in this debate, it is a painful and shameful history. On the other hand it is a proud history. It is a history of courageous struggle and resistance to oppression and injustice. It is a struggle and a history of struggle that we are, indeed, extremely proud of. It is a history which gave birth to great leaders and visionaries like Albert Luthuli, Helen Joseph, Oliver Tambo and many many others. Indeed, we are blessed as a country to have one such great leader, Nelson Mandela, still with us today. Today, all South Africans seem to acknowledge his greatness.
Just a few years ago the NP government and the party that the hon member Van Schalkwyk belonged to all his adult life, tried their damndest to sentence Nelson Mandela to death. Mercifully, they failed. We all know Nelson Mandela’s famous speech from the dock. He was speaking as a leader of the ANC. Today, as a leader and an international hero, he continues to guide and inspire us in this great task of building a nation and achieving real reconciliation.
President Mbeki, who is now the president of the ANC and President of our country, was himself forced into exile for most of his life and driven away from the country of his birth. He has taken forward this task of reconciliation and nation-building with the same vigour as his famous predecessors.
I mentioned earlier that we need to honestly reflect on and acknowledge the present situation, the disparities and the nature of these disparities. Indeed, President Mbeki spoke about this earlier on during question time. He reminded us constantly of today’s reality - the harsh reality of racially-based patterns of disparity and land ownership, homelessness, poverty, etc. These patterns and realities that we have inherited are not just simply, for example, a concentration of land ownership in the hands of the few. It is different in South Africa.
Black people are landless, while white people own almost all of the land in our country. We know that. Let us just simply acknowledge it, then we can deal with it. The same applies when it comes to homelessness, hunger and illiteracy. We also have to acknowledge the painful and humiliating persistence of racism in our society. We do not have to be afraid of acknowledging it. It is here with is. It is bad. It humiliates. It does not help any of us, but it is here with us today and we have to deal with it.
When Thabo Mbeki talks about two nations, we surely know what he is talking about. He dreams of a tomorrow when we can truly speak of one nation. With the full support of many South Africans, white and black, he is leading the struggle to build this one nation based on equality and human dignity. A number of years ago, Alan Paton said and I quote:
To give up the task of reforming society is to give up one’s responsibility as a free man.
We cannot give up this task of transforming our society and changing it for the better. We will all suffer the consequences if we are not active participants in this process of change.
Hon Van Schalkwyk said that we have one nation and not two nations. To him I say perhaps that is the case, perhaps. But, it is the one nation he dreams of and not the one nation we dream of, and not the one nation we fought for and continue to fight for. Reconciliation and nation-building are simply not possible without addressing these huge disparities. We must deal with racism. If we do not, we will never succeed in our attempts to achieve reconciliation and we will never be able to build a single nation. As the President said, the Constitution obliges us to do this.
Die meerderheid van ons burgers is bewus van hierdie pynlike werklikhede en hierdie groot uitdagings wat voor ons lê. Dit help glad nie om hierdie werklikhede te ontken nie. Inderdaad, die Grondwet verplig ons om iets te doen rakende hierdie werklikhede. Ek wil graag ‘n uittreksel uit die aanhef tot ons Grondwet voorlees, daarvoor het ek ongelukkig my bril nodig:
Ons, die mense van Suid-Afrika, Erken die ongeregtighede van ons verlede; Huldig diegene wat vir geregtigheid en vryheid in ons land gely het; Respekteer diegene wat hul beywer het om ons land op te bou en te ontwikkel; en Glo dat Suid-Afrika behoort aan almal wat daarin woon, verenig in ons verskeidenheid.
Daarom neem ons, deur ons vryverkose verteenwoordigers, hierdie Grondwet aan as die hoogste reg van die Republiek ten einde -
Die verdeeldheid van die verlede te heel en 'n samelewing gegrond op
demokratiese waardes, maatskaplike geregtigheid en basiese menseregte
te skep;
Die grondslag te lê vir 'n demokratiese en oop samelewing waarin
regering gegrondves is op die wil van die bevolking en elke burger
gelyk deur die reg beskerm word;
Die lewensgehalte van alle burgers te verhoog en die potensiaal van
elke mens te ontsluit; en
'n Verenigde en demokratiese Suid-Afrika te bou wat sy regmatige plek
as 'n soewereine staat in die gemeenskap van nasies kan inneem.
Mag God ons mense beskerm. Dit is wat die Grondwet sê. Dit is die duidelike riglyne wat die Grondwet vir ons gee. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[The majority of our citizens are aware of these painful realities and these challenges which lie before us. It does not help to deny these realities. Indeed, the Constitution obliges us to do something about these realities. I would like to read an extract from the Preamble to our Constitution, unfortunately I need my glasses for that:
We, the people of South Africa, Recognise the injustices of our past; Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land; Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.
We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to - Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights; Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law; Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.
May God protect our people.
That is what the Constitution says. Those are the clear guidelines which the Constitution gives us.]
The hon member Van Schalkwyk says that the President should make the minorities part of this process. With due respect to Mr van Schalkwyk, that is the wrong attitude. We have fought for change in the ANC. A number of whites in the ANC have fought for change, and we continue to do so. [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: Only the whites in the ANC are South Africans.
Mr D A HANEKOM: President Mbeki cannot make minorities part of this process. What we would like to see, as we are seeing in this country amongst many many South Africans, black and white, is voluntary and enthusiastic participation in this process of change.
These people who are engaged in the process, who are fighting for change, white and black, are not waiting for President Mbeki to make them part of this process. That is a wrong attitude. [Applause.] I think we have today to acknowledge with pride the major contribution that so many people have made to bring us where we are today.
We have a long way to go. There is still so much to achieve. And we acknowledge at the same time with pride the contribution that so many South Africans are making today to change this country, to achieve reconciliation, to build a great nation, a nation that we can all be proud of, based on equality and human dignity. Without dealing with its realities which confront us, of disparity, of poverty, of illiteracy, of any number of serious problems, we will not achieve that.
Let us talk briefly about racism, just briefly! The topic is racism, but we must not be shy of talking about it. Why should we be shy? We all say we want to eradicate it. In order to eradicate it, we have to talk about it, understand it and deal with it.
In this very House, just a few days ago, somebody from the ANC benches was heckling somebody from the opposition benches. Racism is not just a matter between whites and blacks. An African person from one of the opposition benches said: ``Go back to India.’’ The heckler was a person of Indian origin. I understand that the person may have been a bit angry, but that is reflective of a deep racism and deep racial attitudes which still exist amongst us. These are attitudes that need to change.
We know when we go into predominantly coloured areas, we find black South Africans talking about other black South Africans as kaffirs. We know when we go to the farms in South Africa, it is the pervasive language, unfortunately. When we go to small rural towns in South Africa, when we sit in a bar and have a beer and hear people talking, when they do not recognise who we are, they talk very freely amongst themselves about kaffirs! That cannot be good enough for us. It exists, and we should try to change it.
The challenge today is to confront our problems honestly and try to change our society for the better, and we will all benefit. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY: Chairperson, the hon member Derek Hanekom has made my task extremely simple, as have other speakers, such as Charles Nqakula from the ANC side, with help from the IFP too. I must say that I did not come with a prepared speech at all. I listened very carefully to the opposition parties’ speakers, as I always do, giving them the kind of respect that everybody who speaks in this House deserves.
I have, at times, made very affirmative points about the hon Marthinus van Schalkwyk’s speeches in the past. I was a little disappointed today because it does seem to me that the topic that the hon member chose seems to have been more of an excuse to attack President Mbeki. With the assistance of the hon Moorcroft - he has already left, but he should have stayed because he is part of the debate - he has attempted to reinforce this illusion of some kind of division between former President Mandela and President Mbeki that the DA is trying to project. This is really barking up the wrong tree.
I can assure the hon member Van Schalkwyk that if Mr Mandela were here with us today, he would have disagreed very strongly with his inferences. I say this with the understanding that no member of the opposition parties can know and understand the ANC or our alliance. [Interjections.] And certainly in this respect, he must understand the extent to which we go as very committed revolutionaries who are committed to the transformation of our country and to democracy, in dealing, self-critically, with any problems that arise within our midst and among our membership. And that has been a time-honoured tradition of the ANC.
It is not Mr Mandela alone who speaks about the emanation of corruption or self-service within the ANC. President Mbeki carries a very big stick in our caucus and party in this respect … [Interjections] … as do the leaders and virtually all the members of this organisation that has proved, over the years, that we are committed to real democracy and to building a democratic party and organisation, as we are to the changes which are coming about, which we are building, we are working for in our country.
I can promise hon members that I have been totally astonished, from the time that this assault began after President Mbeki made what was a reference to what is a reality in our country, by the manner in which the New NP and DP alliance has reacted to the notion of two nations. It was not President Mbeki who coined the phrase ``two nations’’. This comes from no less a statesman than the prime minister of Victorian Britain, Disraeli, who was attempting to reform his party by bridging the gap between the aristocrats and the working people.
As we well know - and I am sure my learned colleagues here know this very
well - in his novel Sybil, he has a character saying, We are a country of
two nations'', and when somebody asks what that means, the answer is:A
country of rich and a country of poor’’. And Disraeli’s whole thesis of
reform was to introduce bills that would narrow that gap between the rich
and the poor.
Here we are in South Africa, which is far more segmented as a result of
centuries of colonialisation and apartheid, where we have had people living
in camps, hostile to one another and at the same time a country where
wealth and poverty have been reinforced by colonial relationships of
racism. This still exists in our country today.
This week we have seen the infamous Eugéne Terre’Blanche, who I am sure nobody on my left supports, going to jail and being serenaded by some 50 Potchestroom students. They were singing the old anthem. They were confronted by true patriots of our country, some whites among the blacks, singing our national anthem. What also astonished me was that these 50 supporters of Terre’Blanche from the University of Potchestroom called themselves ``die pampoenboere’’ [the pumpkin farmers]. Now we have come to respect … [Interjections.] I am not taking any questions, but I will at the end.
Mr C AUCAMP: Chairperson, on a point of correction: The students that the hon the Minister is referring to were not University of Potchestroom students. [Interjections.]
The CHAIRPERSON OF COMMITTEES: Order! The MINISTER: I am sorry for having insulted university students. All members of the ANC have come to respect the term ``boere’’ today. We understand this term and we respect it now through the kind of behaviour and inputs of a lot of the Afrikaans farming people led by the hon Gen Constand Viljoen.
When I heard this term die pampoenboere'', I was reminded of Roy
Campbell, a famous South African poet of the 30s who wrote a poem about the
white minority parliament in South Africa. In it he spoke about the
wondrous land South Africa,where pumpkins into parliament go and turnips
into professors grow’’. Now I would plead with the members of the
opposition that we are not pumpkins who have come into Parliament here. Do
not behave like the pumpkins of the past, those who cannot understand the
reality of our time.
Reacting to the President’s reference to the two nations notion, the hon Marthinus van Schalkwyk has made a most profound mistake. This term is reflective of the gulf between rich and poor in our country. The hon leader of the New NP has, in his speeches and statements, said that we must address poverty. His topic today, which is how to improve relations between communities to complete the task of reconciliation and nation-building, must accept and understand that this is only possible by changing the minds and racist attitudes of the past, and the arrogance we often see today. At the same time, crucial to this, is changing the material levels of the lives of our people.
Who are we talking about? It is essentially the poverty-stricken black people of our country.
It is the same President Mbeki who, in his speeches, begins by saying: ``I am an African’’. We all know this speech in which he refers to himself as being the offspring of the Khoi and the San, of the Malay slaves, of Cetshwayo and Sekhukhune, the chiefs who led resistances, those who came from India and China, the grandchild who lays fresh flowers on the Boer graves at St Helena and the Bahamas.
This is a President who speaks an inclusive language and does not shut out anybody. In his speech this year in Parliament and in Question time today, he again reiterated that we must have a programme of action and unite in action to build a nation. This is an inclusive appeal to all our people - black, white and brown - to come together through action. As somebody pointed out today, actions speak louder than words.
Through that action, we must build the bridges and put our hands across the racial divides; coming together, as so many black and white South Africans are showing from all sorts of backgrounds. That is the way to come to an understanding - come together, reconcile and build the nation. President Thabo Mbeki, carrying on the tradition of former President Mandela, a great party and an organisation of this country, is showing the way to inclusivity, reconciliation and nation-building. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
The House adjourned at 17:29. ____
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
TABLINGS:
National Assembly and National Council of Provinces:
Papers:
- The Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development:
Regulations in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act,
2000, tabled in terms of section 92(2) of the Promotion of Access to
Information Act, 2000 (Act No 2 of 2000).