From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: South Africa: Whites Vote on DeKlerk's "Reforms"
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 09:40:13 GMT

From: PENN@MITLNS.MIT.EDU (steve penn 26-567, 253-1521 Remember Our Humanity; Science is Not Neutral; MIT War Research Kills.)

Included below is an article from the New Liberation News Service
(NLNS) Packet 2.7 (supplemental) -- our autoposter is posting one
article at a time from this 168K file. To receive the full file,
use the GET command (see bottom) on the file NLNS PACKET ; to 
find out more about NLNS, use GET on NLNS BROCHURE and/or email 
Steve Penn at the above address.

To find out more about the PROG-PUBS (Progressive Publications) email
mailing list, use GET on CAMPUS PROGPUBS, or contact RJ Hinde at
rjh1@midway.uchicago.edu
--Harel B.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NLNS  Packet 2.7b  -  24 March 1992
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

South Africa: Whites Vote on DeKlerk's "Reforms"
Tim Hinton, The Thistle

	On February 19, South Africa's ruling National Party suffered a 
resounding defeat at the hands of the right-wing break-away Conservative 
Party. The defeat occurred in a by-election for the seat of Potchefstroom, a 
small city to the west of Johannesburg.  The seat had been safe for the 
Nationalists since they came to power in 1948. From the perspective of white 
politics, in the words of a spokesperson for the National Party, the election 
was viewed as 'a battle for the Afrikaner soul'. The Conservative Party, 
whose candidate won, endorses policies which, until the first tentative 
reforms set in motion by de Klerk's predecessor P.W. Botha, were those of 
the National Party itself. Some onlookers believe that de Klerk's party's fate 
in Potchefstroom foreshadows a larger defeat in the the referendum set for 
17 March. The referendum will test the attitude of white voters to the 
negotiations which are already under way.

BLACK PEOPLE'S RESPONSE
	Black people are angered and alienated by de Klerk's decision.  Some 
have called for the cancellation of the referendum since it amounts to 
allowing a white veto on the transition to democracy.
	There are presently two major political groupings of black South 
Africans. The largest comprises an alliance between the ANC, the South 
African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade 
Unions. Since they have committed themselves to a negotiated transition to 
democracy, they face a dilemma. On the one hand, there is the obviously 
racist nature of the referendum.  This, combined with the fact that they 
were not consulted by de Klerk about his move, provides prima facie 
evidence that the National Party has failed in its duties to its fellow 
negotiators. On the other hand, the possibility of a peaceful transition to a 
non-racial democracy hinges to a great degree on de Klerk's fate in this 
vote. They have thus far urged all whites including white ANC members to 
vote in favour of the reform process in order to avoid civil war. Meanwhile, 
at the ongoing multi-lateral negotiations, the ANC and the government 
have agreed to set up a government of national unity. This interim 
powersharing authority will have the responsibility for overseeing the 
transition to one-person-one-vote.
	The second grouping consists of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) 
and the Azanian People's Organization (AZAPO). These groups have 
refused to participate in the negotiations, rejecting them as racist and 
undemocratic. They favour not a negotiated settlement behind closed doors 
but the immediate convening of a constituent assembly. Supporters of this 
grouping, like those of the ANC, reject the referendum as racist. For them 
however it is a non-issue, given their stance on negotiations and the fact 
that they have no white members.
	De Klerk is on record as saying that if the majority of whites reject 
the reforms, he will resign, thus prompting an election for whites only. In 
such circumstances, it seems that both the ANC and its allies as well as the 
PAC will have no alternative to going back to armed struggle.

THE ILLEGITIMACY OF THE REFERNDUM
	The South African government claims that it is morally bound to 
hold the referendum because of its promise to white voters for an 
opportunity to voice their opinions during the 1989 election.  Such talk of 
making good on de Klerk's promise does little to justify the referendum. A 
promise wrongfully made is not one which is, in general, regarded as 
binding. The truth de Klerk refuses to see is that whether or not his 
government is breaking promises to the white people, they ought not to be 
the powerholders currently. The only justification for what de Klerk is 
doing is that of political expediency. It might be said that unless the white 
rightwingers are given a chance to show their opposition through the ballot 
box, they will resort to other methods. But even this is an arguable claim. 
Several waves of racist violence have swept the country repeatedly since the 
early 1980's. Much of course not all--of this is perpetrated directly by white 
people. The right wing has in fact been waging undeclared war against 
democrats for the past several years.

WHAT IS THE LIKELY OUTCOME ?
	In the last such referendu--held in 1983--over 60% of whites showed 
themselves to be in favor of the negligible reforms which were then on the 
table. These concerned the addition of two further houses of parliament and 
made absolutely no concessions to the demands of the disenfranchised 
majority.
	South African racists are not unique in failing to be moved by the 
constraints of self-interest. It is fairly clear that the long-term interests of 
the country, and along with it their own well-being, will be drastically 
undermined by a resounding defeat for de Klerk. What is less clear is what 
alternative is being offered to them. The dour leader of the Conservative 
Party--a former preacher--Andries Treurnicht, has said that he remains 
committed to 'self-determination as recognized worldwide, namely the 
right of a nation to govern itself'. Of course nobody in South Africa, least of 
all the ANC and its allies, denies the principle of the right to self-
determination. What is at issue is precisely how the South African nation is 
to be constituted. The democratic forces deny the alleged right of white 
South Africans to form themselves into a nation. Some members of the far 
right wing talk of a secession from the Republic in order to form a 
'Boerestaat' (Farmer's State). But beyond this sort of rhetoric, the 
Conservatives have shown no plausible strategy for rolling back the gains 
which mass action by democratic forces have won.
	The lines of cleavage within the white community have never been 
sharper. The National party, which came to power in 1948, was once a front 
which joined three forces--white workers favoring racist job-protectionism, 
small farmers and the then nascent class of Afrikaans capitalists. The two 
groups at the bottom end of this class alliance--the workers and farmers--
have been turned away from the party over the years. In the late 1970's the 
Party began quietly deserting the white workers in allowing trade union 
rights to their black counterparts. It has also shown itself to be financially 
unable to do much to support the cause of the small white landowners.  
Ideologically too, it has given up the project of constructing and 
representing the Afrikaner nation, turning itself into more of the party for 
modern affluent whites, both English and Afrikaans speakers. These more-
recent ideological initiatives have shown themselves to be quite successful 
in attracting English speakers, many of whom have turned their backs on 
the traditionally more liberal Democratic Party.
 	De Klerk commands a powerful ideological and organizational 
machine. The State-run television and radio network is the most powerful 
cog on the ideological side, while the Party's committed rank and file 
members are likely to be a significant force. The Democratic Party, which 
effusively endorses a 'Yes' vote, can also be expected to work hard at getting 
its supporters - who constitute approximately 15% of the whites - into the 
booths. Furthermore, those who find the result in Potchefstroom surprising 
ought not to do so. It has long been a very conservative area and the 
previous National Party representative who held the seat did so in part 
because he was of like mind. Also, the campaign fought by the Nationalists 
was a far cry from their standard fare, their candidate a lackluster local 
man with no real standing. There is also evidence which suggests that 
whites have moved ideologically along with de Klerk's initiatives. A recent 
poll showed that the percentage of them supporting racially integrated 
schools rose from 35.9% in 1989 to 51% in 1991.
	Political commentators are predicting that other things being equal 
(that well-worn hedging phrase beloved of such creatures) de Klerk will 
attract a 'Yes' vote of about 55%. Whether things do remain equal remains 
to be seen.
	At the center of the referendum is a battle, not for the soul of the 
Afrikaner nation, but for the remnants of its fictitious unity, typified by the 
angry white mine workers of Potchefstroom.  Once again the real issues at 
stake in South Africa--an end to racist domination and the pervasive forms 
of economic inequality--are being sidelined as seven million whites go in 
search of their own humanity.

The Thistle can be reached c/o Alternative News Collective, 84 
Massachusetts Ave, W20-413, Cambridge, MA 02139; (617) 253-0399.

##################################################################

    ======================================
    To get a file named FILE NAME from the archiver (files are
    two words  separated by a space), send the 1-line message

    GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L

    to: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET
    [or: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU]
    ======================================

    Use GET with the file ACTIV-L ARCHIVE for a listing of
    files available with the GET command.

e.g., send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET to be
emailed the index of archived files.

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive