‘N VOLKSTAAT VIR DIE AFRIKANERVOLK ONDER DIE SOEKLIG. (Deel drie) - Afrikanervolksparty
‘N VOLKSTAAT VIR DIE AFRIKANERVOLK ONDER DIE SOEKLIG. (Deel drie)
Gepubliseer op 03 Mei 2016 | Geskryf deur Danie Varkevisser | | | Trefslae: 1256
In onlangse E-Posse tussen Jaap Kelder en Johann Wingard, is dit duidelik dat daar steeds agter die skerms gewerk word om met die regime te onderhandel oor ‘n volkstaat. Ek plaas ook hierdie korrespondensie as bevestiging.
Datum: 24 apr. 2016 10:33
Onderwerp: RE: selfbeskikking
Soos jy uit die aangehegte stukke gesien het is daar ‘n raamwerk vir ‘n Wet op Selfbeskikking gevestig. Die selfbeskikking wat verlang word is binne die raamwerk van die huidige Grondwet. Die regering erken die reg op selfbeskikking in die aangehegte skrywe. Dit sal dan ook die basis vorm waarop toekomstige onderhandelinge met die regering gebaseer sal wees.
Ons dink jy is baie optimisties indien jy dink dat die regering R 100m beskikbaar sal maak om die selfbeskikkings gedagte te steun. Ons verwag tipiese ANC ( kommunistiese) mooipraatjies en beloftes wat maar net mooi woorde gaan wees en beslis geen aktiewe ondersteuning nie. Ons is egter van mening dat ons die keer egter ons huiswerk deeglik gedoen het en is die raamwerk vir die voorgestelde Wet op Selfbeskikking, soos na verwys in par. 7 van die aangehegte skrywe, in plek. Daar sal dus op aangedring word dat verdere onderhandelinge met die regering moet plaasvind maar intussen moet diegene wat in selfbeskikking belangstel die geleentheid gegun word om ook vooraf insae te hê en bydraes te kan maak. (Ek aanvaar dat paragraaf 7, paragraaf 7 in die regime se brief aan die BAV is. DV van die AVP)
Graag verneem ons van jou, as voormalige voorsitter van die Volkstaat Raad, of jy enige insette, kommentaar of kritiek op die raamwerk vir selfbeskikking het.
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 2:29 PM
To: Jaap Kelder
Dit grief my om Louis vd Schyff se opsomming oor selfbeskikking te lees. Daarin toon hy dat hy die onderwerp en prosesse bloot nie verstaan nie. Onlangs het ek saam met Andries en Henk gaan eet en kon ons bietjie gedagtes uitruil voordat hulle 'n hoevlak besoek aan die ANC gebring het.
My raad was dat hulle die ANC se bereidwilligheid om hul verpligting teenoor artikel 235 te toets deur te versoek dat die regering 'n begroting van R100 miljoen beskikbaar te stel (soos hulle met die Khoisan gaan doen) om die Boere Afrikaners in staat te stel om interim strukture op te rig sodat hulle hul reg op selfbekikking grondwetlik
Maar Andries-hulle wou 'n ander roete volg en, soos ek voorspel het, het daar niks van die besoek gekom nie. Versoeke vir 'n volkstaat word volgens my ervaring met die volgende woorde begroet.
"Julle vra vir 'n volkstaat, maar die ANC het nie een om vir julle te gee nie. Kom met konkrete voorstelle en dan kan ons oor sy magte onderhandel"
Wat die politieke leiers van die volkstaatgesinde Afrikaners moet besef is dat die roete na 'n soewereine volkstaat loop eers deur interne selfbeskikking waarin nasionale en streekstrukture gebou word, waar die volkswil gebou word en waar die leierskap kwessies aangespreek word. Interne selfbeskikking gee ook geloofwaardigheid aan die Afrikaners se legitieme behoeftes en vermoe om in vrede met ander volke om hulle saam te leef en dat die volkstaat die ekonomie van Suid-Afrika deur sy ontwikkelingsprogramme sal help uitbou. Dit is presies wat die kantonmodel beoog en waarin plaaslike gemeenskappe van alle rasse ekonomies sal baatvind, elkeen op sy eie stukke grond.
Dit is 'n dwaling om te verwag dat die Grondwet 'n volkstaat belowe. Al wat dit doen is om die reg te skep waarin gemeenskappe oor eie plaaslike sake sake sal omsien. In ander lande word beplanning vir 'n volkstaat as sedisie beskou en is strafbaar met die doodstraf. Die regsomgewing word deur die grondwet geskep waarbinne Afrikaners hul volkskap kan uitlewe as hulle dit wil doen.
Maar ek is baie jammer om u mee te deel dat slegs 'n handjievol Afrikaners dit wil doen. Dit is waar die probleem gesetel is, nie by die grondwet of by die ANC nie.
Dit is waarom die Solidariteit Groep sulke waardevolle werk verrig deur die graaf te vat en te spit en alle beskikbare middele gebruik om ons regte af te dwing en sodoende die regering te laat besef dat Afrikaners nie nonsens vat nie.
Volkstaatpraatjies sonder 'n plan vir interne selfbeskikking is dagdromery.
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 07:56:43 +0000
Subject: FW: FW: Self Beskikings Wet 14 Sept 2015
Die AVP het onlangs besoek gehad met ‘n versoek om in te koop in ‘n nuwe poging tot konsolidasie van Afrikanerkrag. By die byeenkoms op Majuba vanjaar is daar verdere gesprek met my gevoer oor hierdie poging. Aanvanklik was die doelstelling vir hierdie samewerkingsooreenkoms waartoe ons versoek is om ons te verbind, nie duidelik nie en het die dagbestuur van die AVP duidelikheid daaroor aangevra.
Ons het die saak aan die Dagbestuur voorgelê: “ Die Afrikaner Volksparty is ten gunste van samewerking tussen enersdenkende volksgenote en organisasies en beskou dit as noodsaaklik. Ons is bereid tot samesprekings met sulke organisasies en hul leiers.
Ons wil onsself in die lig van die vele mislukte pogings in die verlede tot eendragtigheid sonder eenheid van beginselgrondslag, nie laat inbind in ’n nuwe poging voordat daar deeglik besin is oor die beginsels en doelstellings van so ’n organisasie nie. By gebrek aan spesifieke riglyne en beginsels, is ons van mening dat so ’n organisasie by herhaling nie suksesvol sal wees nie. Mislukte aksies in ons volk se vryheidstryd is demoraliserend en dra by tot verdere verlamming en verdeeldheid.”
In die gesprek by Majuba is dit egter duidelik aan ons gestel dat daar ‘n Afrikaner “magsblok” gevorm moet word. Op my vraag wat die doel met die magsblok is, was die antwoord dat ons dan uit ‘n posisie van krag met die regime kan gaan praat. My vraag oor wat die onderwerp van bespreking gaan wees, is onbeantwoord gelaat.
Die afleiding wat gemaak kan word in die lig van wat Jaap Kelder aan dr. Wingard kwytgeraak het, saamgelees met die besoek wat die AVP onlangs ontvang het en op Majuba bevestig is dat ‘n magsblok gevorm moet word om met die regime te kan onderhandel, verg nie veel verbeelding nie.
FLIP BUYS EN SOLIDARITEIT
Indien Flip Buys van Solidariteit se toespraak van 2 February 2016 oor multikulturalisme op uitnodiging van die F.W. Stigting saamgelees word, is dit glashelder duidelik dat die aanslag op die Afrikanervolk uit liberale Afrikanergeledere, nog lank nie verby is nie. Indien hierdie beskikbare inligting vanuit Afrikanerbedenklike bronne in die toekoms in projekteer word, is die uitkoms daarvan beslis nie in belang van die Afrikanervolk se vryheidstrewe nie. Inteendeel is dit ‘n ondersteuning van die vyande van die Afrikanervolk om ons hier uit te kry sodat die kreet van: “Africa for the Africans” ‘n werklikheid kan word.
Ek plaas dus ook Flip Buys se siening wat Solidariteit se rol, en daarmee saam ook dié van AfriForum blootlê sodat daar nugterheid kan kom oor wat hulle werklike siening van die Suid Afrikaanse situasie is en waarheen dit die Afrikanervolk sal lei indien hulle ons ondersteuning het. Dat sy betoog in Engels was is betekenisvol indien sy teikengehoor daaruit bepaal moet word. Dat dit “an Afrikaner Perspective” genoem word laat so ‘n wanstaltige beeld van ‘n Afrikaner uit sy bespreking na vore kom, dat dit haas onherkenbaar en kaalgestroop van nasionalisme, bankvas agter F.W. de Klerk se Rooivrydag toespraak inskuif, so versluierd en verskuil dat ‘n ware Afrikaner verstom sou staan indien hy hom hoor Afrikaans praat!
THE FUTURE OF MULTICULTURALISM IN SOUTH AFRICA: AN AFRIKANER PERSPECTIVE
Chairperson: Solidarity Movement
Mister De Klerk, Dr Eloff and other distinguished guests,
US Nobel Prize economist Milton Friedman said a policy should not be measured by
its intentions but by its outcomes. For this reason, this summit is very timely as it has
become necessary to reflect on the multicultural outcomes of the constitutional
dispensation to prevent us from ending up in an irreversible slide towards
2. The importance of multiculturalism
Political thinker Andrew Heywood expressed the view of a growing number of political
scientists that multiculturalism may become the ideology of the 21st century,i the
reason being that countries and communities are becoming increasingly multicultural
as a result of migration and global mobility. Heywood thus argues that the main
political issue present and future generations are facing is the quest to find ways in
which people from different cultural and religious traditions can live together in peace.
This reality has forced a growing number of Western states, including almost all the
member states of the European Union, to officially adopt multiculturalism and to
incorporate it in public policy.ii The question is how the growing cultural diversity in
most countries can be reconciled with national unity. The answer is to be found in
“unity in diversity” as key theme of multiculturalism and the foundation of the South
Multiculturalism presupposes a positive acceptance of diversity based on the right to
recognition of and respect for different cultural groups. The resulting policy is
characterised by the formal recognition of the particular needs of specific groups and
a desire to ensure equal opportunities for all. The aim is not to merely “tolerate”
cultural communities but to actively promote their interests.
A simple majoritarian democracy is too simplistic to regulate the complexities of a
multicultural society. In monocultural systems the individual rights and freedoms of
majorities automatically prevail over the individual rights of minorities. In such
systems, minorities will always have to fight for that which majorities accept as a
given, for example to decide on the language policy of their nearest school. However,
a monocultural system also easily leads to conflict because political competition
degenerates into competition between communities on the grounds of identity,
instead of being between individuals on the grounds of policy. According to US
political scientist Timothy Siskiii, the fact that minority communities enjoy voting rights
but not sufficient voting power, causes them to experience democracy not as a
freedom but as domination, given that minorities cannot easily safeguard their
fundamental interests democratically against political majorities.
A multicultural system, in contrast, leads to minorities participating in the fundamental
issues that affect them, ensuring that public policy reflects the interests of all people
and groups and not only those of the dominant groups. In this way, multiculturalism
can be regarded as a precondition for the equal enjoyment of the individual rights of
citizens. Put differently, it ensures equal citizenship. As Judge Albie Sachsiv had put
Equality means equal concern and respect across difference. It does not
presuppose the elimination or suppression of difference. Respect for human
rights requires the affirmation of self, not the denial of self. Equality therefore
does not imply a levelling or homogenisation of behaviour or extolling one
form as supreme, and another as inferior, but an acknowledgment and
acceptance of difference. At the very least, it affirms that difference should not
be the basis for exclusion, marginalisation and stigma. At best, it celebrates
the vitality that difference brings to any society.
Multiculturalism brings political arrangements in line with multicultural realities;
protects minorities from forced incorporation into the majority; prevents the alienation,
isolation, lack of power and political impotence of cultural minorities; it guarantees
their full participation in public life; and it ensures their loyalty to the country and the
nation because their fundamental interests are being protected. In this way, unity and
diversity are not opposite poles, as they are based on multiple identities that are
equal. All are South African citizens with full individual rights, at the same time all are
free to enjoy “cultural citizenship” of a particular cultural community.
Such “politics of recognition,” as the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylorv refers to
it, prevents the democratic exclusion of cultural minorities simply by virtue of their
numbers. Recognition of cultural communities safeguards individual rights; distributes
decision-making power more evenly; and prevents its monopolisation in the hands of
a ruling elite group originating from the majority, which only articulates and promotes
the interests of the majority. Such recognition protects a group’s way of life and limits
the negative consequences of unequal political power. This ensures group access to
government, deepens democracy and ensures democratic accountability and
3. Cultural liberty as model for multiculturalism
The UN’s influential Human Development Report 2004,vi titled “Cultural liberty in
today’s diverse world,” expounds in detail a workable model for multicultural
societies. The report describes cultural liberty as the freedom people have to choose
their own identity and to pursue it without prejudice. Johannesburg political scientist,
Professor Deon Geldenhuys, says that cultural rights, together with political, civil,
economic and social rights, have globally become inextricably part of the family of
human rights.vii The UN report also states that in the modern world of increasing
democratisation and global networks, policies that inhibit cultural liberties have
become less and less acceptable. The report strongly recommends cultural liberty in
multicultural countries, setting it as a vital precondition for peaceful coexistence and
national unity. It cautions against attempts to create, through nation-building,
culturally homogeneous states with a single identity. The latter is regarded as a
power political strategy that is irreconcilable with a democratic political culture.
Instruments of power, such as the centralisation of political power, refusing minority
groups to enjoy local autonomy, to pursue one official language and to follow an
education system that gives precedence to the language, history and symbols of one
group over that of other groups, are strongly denounced.
The report describes the violation of cultural liberty as an act that does not recognise
or respect the values, institutions and way of life of a cultural group, criticising it as
“cultural exclusion”. It distinguishes between two forms of cultural exclusion, namely
exclusion based on way of life and exclusion of participation. Exclusion based on way
of life takes place when a particular group’s preferred way of life is not recognised
with the insistence that all follow the same way of life. It could take the form of
restrictions on a group wishing to practise its language, culture or religion, such as
the prejudicing of a group’s language by introducing another language as the only
language in the civil service and education. The vandalising of a cultural group’s
statues is another good example.
The second type of prejudice pertains to participation exclusion in terms of which
there is discrimination insofar as political, economic or social opportunities are
concerned, for example exclusion when it comes to employment, business, education
and politics. The report emphasises that ensuring cultural liberty and preventing
cultural exclusion ask for more than the provision of civil and political freedom by
means of the democratic system. What are called for are multicultural policies which
have as point of departure that States should acknowledge cultural differences and
needs in their constitutions, legislation, policies and institutions.
Without cultural liberty democracy will, in practice, degenerate into freedom only for
4. The 1994 constitutional settlement
In a defining sense, the exchange of majority government for minority protection and
human rights constituted the essence of the 1994 settlement. This was achieved by
means of providing for the multicultural reality through the inclusion of comprehensive
constitutional protection for language and cultural communities. One of the underlying
assumptions was that language and cultural communities should have spaces where
they could be a majority to prevent every aspect of their existence being dominated
by demographic majorities. Thus political, cultural and even economic marginalisation
could be prevented and all could have citizenship of equal value.
The Constitution provides for 11 official languages; mother-language instruction
(including the provision for single medium institutions and universities, for example);
institutions for persons belonging to language, cultural and religious communities; the
values of freedom, human dignity and equality enshrined in the Bill of Rights; a ban
on unfair discrimination; the creation of a general council to protect the rights of
persons belonging to language, cultural and religious groups; the establishment of
councils for such communities and special constitutional institutions, such as Pansat,
to watch over democracy (and multiculturalism). Section 235 of the Constitution even
recognises the right to pursue various forms of self-determination.
The authors of the Constitution most likely heeded the warnings of statesmen such
as Henry Kissinger and multicultural society experts such as Donald Horowitz about
the challenges such countries pose for democracy.
Very significantly, Kissinger declared: “It is particularly important to understand the
obstacles to democracy in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. In the West,
democracy evolved in homogeneous societies. There was no institutional impediment
to the minority’s becoming a majority. Electoral defeat was considered a temporary
setback that could be reversed [in the West]. But in societies with distinct ethnic or
political divisions, minority status often means permanent discrimination and the
constant risk of political extinction.”viii
Donald Horowitz, author of the authoritative work, Ethnic groups in Conflictix, offered
the following advice: “For these societies, special sets of institutions seem to be
required to insure that minorities who might be excluded by majoritarian systems be
included in the decision-making process, and that inter-ethnic compromise and
accommodation be fostered rather than impeded”.
The alternative, Horowitz cautioned, was that white domination would simply be
replaced by black domination.
5. Constitutional theory versus political practice
South Africa is a multicultural country, and to make it work, we obviously have to
have a multicultural dispensation. The very theme of this conference hosted by the
De Klerk Foundation, however, is an indication that there is serious concern about
the future of multiculturalism. My interpretation is that there is a growing feeling that
our increasingly monocultural state is aiming at shaping the multicultural reality of the
country according to the government’s monocultural ideology.
Probably, the reason for this is that our multicultural reality clashes with government’s
political ideology of a monocultural nation. Instead of working with realities and
viewing culture communities as the constituent building blocks of the nation, the state
is trying to transform the realities according to a political ideology. The strategy to
achieve this is to attenuate nation-building and reconciliation to incorporation into the
majority. This is pursued by trying to transform the country and all its institutions into
demographic mirror images of the population composition by means of the state
ideology of transformation. In this way, peculiarly enough, under the banner of
promotion of diversity, the opposite, namely homogeneity, is enforced.
In this process, the ANC is achieving its aim of “African hegemony”, linked to ANC
control through their policy of cadre deployment. This is the essence of the decisions
of the ANC’s 1997 Mafikeng Conferencex where the policy of transformation was
accepted, a term which does not even appear in the Constitution. Where
transformation initially was embraced as a process to move away from apartheid, it
gradually became clear that the ultimate aim is directed at replacing the then white
domination by black African hegemony.
South Africa is now becoming a "transformation state instead of a constitutional
state", where the Constitution is interpreted within the framework of political
transformation instead of the political policy of transformation being interpreted within
the framework of the Constitution. While the wording of the Constitution has
remained essentially the same in spite of several amendments, in practice,
government is moving ever further away from many of the most important
constitutional provisions. The most important examples of this are the constitutional
provision for multilingualism which, in practice, has become English monolingualism;
equality which has become representivity, property rights which are being diluted; the
introduction of a welfare system under the banner of socio-economic rights; the coopting
or disempowerment of certain constitutional institutions by government; and
institutions for language and culture groups such as Pansat and the Commission for
the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic
Communities, where in practice nothing worth mentioning has happened.xi
In short, the ANC is using its overwhelming political power to undermine the
multicultural reality of the country and the constitutional provision for this, with a
monocultural political ideology. It is now nearing a point where the ANC’s opposition
to “Eurocentrism” has turned into the active promotion of Afrocentrism.
Among Afrikaners, a broad view is gaining ground that the ANC made concessions
during the constitutional negotiations to acquire power, but now they are using this
power to steamroller their original objectives. This is the reason for a growing
disillusionment with the ultimate result of the political changes for which most
Afrikaners voted enthusiastically in the early nineties. They thought it was essential
for black people to get full rights, but now they are concerned that the “revolution” has
been going beyond equal rights and that their own rights are now being prejudiced.
They wanted a fully-fledged democracy, but without their own democratic rights being
dominated. They thought it only fair that black people should get full civil rights and
equal opportunities, but they did not want to feel like second-class citizens
themselves. They voted for the abolition of racial discrimination, but they did not
expect to become the target of such discrimination themselves.
(Dit is ‘n fabrikasie en ‘n baie selektiewe omgang met die waarheid! Die meerderheid Afrikaners was hierteen gekant en het die regering gewaarsku dat alles wat Buys hierbo na verwys ons voorland sou wees indien de Klerk sou voortgaan met sy praktyk van gelykstelling en meerderheidsregering. Uitslae van verskeie tussenverkiesings het dit bevestig.
Hierdie was die kortsigtige en oportunistiese siening van die minderheid liberales in Suid Afrika vanuit die Engelse en Joodse “establishment” wat in 1948 gestuit is en ongekende hoogtes en voorspoed tot gevolg gehad het tot en met die sluipmoord op dr. Verwoerd. 1994 het die proses van multikulturalisme weer aangeskakel. Die pproses waarteen dr. Verwoerd in 1959 gewaarsku het die Afrikaner sou benadeel. ‘n Opsigtelike Poging van Buys om die fokus af te wend van die de Klerkregering as sou die Afrikaners in 1994 met hom saamgestem het!
Op 27 Januarie 1959 het dr. Verwoerd in ‘n toespraak verduidelik dat hy in die strewe na die ontwik¬keling van 'n eie nasionale identiteit vir die Bantoe, hy steeds 'n strenge skeiding maak. Hy was nie van plan om ooit toe te gee aan die druk van ontstamde Bantoeleiers wat onder die invloed van 'n ideologie soos die liberalisme of die Kommunisme verkeer het, wat die eie kultuur die rug toegekeer het, wat hom naas die blanke wou stel en wat nie teruggedeins het om van opruiing en geweld gebruik te maak nie. Dit het Verwoerd steeds verwerp as 'n valse uiting van die Bantoenasionalisme.) Insetsel AVP.
They thought it was only fair if the indigenous languages could achieve their full
potential, but they thought it could be done without Afrikaans being marginalised.
They agreed that black people should be empowered economically, but now they are
worried that the enrichment of the elite under the banner of black empowerment is
harming the country and could result in the disempowerment of many.
They wanted the ANC exiles to return from abroad, but they did not want
circumstances to change to such an extent that their own loved ones would have to
leave the country. They were of the opinion that Afrikaner control of state media
could not be justified, but they did not want this to be replaced by ANC control.
They believed that black people should get their fair share of taxpayers' money
without relinquishing their own fair share. They accepted that “black” history had to
get its fair place under the sun, but they did not want to see Afrikaner history being
criminalised. They understood the ANC’s point of view that their place names and
heritage should gain more recognition, but they did not want to see their own historic
names and heritage being marginalised without ado.
They appreciated the need for an improvement of black education, but now they feel
that the ANC is taking control of and anglicising Afrikaans education and institutions.
Initially, Afrikaners supported affirmative action, but they reject it being abused to
anglicise institutions and to bring them under ANC control through the ideology of
representivity. Afrikaner voters exchanged minority control for a democratic
constitutional state, but they are becoming most concerned that the country is
beginning to change into a transformation state. In short, many Afrikaners feel that
they voted for democracy but still ended up with a negotiated revolution.
There are no convincing signs that the ANC views the future as multicultural, but they
are using political power to block constitutional spaces for multiculturalism and are
forcing monoculturalism onto the country. I even want to go as far as to say that in
the ANC’s vision for the future there is no place for Afrikaners as a culture
community. Rather, they are striving for a dispensation where Afrikaans individuals
are incorporated into the majority by abandoning their insistence on their
constitutional rights as a culture community.
The fact that there are still single-medium Afrikaans schools and that in some places
space still remains for Afrikaans at university level is notwithstanding rather than
owing to the ANC. Civil society has to defend its obvious constitutional rights and
democratic space on a daily basis, and it is ironic that protecting these rights
nowadays is sometimes viewed as “rightist”. The ANC’s view of democracy
apparently is that even if they only get 51% of the vote, they still have to have 100%
of the power. They are clinging doggedly to obsolete notions such as “balance of
power”, instead of granting everybody a place under a multicultural sun in a spirit of
“balance of interests”. In this way, the gulf between constitutional and political spaces
is becoming ever wider.
6. Consequences of the slide towards monoculturalism (Rather Multiculturalism!! AVP)
The slide towards monoculturalism has already caused the Afrikaner’s constitutional
rights and fundamental interests drastic and irreparable damage.
I find it tragic that South Africa did not opt for a formal federal dispensation at the time
of major transition. The two main advantages of federalism are that it entrenches
multiculturalism more efficiently and that it limits the power of a centralist party. As
Lord Acton said: “Of all checks on democracy, federation has been the most effective
and the most congenial ... The federal system limits and restrains the sovereign
power by dividing it and by assigning to Government only certain defined rights. It is
the only method of curbing not only the majority but the power of the whole people.” It
is actually the only real check and balance there is: power must be balanced by
counter-power – not as is the case in the current system where power is balanced by
A federal dispensation entrenches multiculturalism precisely because cultural
communities are officially recognised and do not only have entrenched rights but also
constitutionally entrenched original powers to exercise them. The Achilles heel of
multiculturalism in South Africa is the fact that the majority may decide how minorities
may exercise their rights. This leans towards a system where we not only have a lack
of minority rights, but one that also entrenches majority rights in the name of
The starting point of a democratic multicultural strategy should therefore be the
protection of its constitutional spaces and the expansion of its political spaces.
Cultural freedom for cultural communities is not only a right but a prerequisite for
survival and individual rights. A multicultural system gives cultural communities a say
and the original decision-making powers regarding their fundamental interests,
instead of having to place all of it in the middle of the political arena where the
majority decides on it. This is not democracy but domination.
It would, however, not be fair to blame only the government for this. Karl Marx said
that the ideas of the ruling class become the ruling ideas of society, and this
corresponds with the ANC’s pursuit of a “hegemony of ideas”. To a large extent, the
party has succeeded in having its political ideology of transformation accepted as the
“ruling idea” of the state and of society. This resulted in a political ideology rather
than the Constitution becoming the “national norm” of the country, and this is being
pursued as the obvious benchmark for everything in the country by business people,
university councils, the civil service, journalists, academics, and increasingly by the
The elevation of the ruling party’s policy to the country’s ruling ideology has even
persuaded the councils of almost all the historically Afrikaans universities to pursue it
as par for the course. To a large extent a mainly depoliticised Afrikaans elite, in
general, no longer has the intellectual tools and the political and cultural selfconfidence
to protect the constitutional spaces for multiculturalism. Thus the gap
between constitutional theory and political practice widens. The result is that political
power eventually becomes stronger than constitutional authority, to the detriment of
the fundamental interests of cultural communities as well as the institutional
autonomy and academic freedom of these institutions. Perhaps the root cause of all
this is the naïve assumption that constitutional provision makes political action
7. Recommendations for the promotion of constitutional multiculturalism
7.1 Central role of civil society
It is clear that civil society will have to take responsibility for promoting constitutional
multiculturalism as the government’s stance in this regard is not merely neutral;
government is actively promoting monoculturalism.
The DA’s growth strategy requires that the party should reposition itself as a party for
the demographic majority in South Africa, and the party does not have the appetite to
make multiculturalism a significant part of its political platform. This is unfortunate,
since liberal parties, as parties standing for liberty and freedom, should provide space
to accommodate the freedom of cultural communities as well.
Sociologist Lawrence Schlemmer emphasised the role of civil society by stating that
“Minority groups in South Africa would therefore be well advised to develop strategies
for political participation which do not assume electoral growth and leverage.
Mobilisation for a more effective voice in civil society and in the lobbying process
seems to be the obvious strategy to follow”.
Philosopher Ernest Gellner considered a network of non-governmental organisations
to be the best way to balance the power of a ruling powerful monopoly. Organised
language and cultural communities promoting their rights and interests, form an
integral part of the checks and balances needed to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
Unfortunately, the political dynamics of the country make the forging of partnerships
with other language and cultural communities really difficult, because there are not
enough strong, organised cultural communities that have escaped the suction power
of the central government's political co-optation.
Therefore, the strategy of the Solidarity Movement, the largest institution in the
Afrikaans cultural community (350 000 families), is to provide essential services
through a family of strong self-help community organisations; Solidarity’s strategy
also includes engagement with authorities; using and protecting our constitutional
spaces and opportunities; and pursuing common interests with the majority.
In a multicultural country, few institutions will automatically reflect the composition of
the population. The democratic alternative should be that all institutions together
should reflect the demographics on account of the constitutional provision for
freedom of association. Cultural communities, wishing to exercise their democratic
right at, for instance, single-medium universities, should not merely be tolerated due
to democracy; they should be actively supported due to multiculturalism.
Forced transformation of all institutions to reflect the population composition
strengthens cultural dominance by the majority and entrenches monoculturalism
even further. The compulsion to make all institutions representative of the total
population is undemocratic and unconstitutional, and it will culminate in a
monocultural system where every aspect of the lives of minorities will be controlled
by the majority, as Mr De Klerk has repeatedly pointed out. However, as proclaimed
in the UN’s Human Development Report of 2004, “If the history of the 20th Century
showed anything, it is that the attempt either to exterminate cultural groups or to wish
them away, elicits a stubborn resilience”.
It is understandable that there might be concern that any recognition of cultural
diversity could hamper national unity. That is why unifying and common interests
should also be emphasised, instead of artificially imposing common beliefs by means
of clumsy nation-building strategies. These common interests that promote national
unity are issues such as the necessity to have a functioning and successful country;
peaceful coexistence and healthy race relations; a vibrant and growing economy that
can solve the problem of poverty in the country; a healthy environment; unifying
social values; upholding the rule of law; and a future in which everyone can live a
free, secure and prosperous life.
7.4 A political compromise
Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor said that intergroup trust in multi-ethnic
societies cannot be taken for granted but should always be regarded as work in
progress. There was a time when high levels of this essential trust did actually exist,
and then it was collated and institutionalised in the Constitution. However, Taylor
rightly points out that this cannot be a once-off process, and that this trust should be
renewed on a regular basis. The concern is that in South Africa, trust has reached
such a low point that we can call it a trust crisis. Therefore, the time has come to
renew the intergroup trust with a national dialogue that could lead to what Prof. Pierre
du Toit called a “follow-up settlement”; this amounts to preventative maintenance of
multiculturalism and the constitutional dispensation. However, the current political
realities complicate the chances of reaching such an agreement, and in future it will
become increasingly difficult to realise our constitutional language and cultural rights.
It nonetheless remains essential to reduce the growing gap between the
constitutional multicultural spaces and the shrinking political space to accommodate
8. The future of multiculturalism in South Africa
Over the years, there were many discussions between the Afrikaner cultural
community and the government regarding the relentless movement towards
monoculturalism despite the lip-service paid to the multicultural spaces in the
Constitution. Unfortunately, these discussions have not yet resulted in a fixed
outcome despite all the burning issues pointed out.
Despite this, the Constitution and the United Nations’ Human Development Report
provide promising starting points on which to build. There are at least three
possibilities that can be discussed with the government, namely a cultural follow-up
settlement, a cultural contract between the government and minority groups, and a
charter of cultural rights and freedoms that can be included in the Constitution as a
supplement to the Human Rights Charter.
Of course, the ANC will not easily be persuaded to respect the existing constitutional
spaces for multiculturalism and to implement the recommendations of the relevant
UN report. However, history has shown time and time again that in our current day
and age, no government can indefinitely ignore credible calls for (cultural) freedom.
Lobbying among all communities in South Africa and abroad will be required in order
to realise this dream.
The growing crisis in the country can force the ANC to face reality and to realise that
they do not have the ability to overcome the country’s problems on their own.
However, unless this happens, the chances of a comprehensive political realignment
or a follow-up settlement is small, and other solutions for the current cul-de-sac in
which the country finds itself will have to be sought.
In practice, numerous discussions and meaningful negotiations actually do take place
at other levels, such as at local government level with municipalities about service
delivery, where many local authorities have partnered with AfriForum to resolve local
crises. This also applies to cases where the Solidarity trade union participates in
discussions with the authorities on issues of common interest, such as crises in the
Therefore, the Solidarity Movement will continue its strategy to declare its willingness
to hold meaningful discussions with government; to create realities that must be
recognised; and to promote the conditions for successful agreements, such as
improving the balance of power, forging partnerships, and, through numerous
discussions and negotiations, to actually negotiate a comprehensive series of “followup
settlements” as one central agreement.
Although, due to circumstances a negotiating strategy for a follow-up settlement or
settlements cannot be the main strategy for multiculturism, it remains an important
part of a future strategy to make Afrikaners permanently free, safe and prosperous.
This is the condition in terms of which Afrikaners will be able to make a sustainable
contribution to the wellbeing of the country and all its people.
(Die teenstrydigheid in hierdie toespraak dui onteenseglik op die onhaalbaarheid van die uitgesproke verwagtings. Politieke insig van leiers soos dr. Verwoerd wat die ganse Afrikanervolk van sy tyd deur logiese beredenering kon oortuig om by nasionalisme te bly terwille van hulle behoud en die van al die volke betrokke, is in die wind geslaan met die onafwendbare gevolge wat nou op die rekening van die ANC gepak word. Dink hierdie politieke kranksinniges dat die Afrikanervolk ‘n klomp idiote is? AVP)
i Heywood, A. 2007. Political Ideologies. 4th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. New York. p. 330.
ii Heywood, p 312.
iii Sisk, T, 1996. Power Sharing and International Mediation in Ethnic Conflicts, United States
Institute of Peace, Washington DC.
iv Sachs, A In Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC)
v Taylor, C. 1994. Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition”. Princeton University
vi United Nations Human Development Report 2004. Cultural liberty in today’s diverse world.
vii Geldenhuys, D. 2011. ’n Strategie vir kulturele vryheid in Suid-Afrika. ABN lecture given on
viii Kissinger, H. 2004. Bush and a scared new world. Tribune Media services.
ix Horowitz, D. 2001. Ethnic groups in conflict. University of California Press. Berkeley.
x Du Toit, P. 2009. Suid-Afrika en die saak vir ’n opvolgskikking. Paper deliverd at a
xi Malan K. Observations on representivity, democracy and homogenization TSAR 2010 (3)