Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-11

MR PARSONS: Chairperson.  Our hope is that through the combination of our oral and written evidence, we will provide the commission with a better understanding of the role played by the Association of Chambers of Commerce and Industry of South Africa, known as the previous ASACOM and the South African Federated Chamber of Industries, FCI, during the period 1960 to 1994.  And of the dynamics at work within the business sector and within organised businesss.
 SACCOB statements today, is an attempt to highlight and to expand upon the key elements of our written submission to you.  We welcome the opportunity of an exchange of views with the commission, not in any spirit of dogmatic assertion, but rather as a part of a sincere effort to share experiences of an apartheid history.  We need to share our realities.  At the outset SACCOB would like to affirm again, it's point of departure, as also made by Mr  Roshalt, and in our written submission, that there's no single business story of the period under review.  It is therefore to be expected that with the inter action of race and business over the years, there would be a differential pattern of response from business, which would depend upon a variety of economic, social and political factors.  The proof of this, is likely to be evident in the diverse submissions which this commission will have received from the various organisations and companies.  Within this diversity, business associations like the previous ASACOM, FCI, and the current SACCOB, and others, have sought to create the maximum consensus on , on policy issues of the day, for their respective memberships.  
 Because of this, it is impossible to suggest, as some have tried, that there is a collective culpability on the part of the business sector.  The fact which has already been referred to, but which we would like to emphasise again, is that business is not (unclear) and that is also the reason, chairperson, why we decided in our submission, that we could only address, the respective views and the actions of the chamber and its predecessors and we could not claim to speak on behalf of any individual companies or on behalf of any other business organisations.  What FCI and the old ASACOM and SACCOB could do therefore, in the past, apart from engaging the government of the day on its policies, was to provide leadership for those business' who were willing to follow it.  It was possible to pursuade, but not to impose the universal point of view on business.  SACCOB. Chairperson, would also draw your attention to the fact that South Africa, did not, and indeed it does not, make provision for a corporate vote.  And that the combined membership of the respective organisations, made up a relatively small percentage  of the electorate.  
 In any case, such organisations all over the world, cannot be involved in party politics, if they wish also to have influence over social and economic policies.  As a result, chairperson, the leadership of these organisations, that had to rely on persuasion, both of the authorities of the day and their own membership, in order to bring about the removal of the apartheid laws and provisions.  Other forms of protest and pressure were discounted, because they were likely to damage the economy or, because they threatened the unity that exists in organisations such as SACCOB and its predecessors, because of their voluntary nature.  The leadership had at all times, as you saw from our written submission, to carry its membership with it, in espousing those points of view.  That point of view was as follows, and I want to refer in particular of course to the previous ASACOM and FCI, which cover the bulk of the period that we are addressing, held the view that apartheid was a violation of human rights and was economically unsustainable.  They believed it would eventually collapse under the weight of the demands that were made by rapid economic growth.  Obviously this view was based in large part firstly, on a self interested desire to ensure the survival and growth of business' and secondly on a real experience on the effects of the restrictive provisions of apartheid legislations and policies.  The human costs and economic costs of apartheid were unacceptably high, it was an artificial and intolerable political, social and economic system which was destined to fail.  As a consequence, chairperson, the anti-apartheid motions, policies and the actions listed in our written submission were adopted by those organisations, that is ASACOM, FCI and subsequently SACCOB, based on a four-pronged strategy.
 First was oppositional, which required saying, 'no' to what the previous government was doing, of criticising it and seeking to influence public opinion.  
 Secondly, - that was exploratory-, which indicated a preparedness to co-operate with and expand upon, government reform initiatives as they unfolded.  
 Thirdly, - that was innovative-, which encompassed the formulation of new policies, looking at the sphere of economic restructuring and constitutional reform and finally, as part of the four-pronged strategy, chairperson, a defensive, if you can call it that, a defensive strategy which included being against violence and the violent overthrow of the state and being opposed to the imposition of the economic sanctions.
 In the light of the constraints under which they operated, including the limitations of a highly confrontational approach to the government of the day, the organisatios adopted a strategy of engagement, that included of large number of meetings, with the members of the then government.  This was an ongoing process, which we believed did offer some prospect of success in changing over time, the views and the attitudes of the ruling government.  At the same time, these organisations, nonetheless often incurred the wrath of the then government for their views.  Against the backdrop of mass actions, strikes and marches, this engagement strategy employed by these organisations, may well have been interpreted as something akin to complicity.  That we submit chairperson, that engagement is not complicity and is pursued to this day by the present government, through structures such as Nedlac (?) and similar bodies.  The organisations took review that engagement offered a prospect of being able to change attitudes over time.  The opposition of the FCI and of ASACOM in particular, to the phase of economic sanctions, was entirely consistent with their earlier view on economic growth, forcing the eventual, the basic collapse of apartheid in due course.  Clearly there was also a deep concern, chairperson, that, that sanctions would undermine the growth potential of the South African economy still further and would directly threaten job creation and the survival of many business'.  
 I come to the question, chairperson, could SACCOB and its' predecessors have done more to end apartheid sooner?  Or to ensure that it was not legislatively implemented in the first place?  And as Mr Roshalt has said, with the benefit of hindsight, it may well be said that the enormity of the apartheid system, required stronger responses from business on certain key issues.  In retrospect it is always possible to have done more.  SACCOB accepts and has always acknowledged that apartheid did great damage to the human dignity of the majority of fellow South Africans.  If there were companies or individuals operating under the umbrella of the ex ASACOM, the ex FCI, or the current SACCOB, who acted in violation of often stated positions of these organisations, regarding fundamental human rights, then this is of course a matter of deep regret to us.  The written submission can only set out, chairperson, what ASACOM, FCI and subsequently SACCOB, sincerely believe was their pro-active role during the apartheid era, within their respective spheres of influence to change an unacceptable situation.  Thank you chairperson.