We will not abandon national reconciliation

Last month one of our daily newspapers, 'The Citizen', carried a front-page story under the banner headline - "McBride tipped to head Metro cops". It was referring to Robert McBride. It had been tipped by "a reliable source" that McBride had been "mentioned as a possible replacement" for the position of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan "Chief of Police".

It explained that Mr McBride had been a cadre of our liberation army, Umkhonto we Sizwe. It added that he had carried out a car bomb operation against "Mangoos (sic) and Why Not bars near the Durban beachfront in 1986", in the belief that these were frequented by soldiers of the SADF. It said three civilian women had been killed, and no soldiers.

The newspaper also stated that Mr McBride "was granted amnesty for the attack by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) due largely to the fact that the ANC claimed it had ordered McBride to attack the pubs, contrary to its initial denials that it was involved in the bombing".

The day after it "broke the story", it published an Editorial headed "Here comes McBride". Among other things, it said:

"He is blatantly unsuited, unless his backers support the dubious philosophy: set a criminal to catch a criminal. Make no mistake, that's what he is. The cold-blooded multiple murders which he committed in the Magoo's Bar bombing put him firmly in this category."

Before we discuss the grave implications of what 'The Citizen' is seeking to achieve, let us discuss some factual errors in its reporting, hoping that the newspaper will make an effort to respect the truth in future. The ANC has never said that it specifically ordered the operation against Magoo's Bar. It has always said that this operation was carried out by cadres of Umkhonto we Sizwe acting in the field, on the basis of information available to them, targeting military targets in white areas, consistent with ANC policy.

The ANC made no presentation to the Amnesty Committee of the TRC, as a result of which Mr McBride obtained amnesty. The Amnesty Committee granted Mr McBride amnesty consistent with the provisions of the Interim Constitution, the legislation establishing the TRC, and the determination of the Court that had sentenced him to death and 82 years imprisonment. This apartheid Court accepted that Mr McBride's actions were political.

The negotiations that took place from 1990, and concluded with the adoption of the Interim Constitution in 1993, sought to achieve as peaceful a transition as possible, from apartheid white minority domination, to a democratic and non-racial South Africa.

During this process, the critically important matter arose as to whether the democratic order should deal with those who had perpetuated white apartheid minority rule, in the same manner that the victorious Second World War allies had dealt with those who had imposed Nazi rule on the people of Europe and the world. The simple question that was posed was - should we have our own Nuremberg Trials!

The ANC, its allies and supporters took the decision that we should take the path of reconciliation and forgiveness, rather than the path of revenge and further conflict. We decided that we should spurn the option of revenge and Nuremberg Trials.

We opted for the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This would provide the possibility for all South Africans to tell the truth about such gross human rights violations as might have occurred during the contest between the forces of racist white domination on the one hand, and those of democracy and equality for all, on the other, and provide for amnesty and reparations.

All the political and other formations in our country agreed that this was the best and most humane manner in which we could respond to the injunction to forgive but not forget the evil of racial tyranny that had enslaved millions of our people.

Correctly, Robert McBride took the opportunity provided by the establishment of the TRC to seek amnesty. He made a full disclosure about what he had done, and expressed remorse for his actions. Operating within the context of the law, the Amnesty Committee of the TRC granted him amnesty, as it did with regard to the larger number of operatives of the apartheid system who applied for amnesty.

The ANC, its allies and supporters accepted that those who had been granted amnesty would afterwards be treated like any other citizen. There would have been no point to the TRC process if we insisted that we would act in a manner that sought to penalise those who had been granted amnesty.

During the last nine-and-a-half years of our liberation, both our movement and government have respected this approach.

We have even served in government with people who had occupied high positions in the apartheid regime, when it was involved in murderous campaigns that claimed the lives of thousands of people who were opposed to apartheid or seen by the captains of apartheid as its enemies.

During the 1980s, agents of the apartheid regime assassinated a prominent leader of the ANC, Joe Gqabi, in Harare, Zimbabwe. At that time, 'The Citizen' published an Editorial charging that Joe Gqabi had been killed as a result of an internal ANC fight. It falsely alleged that there was an intense conflict between two factions within the ANC.

It said that Nelson Mandela led one of these factions, and Oliver Tambo, the other. It said that "the Mandela faction" had murdered Joe Gqabi because he had joined "the Tambo faction".

This was an outright lie intended to divert attention away from the reality that Joe Gqabi had been brutally assassinated by agents of the apartheid regime. It was an attempt to attach a heinous crime to Nelson Mandela, knowing that he was a prisoner of the same regime that murdered Joe Gqabi, and had no possibility to defend himself.

To add insult to injury, 'The Citizen' has sought to camouflage what it thought of Nelson Mandela (and Oliver Tambo) by pretending to be a fervent believer in Nelson Mandela as the best of human beings, the unique representative of the blessings of national reconciliation.

Despite everything 'The Citizen' has written about and against the ANC, we have avoided reference to this history. We did this not because we had forgotten what had happened in the past. We did it because our people had agreed that we should forgive what had happened in the past.

I do not know whether Mr McBride was ever or is interested to be Chief of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police. I do not know whether he has the competence to serve in this capacity. What I know is that it would be fundamentally wrong that he is denied the possibility to be appointed to any position, simply because of what he did during our struggle for liberation, for which he apologised and for which he was granted amnesty. We will not agree that Mr McBride should be condemned for having been a liberation fighter.

In essence what 'The Citizen' is suggesting is that we were wrong to have chosen the option of the TRC. It is arguing that Nelson Mandela was mistaken when he said so many times in the past - let bygones be bygones!

'The Citizen' is urging our country to reopen the wounds of the past. It says that we should open a veritable can of worms. Practically, it says we should speak out about, and name the individuals and institutions responsible for the perpetration of the apartheid crime against humanity.

Because it feels free to denounce Mr McBride as a criminal - "make no mistake, that's what he is" - it opens the way for the rest of us to follow its example. We too have ample opportunity to denounce thousands as criminals. The serious question we must ask is - whose interests does 'The Citizen' serve?

Whatever the problems, all our people, black and white, have made remarkable progress to bridge the divisions and heal the wounds of the past. Even as we recognise that much still remains to be done, we know that the enemies of the past have reached out to one another to make the important statement together, that they share a common destiny.

In an extraordinary process driven by the recognition that we belong together, the majority of our people, black and white, have come to understand that our country faces a common challenge of the eradication of the legacy of apartheid, which we must confront in unity.

Today, even as opposed to a mere five years ago, there are many more of our people who can say with genuine feeling and conviction that we are all South African and African. There are that many more who ask the question - what can I do to contribute to the achievement of the goal of a better life for all? There are that many more who will travel the world and tell the true story of what the millions of our people are doing to transform ours into a winning nation.

'The Citizen' thinks that all this must come to an end. It says that we must identify, denounce and isolate those South Africans anyone of us might determine to be criminals, on the basis of what they did in the past. Accordingly, it must surely approve even of the dangerous and reckless acts of destabilisation of our young democracy, in terms of which some are seeking to bring charges in the US courts, against various South African and foreign companies that engaged in business in our country during the apartheid years.

It must also be keen that the lists should be published of all those who served the apartheid regime as agents, informers and sources - journalists, intellectuals, lawyers and other professionals, religious leaders, traditional leaders, medical doctors, civil servants, managers, leaders and members of NGOs, members of various political formations, and others. Or is all this intended to apply only to ANC members!

During the apartheid years, 'The Citizen' played the role it did, on the basis of its ignoble parentage. In the post-apartheid years it has done what its conscience tells it is right, consistent with its past. It obviously believes that what it stands for is right and morally correct, including repudiating the TRC process.

Recently, there has been much discussion about who might or might not have been an "apartheid spy". In the course of this, as did 'The Citizen' when Joe Gqabi was murdered, false and self-serving allegations have been made that this reflects divisions within the ANC.

As happened then, these politically motivated lies will not divide the ANC, as intended. Neither will the efforts of 'The Citizen' to provoke us to abandon the path of national reconciliation succeed.

One of the people who wrote to the Editor of 'The Citizen', after his newspaper "broke the story" about Robert McBride, said: "Muzi, do not think peace exists, because many whites are gatvol."

I dread to think what would happen to all of us if black people took to communicating the message: "Paul, do not think peace exists, because many blacks are gatvol."

Fortunately, I know that the ANC will, as it has done for 91 years, continue to argue that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white.

Bram Fischer

Victory for justice as struggle hero is reinstated

The reinstatement of the late anti-apartheid activist Bram Fischer to the Roll of Advocates this week is a victory for justice and a belated tribute to a South African patriot who sacrificed so much for the struggle for democracy.

Following a ruling of a full Bench of the Johannesburg High Court this week, Fischer was the first person to be re-instated posthumously in terms of the Reinstatement of Enrolment of Deceased Legal Practitioners Act.

Fischer was struck off the roll in 1965 for conduct "unbefitting a member of the Bar and the Society" after he skipped bail during his trial on charges of contravening the Suppression of Communism Act of 1950.

The ruling brings to end one of the many shameful episodes in the history of South Africa's legal fraternity, where a brave and tireless fighter for justice was deemed not worthy of practising law. Although not among the most heinous atrocities committed under apartheid, the decision to strike a person like Bram Fischer off the roll demonstrated how the practice of law was so far removed from the practice of justice.

Fischer was born in what was then the Orange Free State in 1908. His family, which had lived in South Africa since the 18th century, was honoured and revered in Afrikaner society, with a tradition of legal and public service. His grandfather, Abraham Fischer, was State Secretary of the Free State Republic and the only Prime Minister of the Orange River Colony. His father, Justice Percy Fischer, was a Judge President of the Orange Free State.

He received his schooling and University education at Grey College and Grey University College in the Orange Free State. After graduating with the degree of LLB he became Registrar for two years to Sir Etienne de Villiers, the then Judge President of the Orange Free State. In 1931 he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship and from 1931 to 1934 read Jurisprudence and for a Diploma in Economics at New College, Oxford.

On his return to South Africa he became a member of the Johannesburg Bar and rapidly established a reputation in cases of company law, mining law, mineral and water rights. He also appeared in many libel actions. From the start of his career he was prepared to accept briefs in cases of non-whites caught in the police net of pass laws and restrictions and in such cases usually acted Pro Deo. Shortly before his arrest he was the longest serving member of the Johannesburg Bar Council, serving also a term as Chairman.

In the 1930s, at the time he was establishing himself as a barrister, he joined the South African Communist Party (SACP). In 1946, after a strike of 100,000 African mine workers for a minimum wage of 10 shillings a day, a strike which was suppressed with intense brutality, at least eight mine workers being shot dead and hundreds injured, Bram Fischer and other members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party were charged with having incited the workers to strike and were fined £50. In the 1950s, after the Communist Party had been declared illegal, both Fischer and his wife Molly were named under the Suppression of Communism Act and forbidden to attend political meetings or to engage in political activity of any kind. Profiles of Fischer note that the many hundreds of black and white South Africans who worked with him as members of the Communist Party or of the broad mass political organisations found that he had the modesty and humility of the truly great. This busy and famous barrister was always accessible. No one who had a political or personal problem hesitated to consult him. Bram and Molly Fischer defied rigid social convention, by entertaining people of all races and their home was always available for mixed fund-raising parties and political celebrations.

In the state of emergency following the Sharpeville massacre in 1960, when many thousands were jailed and held without charge for many months, Bram Fischer visited those imprisoned and made arrangements to care for the families, while continuing the intensely exacting work as one of the Defence Counsel in the Treason Trial, at that stage in its fourth year.

It was during this treason trial that. Fischer became known beyond the confines of South Africa as a political barrister. The final verdict of not guilty was a victory and a milestone for the liberation movement, and Bram Fischer's role in achieving this victory was a major one.

Two-and-a-half years later came the Rivonia Trial, where Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and other leaders of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the ANC's armed wing, were charged with sabotage and faced the death sentence. Fischer led the defence team and again gave of himself, not only as a barrister, but as a person and fellow political worker.

Immediately after the verdict in the Rivonia Trial, Molly Fischer was tragically killed in a car accident. Soon after Fischer was arrested, held in solitary confinement for three days and then released. In September 1964 he was again arrested and joined the 12 white men and women facing charges of being members of the SACP.

Fischer was however released on bail to act in a case of his that had been had been taken to the Privy Council in Britain. In his appeal to Court in the bail application he stated: "I am an Afrikaner. My home is in South Africa. I will not leave my country because my political beliefs conflict with those of the Government."

He won his client's case and returned to South Africa. A few months later, on 25 January 1965, he disappeared from his home and his counsel read a letter to the court in which he stated that he was going underground to continue the struggle against apartheid.

In his letter he said: "If in my fight I can encourage even some people to understand and to abandon policies they now so blindly follow, I shall not regret any punishment I may incur. I can no longer serve justice in the way I have attempted to do during the past 30 years - I can do it only in the way I have now chosen."

After ten months underground, he was captured in November 1965. He was convicted the following year of violating the Suppression of Communism Act and conspiracy to commit sabotage, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Fischer died from cancer in May 1975, a few weeks after being moved from prison to his brother's home in Bloemfontein on account of his ill health, and only after a concerted campaign by political leaders and some newspapers.

More Information:

• Biographies of Bram Fischer

Higher Education

Knowledge is not a product to be bought or sold

There can be little argument that knowledge is the wellspring for economic and social development. It is therefore imperative for a country like South Africa that our higher education institutions become innovative, high quality powerhouses of knowledge production and dissemination. To succeed in this endeavour, our transformation agenda has to take full cognisance of the need for efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness. However, it is possible, and indeed necessary, to do so without sacrificing social accountability and without subservience to the 'market'. A tall order some might say in the light of increasing pressure to commercialise or commodify education.

In a country like South Africa, and especially at this important point in our history, the transformation of higher education has to be seen in the context of the broader reconstruction and development of the country. In particular, it has to respond to the dual challenges of equity and development, that is, to overcome the fragmentation and inequality of the past and to meet current and future development challenges, especially in the context of an increasingly globalising environment.

An important element of our agenda in higher education is to focus on quality. Only through due attention to quality, including the building of inclusive institutional cultures, can there be meaningful access to higher education especially for those who were denied opportunities in the past. Only through combining access, quality and success will we be able to erode the domination of high-level occupations and knowledge production by privileged social groups. Quality improvement must, of course, include due attention to the curriculum and teaching and learning support.

Clearly, no education system exists in isolation. However, we do need to strike an appropriate balance between global and local or regional imperatives. In particular, the engagement of our higher education system with the global order has to be guided by national objectives. To ignore this is to run the risk of further entrenching the unequal power relations between the developed and developing worlds.

This can be illustrated by reference to the proliferation of foreign higher education institutions establishing operational bases in South Africa either independently or in some cases, in partnership with local public and private institutions.

Prior to the promulgation of the Higher Education Act in 1997, there was a policy vacuum with respect to the regulation of private higher education, both local and foreign. This gap was exploited by overseas institutions, especially from countries threatened by declining student numbers and revenue, which set up shop in South Africa. Regrettably, many of these institutions appear to be driven by concerns that bear little relation to the human resource development priorities or equity imperatives that are driving change in South Africa.

Fortunately, we have, through the implementation of our policy and legal frameworks, been able to ensure the planned development of the private sector in ways that do not threaten the sustainability and integrity of the higher education system as a whole. This is not an attempt to exclude foreign institutions but to ensure that those who operate in South Africa do so with due regard to our policy goals and priorities and in ways that meet our national transformation agenda and quality assurance requirements.

We have not allowed increased trade in education to undermine our national efforts to transform higher education and, in particular to strengthen the public sector so that it can effectively participate in an increasingly globalising environment. We cannot also countenance the excessive marketisation and commodification of higher education, which amongst others, can lead to the unfortunate homogenisation of academic approaches and to the undermining of institutional cultures and academic values.

In large measure, this experience has shaped South Africa's unfolding response to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) [an accord of the World Trade Organisation covering international trade in services which came into force in January 1995]. The very designation of education as a service is a fundamental problem if one accepts that education is not a commodity to be bought and sold. As Trade and Industry Minister Alec Erwin has so eloquently stated "Knowledge is not a commodity and can never be one. Knowledge is the distillation of human endeavour and it is the most profound collective good that there is". Erwin goes on to argue that the more knowledge is turned into a commodity and privatised "the more it will either corrode the collective knowledge base or itself corrode as it distances itself from that collective wellspring".

Education is not merely a value-free instrument for the transfer of skills across national and regional boundaries, as some might like us to believe. On the contrary, education must embrace the intellectual, cultural, political and social development of individuals, institutions and nations. This 'public good' agenda should not be held hostage to the vagaries of the market.

International 'trade' in education services, particularly at the higher education level, has grown significantly in the past period, with increasing numbers of students studying outside their home country, increased international marketing of academic programmes, the establishment of overseas 'branch campuses' etc.

It should come as no surprise that the movement of students and staff is mainly from the south to the north, while export of educational services in the form, amongst others, of educational information, provision and facilities, such as branch campuses, is in the reverse direction.

We believe that the internationalisation of higher education is better-addressed using conventions and agreements outside of a trade policy regime. We will continue to lobby key bodies such as UNESCO to champion this approach. We will also continue to build and strengthen our bilateral and multilateral partnerships.

I hope that the effects of trade liberalisation on efforts to truly internationalise higher education can be minimised. However, of some concern is whether already limited financial resources might increasingly be used for trade driven activities rather than those that emphasise intellectual and social gains.

I am convinced that a fundamental re-thinking of the inclusion of education in GATS is needed. We must avoid, at all cost, an approach to GATS that puts our education in peril. Only time will tell whether it is indeed possible to engage with GATS in ways that hold promise for our own agendas and needs.

** Kader Asmal is an ANC National Executive Committee member and Minister of Education. This is an edited version of a speech presented at a conference on higher education in Bergen, Norway.

Return to Index