FT922-840 _AN-CFYA4AFDFT 920625 FT 25 JUN 92 / A battle of political wills: South Africa's latest bout of violence may yet prove a spur to political reform By MICHAEL HOLMAN and PHILIP GAWITH South Africa is being given a look into what might be its future, and it is likely to prove a salutary experience. Township slaughter and trigger-happy police have raised fears that constitutional negotiations, already deadlocked, will be abandoned. An apocalyptic vision of a country slipping into ungovernability is gripping South Africa. For the past 24 hours, the African National Congress (ANC) and the government have been locking horns in a dramatic test of political will which could either break the deadlock or push the country towards disaster. Last night's angry rejection by the ANC of President FW de Klerk's proposal of a two-day meeting to break the deadlock may suggest that South Africa is moving towards the abyss. But the more likely outcome is that the days ahead will see both sides make clear that they see no alternative to the negotiating table. The present crisis reflects a deep distrust between the two sides and the wide gap over constitutional objectives. But the tragedies - the latest in political violence that has cost more than 13,000 lives since 1984 - may yet turn out to have provided an impetus to the talks, and not to have sounded their death knell. Politicians' minds are being concentrated by a week which has had all the ingredients of recurring South African nightmares. Sharpeville in 1960, the 1976 Soweto students' uprising, the township wars of 1984-86 - all are etched in the country's memory. Boipatong, until now an anonymous shanty township near Johannesburg, joined this list last Wednesday. Unknown assailants slaughtered 42 residents including a pregnant woman and a baby. The ANC blamed supporters of Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi's Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), and accused the security forces of complicity. Three days later, police opened fire on unarmed demonstrators, protesting against the massacre, killing three people, and an outraged Mr Nelson Mandela announced the suspension of constitutional negotiations. Thus began South Africa's latest crisis, with the financial rand - the investment currency - falling nearly 7 per cent in one day, talk of renewal of sanctions, and calls for the involvement of the United Nations. The sense of crisis deepened as old political instincts rapidly resurfaced. Mr Mandela threatened 'mass action', a series of strikes, demonstrations and boycotts. President FW de Klerk, driven by angry residents out of Boipatong where he had gone to express his sympathy, took refuge in kragdadigheid - the iron fist used by his predecessors - hinting at a government crackdown. By Monday, however, as fury at home was matched by outrage abroad, the full enormity of the crisis was dawning on a government that had become over-confident, forcing President de Klerk to cut short a visit to Spain and return in time for yesterday's cabinet meeting. Were South Africa a democracy, Mr de Klerk's party would be out of office, racial politics aside. Two official investigations into government departments or agencies have revealed fraud running into millions of rands. A combination of press inquiries and judicial investigations have produced powerful evidence of state involvement in violence against its political opponents, particularly the ANC. Mr de Klerk's belief in his cause seemed undented, however, contributing to his failure to grasp the consequences of seemingly endemic violence on the peace process. Buoyed by the referendum in March in which 69 per cent of whites endorsed his reform programme, the president has been able to point to a string of successes: the repeal of most sanctions, re-entry into the international sports arena (now in jeopardy), and warm receptions in formerly hostile countries. But central to his confidence is Mr de Klerk's belief that the National party can lead a winning alliance in South Africa's post-apartheid elections. Far from being depressed at the deadlock at last month's Convention for a Democratic South Africa (Codesa), the multi-party negotiating forum, Mr de Klerk seemed unshaken in his belief that his party would remain central to the government of a future South Africa. In private at least, ANC officials acknowledge that the electoral arithmetic gives them food for thought. It assumes that the bulk of white voters (14 per cent of the population) would vote for Mr de Klerk. Both the coloured (9 per cent) and Indian communities (3 per cent) could be drawn into a minority parties alliance in which the other leading black participant would be Chief Buthelezi and his Inkatha Freedom party, drawing support from the country's 6m Zulus, 21 per cent of the black population. The right-wing Conservative party (representing about a third of white voters) would, it is argued, have no choice but to join South Africa's 'rainbow coalition'. Put this calculation in the context of the government's constitutional proposals, and the ANC's unease deepens. Mr de Klerk envisages not only power-sharing in an executive, whose composition would reflect the principle of proportional representation. At the Codesa negotiations the government has insisted on a decentralised administration, giving provincial assemblies considerable autonomy, with their powers entrenched in the constitution. Such a system offers Chief Buthelezi the possibility of securing Natal as his fiefdom, and the prospect of a Cape Province run by whites and coloureds whose combined population outnumbers that of blacks. Add to this strategy the existing white dominance of commerce, the civil service and the security forces, and Mr de Klerk's confidence seems understandable. It is against this backdrop, say ANC officials, that the violence can be explained. The brutality, they claim, is intended to consolidate Inkatha's hold on Natal, where some of the worst violence has taken place, make support for the ANC dangerous and persuade ethnic minorities to choose the side with the greater firepower. But other explanations of the slaughter include allegations that it is the ANC which has been responsible. A leading South African commentator yesterday contrasted the outrage over Boipatong with the muted protest over the slaughter of at least 23 people at the Crossroads squatter camp east of Johannesburg last April. The fundamental difference behind the response both at home and abroad, notes the commentator, is that 'Boipatong is a township in which the ANC is the dominant political organisation; the IFP is paramount in Crossroads'. Wherever the truth lies, the ANC is discovering that an interim government will not be achieved on the terms it anticipated. Earlier this year, Mr Mandela said agreement on such a government was imminent, and his supporters' frustrations are mounting. The reality is that neither the ANC nor the government entered the May talks with an accurate assessment of the other's position. They underestimated their policy differences, partly through failing to take each other's stated position seriously, and failed to realise the limits of their powers. The negotiations are only now starting to grapple with the fundamental problem of how to reconcile majority rule and minority rights. The parties have sprinted through the preliminaries, creating a false sense of optimism about the speed with which agreement can be reached on fundamentals. Premature electioneering, in which Mr Mandela and Mr de Klerk increasingly see each other as rivals in the battle for power rather than partners in the transition from apartheid, is also poisoning the atmosphere. The wrong constitutional mix, warned Mr John Kane-Berman, executive director of the South African Institute of Race Relations, an independent research body, could exacerbate violence and civil strife. 'We do not want a constitution which, like the Treaty of Versailles, merely lays the foundations of the next war.' The days ahead will show how much has been learnt by the negotiators from the impasse reached last month. For its part, the ANC has so far performed adeptly, doing enough to reflect the anger of its supporters, while setting terms for the resumption of talks which should fall within the government's grasp. Some are not new and have already been accepted in principle by the government. These include a commitment to an interim government, hunting out rogue elements in the security forces and abolishing the hostels whose residents have been responsible for many of the killings. The main stumbling block may be the ANC call for an international commission of inquiry into the Boipatong massacre. But middle ground may be found. Mr de Klerk yesterday pointed to the standing inquiry by a South African judicial commission into political violence which has been critical of the security forces. The same judge, who is about to investigate the Boipatong tragedy, could be assisted by an assessor 'of international repute'. The government also appears to be softening its resistance to international monitoring, with delegations from the Commonwealth and the Organisation of African Unity among the visitors to troubled townships. The main question is whether Mr de Klerk and his cabinet have been jolted out of their complacency by the events of the past few days, and now accept that only a genuine attempt to tackle violence at its core will create the right climate for talks. The imperatives driving the government to the negotiating table are as strong as ever, whether an economy in recession or the prospect of a repeat of the insurrection in the townships in the mid-1980s. For Mr Mandela the threat of 'mass action' could prove a two-edged sword. He cannot afford to ignore that part of his constituency which consists of frustrated youths who boycotted their schools in order to man the barricades in the townships. Competing for their loyalty is the radical Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) which has remained aloof from Codesa, arguing that it will lead nowhere. What Professor Frederick van Zyl Slabbert, a leading commentator, described as a 'massive growing young black population, increasingly urbanised, yet unskilled, unemployed and politically volatile' may well interpret Mr Mandela's appeal for action as a renewed call to the barricades. The Financial Times London Page 18