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