Special Hearings — Political Party Hearings — 1996-08-20

MR EGLIN: Chairperson, I want to continue with the pattern of the Party's activity over this period and there are six points which we have made.  Attacking racial discrimination, opposing apartheid laws, and protesting against violations of human rights and the rule of law.  These are being covered fairly extensively in the part of the presentation which Mrs Suzman has delivered.
 The latter three, the last three, calling on white South Africans to negotiate with leaders of all sectors of our nation to bring about a new constitution based on non discrimination equal rights, trying to prevent racial polarisation and warning the government that apartheid, which had already done untold damage to the country and its people, was going to prove a disaster for South Africa.  I want to deal with that latter section of those six points.
 The Parliamentary role, much of the Parliament's role was focused on opposing apartheid legislation.  Raising issues relating to its legislation, eliciting information and as was mentioned, using Parliament as a platform not only for obtaining information, but for allowing the Press and the media to report and to repeat the information outside of Parliament.
 But there was an equally important extra Parliamentary dimension to the Party's activities, its electioneering activities, public protest meetings, political policy development and its publications, were designed to convert the attitude of whites and in 1989, nearly half a million white voters demonstrated that they were prepared to negotiate a new, non-racial democratic constitution with fellow South Africans of all races.
 It took a long time to get to that half million, but nevertheless, by 1989 there was a message.  Success of the DP in these elections, the 1989 elections, contributed to the National Party's decision to begin negotiations.  Wimpie de Klerk writing about his brother states, nevertheless I got the impression that de Klerk was showing a new sense of stability to the fact that the National Party policy reached a dead end and that the Democratic Party was offering a clear cut policy options with distinct possibilities.
 The road he follows step by step since 1986 had gone in this direction.  It cannot be denied that the left, through the Democratic Party and its sympathizers, had prepared the way for the National Party.  I don't know whether Wimpie de Klerk is one on whom we should hinge our whole argument, but nevertheless, we give that as a  ex parte comment from the brother of President F.W. de Klerk.
 The second point was monitoring activities.  The Party following the example set by Mrs Suzman, sought within its limited means to monitor the effects of apartheid on the Security Establishment on the ground.  In the 1970's and 1980's the Party regularly interceded on behalf of squatter communities, faced with eviction and forced removal.
 In the former Transvaal, Peter Sole visited rural communities threatened with forced removal and settlement.  In Cape Town the Party established the Urban Monitoring and Action Committee, now known as UMAC, which attempted to intercede on behalf of squatters and in inter community conflicts.
 A similar operation was established in Port Elizabeth, known as the Human Rights Trust and while the Party's monitoring activities in Natal directed by Radley Keys and Lloy Ainsley, we eventually formalised peace in Natal, known as the PIN organisation.
 Very often the Party decided to allow these organisations that UMAC, Human Rights and Trust and PIN to operate independently once they were established and operating effectively, in order the enhance their effectiveness within communities within which they operated, they operated and to improve the possibilities  for international funding for their operations.
 We suggest that the Commission makes use of the information at the disposal of these organisations, which would provide factual accounts of what transpired in the specific areas during the 1980's.  Public representatives of the Party were expected to support and augment these activities.  Ken Andrew, Jasper Walsh, Jan van Eck, were on call to provide backup for UMAC, while in the Eastern Cape the activities of Molly Blackburn and Di Bishop, both PFP members of the Cape Provincial Council, predated and provided inspiration for the Human Rights Trust.
 And it was a natural progression from these activities, to those of the Peace Accord structures in which Rubert Lorimar and many other office bearers of the Party, played a prominent and time consuming role to the Party's own electoral disadvantage in 1994.
 In Cape Town, at the initiative of the Party and organisation which was known as MERGE, which provided a practical link across the racial barrier in the Peninsula was formed.  
 Thirdly central to the Party's Parliamentary and extra-Parliamentary's activities, was our belief that a peaceful and negotiated settlement was in essence preferable to a violent one in which all South Africans would be the losers.
 The theme that (indistinct) these arguments, advanced in Parliament and our negotiations with others leaders and other organisations.  We saw it as critically important the necessity to persuade the principle groups of antagonists in the fast developing civil war of the advantages of a negotiated settlement.
 The concept of a National Convention to negotiate a new non-racial constitution had been central to Progressive Party policy since the Martino Commission was adopted in 1960.
 This was confirmed and elaborated upon when the Slabbert Commission was adopted as PFP policy in 1978.  In 1987, a pamphlet published for that election year, the PFP told the white electorate the first step in creating a new constitution that will work, is genuine negotiation between the acknowledged leaders of all sections of our people.
 We were asked when does it start.  Real negotiations will take place when the PFP releases leaders such as Mandela, Nelson Mandela and ban organisations such as the ANC.  In due course negotiation will have to take the form of a National Convention, where major issues can be negotiated and the nation's approval obtained for the proposed constitution.
 Even in the face of the National Party government's refusal to contemplate such a process during this time, the party sought to take concrete steps to make this concept a reality.
 In November of 1973 for example, the Progressive Party with the cooperation of Donald Woods, then the Editor of the Daily Dispatch, convened a conference which examined the opportunities and constraints on peaceful strange and which was attended by many prominent politicians of all races outside Parliament.
 At the conclusion of this, the Baluha Conference, a declaration was agreed to reading as follows:  This conference of South Africans of all races, affirms the need for urgent changes in South Africa, and declares its belief for the fundamental rights of each citizen irrespective of race, colour or creed, to live a life of full dignity, opportunity and justice under the rule of law.
 At the launch of the Progressive Reform Party in 1975, that was two years later, I as the leader then said, if it is possible to have a multi-racial conference to consider the constitutional future of South-West Africa, then it is time for us to consider holding a similar conference.
 Late in 1975, PRP organised a conference attended by a number of black, so-called coloured and indian leaders where the issue of negotiation was to be discussed further.  At the conclusion of this conference a statement was issued which read in part as follows:  We accordingly declare our intention of working towards the holding of a convention as representative possible of all South Africans for the purpose of obtaining a mandate from the people for the constitution and other proposals which will emanate from the initiative we have taken today.
 Our purpose in taking  this initiative is to bring in South Africa a society that accepts the rights of each person who is a citizen of our country, to live a life of full dignity, equal opportunity and justice under the rule of law.  We agreed that apartheid does not offer a solution to South Africa and that any constitutional system must embody a bill of rights, safeguarding the rights of individuals and groups.
 We accept in one united South Africa, that territory and not race, must form the basis of government which should not be racially exclusive.
 Then Chairperson, in pursuing this concept of negotiation as the alternative to violence and conflict, we had a series of informal discussions with Chief Buthelezi before 1978.  And in 1978 this culminated in a meeting between the KwaZulu cabinet of that time and the members of the Progressive Federal Party's federal executive.
 Where intr alia the following was agreed to.  We share a deep concern for the growing tensions and divisions developing amongst the people of our country, we fear that unless the underlying causes are removed the situation could degenerate into conflict and violence.
 We are committed to work for a peaceful solution for South Africa's growing conflict situation, we are not prepared to accept the view that violence is inevitable.  We believe that peaceful change through negotiation is still possible.  But the fundamental solution to the growing conflict situation must be a recognition of the fact that we are all South Africans and entitled to the rights of citizenship without discrimination on the grounds of race or colour.
 During the early part of the 1980's, Dr Slabbert, then the leader of the party, took a number of initiatives to promote the process of negotiation.  Even at the height of repression, in 1985, Dr Slabbert attempted to convene a conference of leaders and organisations committed to the calling of a national convention.
 In the context of the time, few saw any possibility of a multi-party negotiated forum to be established to draw up a new constitution and the initiative collapsed.
 Ironically six years later, the forum was established at Kempton Park and negotiated our present constitution.  Informal contracts with party leadership, party's efforts were not confined to formal meetings and conferences such as we have described above.
 Since its conception, the party made concerted efforts to maintain contacts with the leaders of disenfranchised sectors of our nation, both to promote the concept of negotiation and if possible, to avoid the racial polarisation of our politics.  This programme was difficult to implement because of the restrictions imposed by the national government.
 It was carried out by designated party officials and public representatives while public formations around the country, were urged to keep in touch with leaders of the community at regional level.  Thus for instance, prior to the founding and for a short while after the founding of the Progressive Party, Ray Swart was deputed to keep Chief Lethuli advised of the thinking behind the Progressive Party policies.  Swart comments, his door was always open to me and we spent, he and I spent many hours together in discussion.
 Likewise in 1962, that is shortly after the ANC had been banned, Dr Steytler, then leader of the Party and Ray Swart, met and held discussions with Oliver Tambo in New York.  Colin Eglin, then leader of the Progressive Federal Party held discussions with Steve Biko some two months before his death in 1977.
 Donald Woods and his book on Steve Biko describes his conversation as follows:  without revealing the details of their conversation, I can say that the general theme was how each in his own sphere could help to bring all elements of the nation together at a conference table.  Both stressed the need to do everything possible to avoid violence.
 Steve said when there is violence, that is merciless.  Violence brings too many residues of hate into the reconstruction period.  Perhaps that is what the TRC is having to deal with right now.
 Apart from its obvious horrors, it creates too many post revolutionary problems.  If at all possible, we want the revolution to be peaceful and reconciliatory.
 In 1985, Dr Slabbert accompanied by Alex Boraine, Peter Gastrow and myself, held discussions in Lusaka with Alfred Nzo, Thomas Nkobi, Gertrud Shobi, Simon Makana, Mac Maharaj and Thabo Mbeki who were representing the Executive of the then banned ANC.
 After a two day discussion, the following joint statement was issued by the two delegations:  apartheid lies at the heart of the present crisis.  Both sides share an urgent need to dismantle apartheid and to establish a united, non-racial democratic South Africa.  Both are deeply concerned to conserve the human and natural resources of our country and to remove one of the most potent factors affecting the stability of the whole of the Southern African region.
 Areas of difference were discussed in a frank and cordial atmosphere.  In particular there were differences on the role of the centrality of the armed struggle in bringing about fundamental change.  On the question of the national convention as a basis for devising a constitution for a united, non-racial democratic South Africa, the Progressive Federal Party explained its position, that such a convention could only take place when certain conditions were met.
 The ANC stated that it does not consider that there is coming to be in the present moment, a climate under which to begin to consider a negotiated resolution of a crisis.  At the same time the ANC does not rule out for all time, either a convention as a mean of devising a constitution or negotiation as a means of resolving the crisis. 
 Both believe that one of the urgent issues is to secure the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and all political detainees.  
 In 1986, the Party's national Chairperson, Peter Gastrow, was charged with establishing an interaction section of the Party with a view to holding discussions with the UDF leadership figures.  Regrettably at the time, many of these persons involved, were either in detention or in hiding, and contact proved difficult.
 And finally several members of the PFP were amongst the delegation which travelled to Dakar to meet he ANC.  While the PFP did not organise this conference, and while the Party was severely criticised by the government for not disciplining such members, Mr Eglin who was the leader of the Party at the time, issued the following statement:
 We recognise the process of exploring ways and means of ending violence and of starting negotiations, will not be without risks.  It will at time involve talking to other South Africans, with who we may disagree on many issues.  Yet, frank and direct talking must take place if there is a prospect of peace.
 It is against this background,t hat I am satisfied that the PFP members who took part in the recent conference at Dakar, and who stated the PFP attitude both of violence and constitutional alternatives, made a positive contribution to the wellbeing of this country and of its people.
 I see there is another quote from Wimpie de Klerk, if you can endure it Chairperson.  Furthermore the Democratic Party has to its credit that it enjoyed access and was already involved in extensive unofficial negotiations with black extra-Parliamentary groups.  It was also stated publicly that they without the involvement of the government, were going to set up a negotiating table and that the ANC and Inkatha would participate.
 This too, made the government apprehensive that the initiative might slip from its hands.  Finally Chairperson, in this section, I want to just touch on the issue of harassment and manipulation.
 Over the years  there were numerous instances of harassment and intimidation of party members and supporters.  This was especially prevalent when party activists were engaged in activities that crossed the racial divide that existed in those days.
 However, we want to make it quite clear that this harassment and intimidation cannot be compared with the harsh and often brutal oppression of many of the apartheid's opponents who were active outside the Parliamentary system.
 Especially sinister feature  of government behaviour, one that undermined even the limited democracy that existed over that period, was the government's attempt to use the apparatus of the State to control and mould the thinking of white citizens both in favour of the ideology of apartheid and favour of support for the ruling National Party.
 This was attempted through a broad range of activities which included the control and the manipulation of information which was available to the government.  The manipulation of the dissemination of news and view through its control of radio and television broadcasting, restrictions on the press, clamp down on newspapers and the silencing of opponents of apartheid, the undermining of the institutions of civil society and finally the setting up of front organisations that promoted government propaganda behind the facade of independence and neutrality.