The SANDF will continue to defend democracy

Yesterday we were in Maseru on an official visit to Lesotho, at the invitation of Prime Minister Pakalitha Mosisili. The purpose of the visit was to discuss ways and means by which we could strengthen the bilateral relations between our two countries, for the benefit of both our peoples.

The last time I was in Maseru was in 1998. I visited Maseru on behalf of our government, more than once, to encourage the sister people of Lesotho to find a peaceful solution to problems that had arisen in the aftermath of the general elections held that year. Those efforts failed.

As the crisis worsened, it became clear that the country was rapidly progressing towards an overthrow of the democratically elected government and the installation of a military regime. The elected government appealed to us, both as a neighbour and one of the SADC guarantors of an earlier peace and stability agreement of 1994, to intervene, to help defend the democratic order and to assist in the creation of a situation of normality.

We made renewed efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Among other things, this entailed sending various members of our government, including the then Minister of Defence Joe Modise to Maseru to talk to everybody concerned. This also meant negotiating with the leaders of the various security forces of Lesotho to convince especially these that all the issues in contention in Lesotho at the time were capable of being resolved peacefully. Unfortunately, these last-minute efforts also failed.

Accordingly, at the request of the democratically elected government of Lesotho and on the basis of the SADC mandate of 1994, we had to take the difficult decision whether or not to send into Lesotho units of the South African National Defence Force to defend democracy and peace. With the Hon Mangosuthu Buthelezi as Acting President, our government took the correct and principled decision to deploy these units.

The sister Government of Botswana took a similar decision and despatched units of the Botswana Defence Force, which, together with the SANDF, constituted the SADC Lesotho peacekeeping force. Officers of the Zimbabwe Defence Force later joined them.

Our soldiers went to Lesotho as peacemakers and not as a combat force ready to kill. They went to Lesotho as peacekeepers and not to enforce the peace, to use the categories used by the United Nations. But when these peacekeepers made their very first approach to a military establishment in Maseru, they were met with withering fire that claimed the lives of some of our soldiers, including medical personnel.

Accordingly, our military forces had no choice but to act in their own defence and to suppress the armed rebellion that sought to establish itself by force of arms, as the government of Lesotho. The situation was worsened by the riots and looting that broke out in Maseru, resulting in large-scale theft from various businesses and the destruction of a number of buildings.

To escape the mayhem, a significant number of Basotho crossed the border into our country to seek refuge. Both our national government and the government of the Free State acted immediately to protect and extend humanitarian assistance to these refugees.

In addition to this, when we asked the administrations and the students at the Universities of the Free State and the North Qwaqwa campus, to send people to Maseru to help Justice Pius Langa to review the ballots of the 1998 elections, both universities responded immediately. Our student youth then did an excellent job of the task they were given. They worked without any pay because they formally resolved that they were involved in work of national importance for which they could not ask for remuneration.

As they grieved over the loss of their loved ones, the families of our martyred soldiers, both black and white, expressed pride at the fact that those close to them had died with honour, as they discharged their responsibilities as defenders of the objectives spelt out in our national constitution.

When all this was happening, some political groups in our country, that are opposed to our government, took it upon themselves to campaign against the deployment of the SANDF units in Lesotho and the whole process of the defence of democracy and peace in Lesotho. They teamed up with some Lesotho citizens to find fault and discredit the entire SADC process, for reasons that have still to be explained to the peoples of Southern Africa and the world.

Although we are less than three years away from all these events, during which some of our soldiers laid down their lives for democracy and peace outside our own borders, many in our country have but a vague recollection of that history. Yet the story of what happened in Maseru in 1998 was a defining moment for the young democratic Republic of South Africa.

It was such a defining moment because it was the first time that we had the possibility to demonstrate in a particular way, that democratic South Africa was committed to the defence and advancement of democracy, peace and stability throughout our Continent. Unfortunately, the blood our soldiers shed in Maseru also defined this moment.

The heroes and patriots who died during this mission of peace will remain through time as the examples that will inspire all our people to contribute what we can, to democracy, peace and stability both in our country and throughout the world.

Our visit to Maseru yesterday was only possible because we made this commitment. It could only occur because a democratically elected government invited us to visit Maseru and not those who had thought they could impose themselves on the people of Lesotho by force of arms.

In that sense, our visit to Maseru constituted our own salute as a country and a people to Lesotho and its people for everything they have done to overcome the crisis of 1998 and to set themselves on a firm course further to entrench democratic rule. But it was also a journey of homage to our soldiers, who selflessly surrendered their lives in Lesotho.

Today, we have soldiers in other parts of our Continent, as contingents of the United Nations, deployed as peacemakers. They are on the Ethiopian-Eritrean border and in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Undoubtedly, they will be called upon to serve elsewhere on our Continent, as defenders of democracy, peace and stability. This has already been suggested with regard to Sierra Leone and Comoros.

In addition to such missions, our soldiers have also carried out humanitarian and other tasks elsewhere on our Continent and will continue to discharge such responsibilities. For example, both last year and this year, the National Defence Force had to go to Mozambique to help this sister people to contend with the problem of floods.

The SANDF has also been deployed in Tanzania twice. On one occasion this was to help recover hundreds of bodies in Lake Victoria after a ferry had sunk with hundreds of people on board. On another occasion, we had to assist as the government dealt with extensive damage caused by floods. Concern for the lives and welfare of the ordinary people of these countries obliged us to respond positively to urgent requests sent by the governments of Mozambique and Tanzania, which were themselves driven by the same concern.

For us to execute all these tasks, inside and outside our country, whether for purposes of peacekeeping or peace enforcement, humanitarian support or safety and security in our country, we require to maintain the kind of modern, efficient and effective National Defence Force that our Constitution calls for.

The same political forces in our country that opposed the defence of democracy and peace in Lesotho are, today, in the forefront of a desperate effort to ensure that our National Defence Force does not have the capacity that our Constitution requires.

Basing themselves on "allegations" from faceless persons, and regardless of the unwarranted criminal damage to individuals, organisations, the government and the country, these forces are intent to do everything in their power to spread rumours, to destabilise the country and ultimately to secure the cancellation of the defence acquisition contracts.

For this purpose, they are also determined to discredit the institutions of state charged with the responsibility to investigate any possible wrong doing with regard to this acquisition process. As the country knows, these are the Auditor General, the Public Protector and the National Director of Public Prosecutions.

To serve their purposes, these opposition forces have set themselves the task to destroy the credibility of these constitutional bodies, to encourage contempt for our entire democratic state system and to foment a situation of ungovernability.

Proceedings from these positions, rather than submit the "allegations" they claim to have, to the official investigators, they misuse the media for very destructive purposes of rumour mongering. These same forces were as determined in their actions in 1998, to ensure that we fail in our mission to act together with the rest of SADC and the government and people of Lesotho, to defend democracy and peace in that country.

Our people paid a very high price to ensure that ours becomes a democratic country. All of us put enormous energy to ensure that we have a constitutional and political order that guarantees the permanence of the right of the people to govern. As the ANC, we are proud to say that our leaders, members and supporters paid the supreme price to ensure that these results are achieved.

Others who were involved in this noble and difficult struggle, including other countries and peoples, especially in our region, also willingly sacrificed everything to ensure that South Africa ceases to be an apartheid country but a non-racial democracy. We remain ready to do whatever is necessary to defend our democratic gains.

But we must now recognise the fact that, however, there are other South Africans who have clearly decided to use these democratic gains to do things other than strengthen democracy in our country as well as our region, as happened in the case of Lesotho. The question that arises and must be posed is - in whose interests are they acting?

Anti-HIV/Aids drugs

New US guidelines make the case for ongoing scientific inquiry

In Vol 1 No 4 of this journal we carried reviews of articles on HIV/AIDS that had appeared in two United States publications. Both these articles reported on forthcoming new guidelines on the use of anti-HIV drugs that the US government would issue. These were issued on February 5, this year as "HIV Treatment Guidelines Updated for Adults and Adolescents".

In this article, for the information of our readers, we will quote some elements from these guidelines to illustrate the critical importance of a considered and scientific response to the questions posed especially in the New York Times article. We would also suggest that our readers should familiarise themselves with the contents of the Interim Report of the Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel, especially the further scientific work the panel decided to embark upon.

We believe that the quotations from the guidelines that follow emphasise the importance and urgency of this scientific work.

The press statement issued to announce the Guidelines quotes Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the (US) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and co-chair of the panel that drew up the guidelines as saying: "Although anti-retroviral therapy has provided extraordinary benefits to many patients, we know that we cannot eradicate HIV infection with currently available medications. We also recognise that serious toxicities are associated with long-term use of anti-retroviral drugs."

As foreseen by the US publications we cited, the guidelines lay down a radical departure from previous practice in the following terms: "The new Guidelines recommend considering starting anti-retroviral therapy when an asymptomatic HIV-infected person's CD4+T-cell count falls below 350 cells per cubic millimetre (mm³); previous Guidelines recommend consideration of therapy for asymptomatic patients with a CD4+T-cell count lower than 500 cells/mm³."

"For asymptomatic HIV-infected patients with CD4+T-cell counts higher than 350 cells/mm³, treatment should be considered when the level of HIV in plasma is high (more than 30,000 copies per millilitre (ml) when using the branched DNA test, or more than 55,000 copies/ml when using the RT-PCR test); previous Guidelines recommended consideration of therapy at lower levels of plasma HIV (10,000 copies/ml measured by branched DNA, or 20,000 copies/ml measured by RT-PCR)."

For our readers to understand how radical these changes are and what this means in terms of the science of HIV/AIDS, we propose that you refer to the article in Business Week we reviewed in an earlier edition.

The same press release to which we have referred quotes John G. Bartlett, M.D., chief of the division of infectious diseases at the Johns Hopkins University Medical Center and CO-chair of the Panel that produced the Guidelines as saying: "The updated guidelines recognise that we do not yet have the data we need to make definitive recommendations about the optimal time to start treatment. We highlight the uncertainty, allow for flexibility, encourage an individualised approach to treatment, and, at the same time, try to provide guidance."

The release further quotes Dr Fauci as saying: "We are very concerned about a number of toxicities associated with the long-term use of anti-retroviral drugs. Particularly alarming is the alteration of fat metabolism that can emerge during treatment. We are seeing an increasing number of patients with dangerously high levels of cholesterol and triglycerides. The good news is that new anti-HIV treatments have dramatically improved the quality of life for many patients, and the incidence of AIDS and AIDS-related deaths has dramatically decreased. The bad news is that we now must find ways to deal with unanticipated toxicities, including the potential for premature coronary disease."

In the Summary, the guidelines spell out a number of recommendations, including:

• "Care should be supervised by an expert."
• "Therapeutic decisions require a mutual understanding between the patient and the health care provider regarding the benefits and risks of treatment."
• "Patient education and involvement in therapeutic decisions is important for all medical conditions, but is considered especially critical for HIV infection and its treatment."
• "Anti-retroviral regimens are complex, have major side effects, pose difficulty with adherence, and carry serious potential consequences from the development of viral resistance due to non-adherence to the drug regimen or suboptimal levels of anti-retroviral agents."

Later, the Guidelines contain the following recommendations, among others:

"Decisions regarding initiation or changes in anti-retroviral therapy should be guided by monitoring the laboratory parameters of plasma HIV RNA (viral load) and CD4+ T-cell count, as well as the clinical condition of the patient. Results of these two laboratory tests give the physician important information about the virologic and immunologic status of the patient and the risk of disease progression to AIDS."

"Before initiating therapy in any patient, however, the following evaluation should be performed:

• Complete history and physical;
• Complete blood count, chemistry profile (including serum transaminases and lipid profile);
• CD4+ T lymphocyte count;
• Plasma HIV RNA Measurement."

"Additional evaluation should include routine tests pertinent to the prevention of OIs (opportunistic infections), if not already performed (RPR or VDRL, tuberculin skin test, toxoplasma IgG serology, and gynecologic exam with Pap smear), and other tests as clinically indicated (e.g., chest X-ray, hepatitis C virus (HCV) serology, ophthalmologic exam). Hepatitis B virus (HBV) serology is indicated is a patient who is a candidate for the hepatitis B vaccine or has abnormal liver function tests, and CMV serology may be useful in certain individuals, as discussed in 'USPHS/IDSA Guidelines for the Prevention of Opportunistic Infections in Persons Infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus."

"Potential benefits of early therapy include earlier suppression of viral replication; preservation of immune function; prolongation of disease-free survival; and decrease in the risk of viral transmission. Risks include i) the adverse effects of the drugs on quality of life; ii) the inconvenience of most of the suppressive regimens currently available leading to reduced adherence; iii) development of drug resistance over time because of early initiation of therapy; iv) limitation of future treatment options due to premature cycling of the patient through the available drugs; v) the risk of transmission of virus resistant to anti-retroviral drugs; vi) serious and unknown toxicities associated with some anti-retroviral drugs (e.g., elevations in serum levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, alterations in the distribution of body fat, insulin resistance and even frank diabetes mellitus); and vii) the unknown durability of effect of the currently available therapies."

"It is necessary for the patient to be entered into a continuum of medical care and services, including social, psychological, and nutritional services, with the availability of expert referral and consultation. In order to achieve the maximum flexibility in tailoring therapy to each patient over the duration of his or her infection, it is imperative that drug formularies allow for all FDA-approved NRTI, NNRTI, and PI as treatment options."

The readers should bear in mind that these guidelines were drawn up by US scientists, based on US experience. Nevertheless their applicability extends beyond the US, in as much as the drugs used in the US are the same as those used in the rest of the world, including South Africa.

The reader should also note that the US scientists take great care to emphasise that not enough is known about HIV/AIDS for them to set guidelines without qualifying these with many observations intended to introduce as much 'flexibility' as possible. Accordingly, they advise that everything is relative and provisional and requires specific responses to each individual patient, under the supervision of experts on the use of anti-retroviral drugs. Furthermore, they advise a comprehensive diagnostic approach to each patient to establish the overall health status of each patient including sustained hi-tech medical, psychological, social and nutritional support for each patient.

In sum, the US scientists argue that the certainties about HIV/AIDS that are trotted out in our country everyday rest on a very shaky scientific basis. They further assert that the use of anti-retroviral drugs requires the very sophisticated medical supervision that the US as a highly developed country has, but which we do not have, as a developing country.

They further warn that the 'alarming' toxicity of these drugs is such that they cause both known and as yet unknown diseases. As has been publicly stated by both Drs Robert Gallo and John G. Bartlett of the US, under certain circumstances these drugs may create more problems than they solve.

The problem with all this is that it refers to questions of life and death for individual human beings. Such a situation does not admit of inhuman games or clever intellectual point scoring. It also does not allow for the propagation of unscientific slogans that the time for scientific inquiry is over.

The uncertainties admitted and explained in the Guidelines and the New York Times and BusinessWeek articles mean that further and urgent scientific work and debate is required to confront the serious problem of AIDS. We can only hope that our government and the scientists concerned with do everything in their power to speed up the experiments explained in the report of the Presidential Panel.

In the meantime, this we must say, that it is time that our scientific establishment stops treating the issue of HIV/AIDS as a political issue rather than a medical/scientific matter. Morality and human decency dictates that all our scientists should adopt this position and refuse to join in the propagation of lies.

MORE INFORMATION:

• Guidelines for the Use of Anti-retroviral Agents in HIV-Infected Adults and adolescents, US Government, February 2001
• PRESIDENTIAL AIDS ADVISORY PANEL REPORT, March 2001
• HIV/Aids: Questions that require answers, ANC Today Vol 1, No 4

DRUGS CASE

Historic agreement lays the basis for co-operation towards health for all

Two days ago our government concluded an historic agreement with the pharmaceutical industry, as was announced yesterday. The industry abandoned its legal action against our government and agreed that the Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Act, Act 90 of 1997, should come into force.

The industry also agreed to what our government had offered from the beginning, at least three years ago, that we should work together on the regulations relating to the implementation of the Act. This would ensure that their intellectual property rights are respected, consistent with existing international agreements.

At the same time, this would enable our government to discharge its heavy responsibility legally to supply affordable drugs and medicines to the poor people of our country. When the Act was passed by our parliament four years ago, some of our political opponents voted against the Act, preferring to treat the health of the poor of our country as a subsidiary matter to other concerns.

A public campaign was waged by some in our country to force our government to abandon its goal of serving the interests of the suffering millions of our people. Outside our country, some governments threatened to take punishing retributive action against our country. This would be on the basis that our concern for the health of our people constituted an unacceptable violation of the sacred principle of the right to private property.

The historic agreement reached earlier this week brings this particular and stormy chapter in our history as a new democracy to a close. A war we neither desired nor provoked has been concluded through rational discussion. A critically important step forward has been taken towards improving our capacity as a country to meet the fundamental human rights and constitutional objective of health for all.

The historic agreement between our government and the pharmaceutical industry creates the exciting possibility for these two important players, as well as civil society, to work together without debilitating and counter-productive conflict, to address this common human rights concern.

The ANC would like to express its appreciation of the principled positions taken by the organised masses in our country, the US and other countries, who actively supported the positions taken by our government and parliament on the matter that has now been amicably concluded.

We also thank the governments of Southern Africa and the rest of the world, which also supported us during a difficult period when some sought to label us as and punish us for allegedly being irresponsible and populist iconoclasts. We also appreciate the extraordinary courage shown by some pharmaceutical companies that decided that they would not join the legal action against our government.

We are very pleased that other companies found it within their possibilities to pull back from the brink, and commit themselves to the matter inherent within their sector, of contributing what they can to a co-operative effort to improve the health of our people.

Our special thanks must also go to the Secretary General of the UN, Mr Kofi Annan, who acted on time to advance and respond to the objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the agreements reached at the UN Millennium Summit, and the real challenges that face us as a developing country, the majority of whose people are poor and suffer from the diseases of poverty.

We wish our government, the pharmaceutical companies and everybody else concerned, success in the work that must still be done speedily to give effect to the historic agreement arrived at earlier this week. In the end, the task that will face us for a long time is to work in practical ways to ensure that we overcome the real scourge of the diseases of poverty and the diseases that cause poverty.

As Africans, we have no choice but to pursue this goal relentlessly. It is a matter of great encouragement that we will be able to count the pharmaceutical companies as a partner in this great venture that sets Africa on a new health path for the first time in half-a-millennium.

It is most appropriate that this happens as we begin the African Century and as we make our contribution to the elaboration of the epoch-making Millennium Partnership for the African Recovery Programme (MAP).

Death from avoidable and curable disease should no longer be a distinguishing characteristic of South African reality. At the same time, we must act in a manner that both improves the delivery of medical services to our people and repudiates all programmes that are based on the medicalisation of poverty.

Below, for the record, we reproduce the statement presented to Judge-President Bernard Ngoepe in the Pretoria High Court, as he sat to hear the matter between:

The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of South Africa et al, v The President of the Republic of South Africa et al.

JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AND THE APPLICANTS.

"The Parties have reached an amicable settlement of the referenced litigation currently pending before the High Court of South Africa, and in consequence, the referenced applicants have agreed to withdraw from the present legal action. The Parties agree that the challenges of accelerating access to care and treatment for the diseases that affect the health of the South African population require co-operation and partnership from all stakeholders. The pharmaceutical industry, whose primary role in addressing these health challenges is to continue its investment in the search for new medicines and vaccines, wishes to work together with the government and citizens of the Republic of South Africa to help them achieve the greatest health benefits for the largest number of people - particularly with respect to widespread and heavy burden that the emerging and re-emerging communicable diseases are taking on South Africa's families, communities and economy. The Parties share a commitment to work together to implement the Government's health care objectives and strategies each contributing resources and expertise as appropriate.

"In furtherance of this commitment, the Ministry of Health shall invite a working party from the pharmaceutical industry, and also request members of the public, to consult with the government in relation to the regulations currently in development and other measures as may be necessary that will implement and give effect to the Medicines and Related Substance Control Amendment Act, Act 90 of 1997, including section 15C thereof. The industry welcomes and looks forward to the opportunity to join with the government in this important work.

"The government of the Republic of South Africa reiterates its commitment to honour its international obligations including the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). In reliance of this commitment, the referenced applicants recognise and reaffirm that the Republic of South Africa may enact national laws or regulations, including regulations implementing Act 90 of 1997 or adopt measures necessary to protect public health and broaden access to medicines in accordance with the South African Constitution and TRIPS.

"The Parties recognise, with thanks, the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the Republic of South Africa in facilitating this agreement."

Arms and the PAC

Public grandstanding does damage to the fight against corruption

The prediction this week by Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) secretary general Thami ka Plaatjie that "some very senior members of this government will fall" before the end of the week follows a pattern of prophecy unique to the PAC.

Soon after its formation in 1958, the PAC predicted freedom in South Africa by 1963 anticipating a spontaneous and bloody popular uprising. Of course, no such uprising took place and democratic change would take another 30 years of hard struggle to achieve. The history of the PAC is littered with other grandiose claims which have not been borne out by reality.

While it is easy to be dismissive of the PAC's perennial opportunism, their statements and actions can cause real damage, as evidenced by their approach to the arms deal. The PAC's public claims of evidence of irregularities by "senior ANC members" in the strategic defence procurement process - while refusing to supply such evidence to the investigating authorities -undermines efforts to combat corruption.

Muddying the water

Instead of assisting in the investigation of corruption allegations and ensuring the successful prosecution of offenders, the PAC is seeking publicity and party political mileage.

This is not the first instance the PAC has loudly promised what it appears unwilling to deliver:

• In January 1998, PAC member of parliament Patricia de Lille claimed several "senior ANC leaders" were spies for the former apartheid government. No evidence was forthcoming.
• In September 1999, De Lille claimed "senior ANC leaders" were involved in arms deal irregularities and promised to release their names. No names were released.
• In January 2001, the PAC vowed to take the government to court "possibly" later that week to challenge its decision not to refer any further cases to the Heath Special Investigating Unit. No court action has yet been initiated.

Without furnishing the authorities or the public with any evidence, the PAC' s claims of corruption only serve to muddy the waters.

The net effect of sustaining such an approach over time is to create an impression, falsely, that corruption is widespread within government. Unless public allegations of corruption can be investigated by the necessary authorities and tested through legal process it is possible for public perceptions of corruption in government to grow even where corruption doesn't actually exist.

Worse still, it could render society blind to real instances of corruption and misconduct. There is a danger that amid all the claims of corruption actual instances of corruption will go undetected. Society may become so accustomed to baseless public grand-standing that its institutions become unable to identify those allegations to which there is substance.

Talking left, acting right

The PAC's approach on the arms deal underlines the central flaw of its ideological stance and political programme over several decades - in one breath mouthing slogans that place it at the extreme left of the political spectrum, and in another breath (and in practice) pursuing an agenda which coincides with that of the right.

It has sought from its inception to be more revolutionary and more radical than the ANC, but has always ended up either siding with forces of reaction or unwittingly assisting them.

At its formation, PAC leader Potlako Leballo explained the rationale for the breakaway from the ANC: "The African people in general do not want to be allied with the [white] Congress of Democrats. They know these people to be leftists. The government will not listen to our requests and demands because of their outlook." This flies in the face of the PAC's mythology of being a more militant, radical group believing the ANC unduly influenced by "non-Africans".

In May 1961 the ANC and its alliance partners organised a massive three-day strike to coincide with the apartheid government's 'Republic Day' celebrations. The PAC, emerging from a year of public silence following the Sharpeville massacre, distinguished itself by issuing leaflets calling on workers to ignore the stay-at-home call. The police were delighted and assisted with the distribution of the pamphlets.

Over the next 30 years the PAC continued in this fashion, presenting itself as a liberation movement more radical and more legitimate than the ANC, yet acting in many instances against the interests of the struggle for freedom.

As the ANC laid the foundations for a negotiated transition in South Africa, PAC president Zeph Mothopeng, displaying the organisation's preference for rhetoric over analysis, said: "Our liberation cannot be negotiated. When you go to the negotiating table you must already have won your liberation."

When the ANC suspended the armed struggle to assist the negotiations process, the PAC announced an "intensification" of its armed struggle -after an effective hiatus of 30 years. At each point in the process of transition, the PAC's actions seemed intended to outdo the ANC rather than contribute towards the achievement of a democratic breakthrough.

As a party in parliament the PAC continues in this vein, defining itself in opposition to the ANC but offering nothing to the South African people in way of a coherent political perspective or clear policies and programmes. It is not surprising therefore that the PAC has over two national elections and two local elections not managed to receive more than 1.5 percent of the national vote.

The PAC's position in the South African electoral landscape may be insignificant, yet their public posturing on issues like the arms deal threaten to undermine efforts to combat corruption and build a democratic society.

MORE INFORMATION:

• The PAC - a viable alternative or a flat spare-tyre? ANC pamphlet, July 1998

Return to Index