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

MRS SUZMAN: This is headed Mr Chairman, the formation of the Progressive Party, then known as the PP.  It was in the above-mentioned context as James has pointed out, that the Progressive Party which was the DP's predecessor, was formed and in which it operated.
 It was formed in November 1959 as the result of a break away from the United Party.  It consisted of 12 MP's, 11 of us were then United Party MP's and we were joined by Walter Stanford, who was a native representative and a member of the Liberal Party.
 Several MPC's  belonging to the United Party, joined us and a number of erstwhile supporters of the UP and of the Liberal Party.  The leader of the Progressive Party was Dr Jannie Steytler, MP and Harry Lawrence, who was a former Minister of Justice in the UP government and was its Chairman and of course a front bencher.
 The PP was established as a liberal, democratic party.  It was from its inception, non-racial and its policy committed it to the promotion of individual freedom to protecting the dignity of the individual, to upholding the rule of law and to advancing equality of all before the law.
 Its constitutional policy adopted in 1960, mainly as a result of the Molteno Commission, proposed the calling of a national convention to adopt a constitution for the country which would be both non-racial and democratic on a federal basis.
 Originally the policy proposed a non-racial but qualified franchise, based on minimum education and property qualifications for all adult citizens.  This was changed in 1978 to universal adult franchise.  Because of its commitment to these policies, the Progressive Party opposed apartheid in all its manifestations. 
 It opposed the repression of individual liberties by the State, it opposed violence in all its forms including violence inherent in State policies.  Violence perpetuated by the State to enforce its policies and violence by others in pursuit of political objectives.
 However, in respect of violence, the Progressive Party consistently pointed out that the continuant deprivation of political and other rights, would inevitably lead to  ever more violence and counter-violence.
 Now, I want to say something about the legislative face of the apartheid system and the Progressive Party opposition.  The first test of this commitment to human rights and aversion to violence, occurred in 1960 after the Sharpville massacre when the Unlawful Organisations Bill was debated in the House of Assembly.
 The Bill which banned the ANC and the PAC, was introduced by the National Party and supported by the United Party.  The Progressive Party moved as an amendment that the Bill be read this day six months, which was then the most extreme form of Parliamentary disapproval.
 The PP voted against the first, second and third readings which was a very unusual step at that time.  Speaking on the Bill, Colin Eglin said:  This government has been denying the right of expression to even moderate Africans in South Africa and the inevitable effect of this, not only in South Africa, but in any country in the world, would be to drive people to extremism.
 This Bill, though it is a display of "kragdadigheid" on the part of the government, will do nothing to solve our present problems.   This remedies nothing, it merely drives the African political organisations underground.
 And I added in the debate the lesson this country should learn is that putting down a movement which is devoted no non-violent measures, simply means that organisations which are devoted to violent measures, will arise.
 Banning people does not mean that ideas disappear.  It simply means that people go underground, that things are more difficult to control and you do not stop the rebellion that goes on in people's hearts against genuine grievances and genuine disabilities.
 Neither of these impassioned addresses had any effect on the government.  The Bill went through with the support both of the National Party and the United Party.
 During the period between 1960 and 1990, the South African Parliament passed a myriad of pieces of apartheid legislation.  These fall into two distinct categories, those which sought to implement the policy and those which provided the State with the coercive power with which to govern in the face of popular opposition.
 In 1961, Dr Verwoerd called a general election after South Africa became a  Republic and left the Commonwealth.  Mrs Suzman, that is myself, was the only PP member to retain my seat in Parliament.   A situation which remained until the 1974 election, when with the PP now under the leadership of Colin Eglin, an additional six Progressive Party members were elected.
 During my 13 years as the lone Progressive, during which time I was faced with looks of unremitting hostility, both to the right, to the left, in front of me and behind me, I opposed the introduction of every law which extended the apartheid system.
 I was the sole opposition vote on many occasions, such as 1963 and 1967, when the two very oppressive laws of the 90 day detention law and (indistinct) were introduced.  I might say after those laws were passed, the United Party connived with the Whips of the National Party to get voting procedure in Parliament changed so that four members were required to stand up and demand a division.
 Now, since I was the only member and I have been demanding divisions, and the United Party was sick and tired of having to cross the floor and sit among the National Party benches, leaving me alone, on all those empty green benches, they wanted the voting changed and with four members required, which I did not have as support, it simply meant that those in opposition had their names recorded and there was no physical crossing of a floor.
 It was an important psychological act on the part of both the UP and the Nats.
 I used the Parliamentary forum to extract information by way of many questions, sometimes as many as 200 per session.  And to expose the brutalities of the system by means of speeches and private members' motions.
 I think my efforts were particularly valuable during the repeated declarations of states of emergency, when publication of so-called unrest related incidents was prohibited, yet statements made in Parliament were excluded from such prohibition.
 As you can well imagine, the press found this very valuable at that time.  If I made statements in Parliament or extracted answers from the government, relating to unrest incidents, they could publish them.  I raised numerous unpopular issues in Parliament, such as the repeal of the Immorality Act, the Abolition of the Death Sentence, Amnesty for Political Prisoners, and Liberation of our Abortion Laws.
 I repeated the opposed legislation which authorised the government to continue to hold the PAC leader, Robert Sibukwe in prison even after he had served the prison sentence which had been passed on him.
 I opposed the banning order which was served on him when he was eventually released from jail.  I used my position as an MP to visit prisons, in an effort to improve conditions there and it was there on Robben Island that I first met President Nelson Mandela, Mr Mandela as he then was and his fellow prisoners.
 I raised the plight of detainees and banned persons, went to see for myself the resettlement areas to which people had been forcibly removed.
 I aired all the information so obtained in Parliament as a result of which my statements were widely publicised here and abroad.  What I wish to emphasise here is that in all these efforts I knew that I had the support of my former Parliamentary colleagues in the DP, in the PP.  In fact I frequently consulted Mr Eglin, Harry Lawrence, Clive van Ryneveldt and other former Parliamentary colleagues and I always had their support.
 And I also had the support of the hundreds of members of the Progressive Party in South Africa.  Am I supposed to go on?