Special Hearings — Political Party Recalls — 1997-05-16

GEN GROENEWALD: Thank you Mr Chairman.  I think the question you asked is a very important question and I don't think there is a very simple answer to this, but sometimes we must try and place ourselves and see the situation from a different perspective, and realise, as General Viljoen said earlier, that remember from Union, which was once again a forced Union, there was no referendum to decide on Union in 1910.  It was two republics that were joined with two colonies.  But from that time, until 1948, the Afrikaner was involved in a political struggle to once again be placed in the position where he could be his own master.  And I will gladly admit that at that stage very little attention was paid to basically the interest and the welfare of Black people as such.
 We should also remember that in 1948 when we realised what was happening in Africa, by that stage we had lost contact with Africa.  We had, I believe, something like 40,000 Afrikaners in a country like Kenya.  They came back with the legacy of the Mau Mau.  This happened with all the countries that were decolonised and it was flowing back to South Africa.  They painted a certain perspective of Africa.  This perspective was very ably also underlined by press reports and by the press as such.
 We should also remember that in 1948 only approximately, I would imagine, 12 to 15% of Black people lived in the cities and most of the Black people were miners who were also foreigners, who came from outside the borders of South Africa, and a policy like apartheid, separate development, was seen as an easy solution. 
 From then on basically the biggest problem we had was that apartheid had one effect and that was that peoples lost contact with each other.  They did not speak to each other.  If I think back the first time I in actual fact, although I grew up amongst the Zulus on the farm and knew the Zulus, the traditional Zulu very well, the first time I really went into a Black township I think was in 1986.  How many White people ever, even today, have gone into a Black township. 
I think a lot of what has happened should be seen from that point of view.
 I would also like you to look at it from one very, very important perspective, and that is let us imagine that the Soviet Union did not, did not change its political situation, that they were still a super power under the control of a Marxist government.  Let us just imagine that for a single situation.  And if we can then place South Africa in that context, with the Soviet Union as the main supporter of the ANC, with the South African Communist Party, because it was the agent through which this support was channelled in a much stronger position, not with a view that communism is dead, would we still have had the same situation in South Africa?  
 Would the Truth and Reconciliation Commission not have been an entirely different question whatsoever?  
 Would the attitude of the present government have been the same?  
 This is the kind of perception which you must realise was pertained in South Africa, and quite often a Black radical politician was associated with Marxism, true or false.  We counted the Marxists within the ANC National Executive.  Why was it easy for government officials to speak to homeland leaders, because they were not seen as Marxist.  They were not seen as Marxists and therefore they could communicate with them.
 If we look at this kind of situation which developed historically then perhaps we can start understanding some of the things which happened or did not happen, which is perhaps more important.  Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much General.  Corki.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  This will be as a way of follow-up to General Viljoen's response to the Chairperson's question particularly about the Nationalist Party.  My question is simply that General Viljoen you seem to be very critical of the National Party government for a number of reasons, are you not perhaps being too critical, that is putting too much distance between you and your supporters and the previous government?   Are you not sort-of going all out to distance yourself from the deeds of the previous government?

GEN VILJOEN: Chairperson the differences between us and the National Party is really fundamental, are fundamental.  We live in two different worlds.  Our approaches are different.  Our vision for the future also differs.  We therefore, and I am sorry if I have created the impression that I have been harsh on them, that was not my intention because I don't want to create the impression that I want to use this place to do some NP bashing, but fundamentally we differ, we differed in what they've done in Kempton Park, not that they have changed, that we accept.  We accept the fact that change in South Africa was necessary, but the way in which they changed.  And the way in which they have not heeded to our warnings on what they are doing.
 We reject them for the way in which they have turned their back on their own creations, us, Afrikaners ourselves, but also the homelands.  As I've explained to you, there were some mistakes with the homeland policies, yes, let us accept them, but all was not bad about those policies.  I don't see why we have to really feel so ashamed about this.  I think we made basic mistakes mainly because of our failure to properly develop those areas.  If there is something that we should feel sorry about in this country today it is the missed opportunities we have had in economic development, and that time that we have lost we will never catch up again. 
 So when I criticise the National Party I do so out of a fundamental point of view, and I have said in open, that I cannot see my way open to join their idea of one solid opposition, because I don't form a solid opposition for the sake of opposing, I form a political party for the sake of following a specific mandate, a specific basic approach.  Politics or parties must be based on fundamental issues, such as ours of self-determination, such as ours of our approach towards the economic development in South Africa, but not for the sake of, let us all stand together to do some ANC bashing.

UNKNOWN: General still on that aspect, given what you've said and responding to my question as far as criticism is concerned, will I be correct or will I be incorrect if I state that I read from your response some form of denial of responsibility for what happened in the past government, will my assumption be correct?  I get an impression of a shunning-away sort of thing.