JOURNEY TOWARDS PEACE
SOUTH AFRICA’S
“If there is a single lesson that our remarkable transition can demonstrate for the benefit of humanity, it is that the transition from an unjust to a just society succeeds or fails on the strength of its participants’ commitment to peace. “
of Natal, and also in the townships of the Witwatersrand, Inkatha militia, clandestinely backed and armed by right-wing elements within the government’s security forces, were conducting a campaign of brutal attacks on ANC supporters. It was a time of escalating violence, which posed a serious threat to the successful outcome of the negotiations process and culminated in a brutal massacre which threatened to derail negotiations altogether. On the night of 17 June 1992, supporters of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and (the Truth Commission later found) members of the government’s security forces attacked residents of the township of Boipatong. They murdered 38 people in what became known as the Boipatong massacre. After the Boipatong massacre,
essential that the negotiations be as inclusive as possible, not only for the sake of representation. With 19 parties, it became much easier to be quorate and to get some discussion going on important issues. It was electrifying to see Codesa underway and all those people sitting side by side, deciding the future of our country. Mandela was also able to use his charm and charisma to persuade many of the smaller parties to toe the line and vote with the ANC. Ironically, the Conservative Party, a right-wing Afrikaner political organization, never objected to a single proposal during the negotiations. They were more of an ally of the ANC than they were of the NP government.
A hard path to progress Meanwhile, in the Inkatha stronghold
the ANC threatened to pull out of the negotiations entirely unless the government made greater efforts to end the violence and curtail covert police support for the IFP. Mandela took his complaint to the Organization of African Unity and the United Nations where, on 15 July 1992, he accused the government of “a cold- blooded strategy of state terrorism”. The impact of Boipatong
on the negotiations marked an extremely important shift from formal negotiations to person-to- person, behind-the-scenes informal discussions. Cyril Ramaphosa, the ANC’s chief negotiator, called it the War of Memoranda. In particular, the famous
“channel” between Ramaphosa and his counterpart, De Klerk’s right- hand man Roelf Meyer, became a vital avenue for discussion and negotiation. Finally, in September 1992 De Klerk and Mandela arrived at a Record of Understanding. Negotiations resumed on 5
March 1993; but the fragile process was again threatened a month later when Chris Hani, the popular general secretary of the South African Communist Party, was murdered by a member of the extremist right-wing Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging. With a new sense of urgency,
political negotiators tried to speed up the process and set the date for nationwide elections no later than 27 April 1994. As Mandela said to me at the time, “Nothing concentrates the mind like the fixing of a date.”
Turning a page in history Our commitment to the principle of a democratically elected constituent assembly to draft the constitution was based on the foundational principle of the Freedom Charter, namely that only a democratically elected government can legitimately claim to represent the will of the people. If our new constitution was to enjoy legitimacy, if it was to belong to the people and hold their interests in the highest regard, it had to be drafted by the people’s democratically elected representatives. The draft constitution was
published on 26 July 1993. Within its simple but powerful words is contained the clarion call for South Africa’s newly minted democracy. “We the people of South Africa,” the preamble says, “Recognize 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.” The final Chapter 16 contained
words just as moving those in the preamble. It describes the interim constitution as “a historical bridge between the past of a deeply divided society characterized by
strife, conflict, untold suffering and injustice, and a future founded on the recognition of human rights, democracy and peaceful coexistence and development opportunities for all South Africans, irrespective of colour, race, class, belief and sex”. Then it goes on to say: “With this constitution and these commitments we, the people of South Africa, open a new chapter in the history of our country.” Beautiful, resonant words. The Government of National
Unity was to be a power-sharing government, and the Legislature would double as a Constituent Assembly for the purposes of drafting a final constitution, which was adopted in 1996. The Government of National Unity was elected into power in April 1994. There are few examples in the world where a very powerful regime has handed over power. If there is a single lesson that
our remarkable transition can demonstrate for the benefit of humanity, it is that the transition from an unjust to a just society succeeds or fails on the strength of its participants’ commitment to peace. Second, it is axiomatic of negotiations that they involve give-and-take and compromise, find a middle road, negotiate through seemingly irreconcilable differences. It is worth noting that the
public participation process that accompanied the drafting of the final constitution exerted massive influence over the Constituent Assembly. This was perhaps not surprising
as I believe it was the most extensive exercise in public participation ever undertaken anywhere on this planet. This was a fitting heir to the Congress of the People’s instructions back in the 1950s and fully lived up to the need for a mass mandate.
The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue One - South Africa | 57
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199