Voters will decide the fate of rightwing coalition

In 1992, as our country was engaged in negotiations to end apartheid rule, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) joined the Conservative Party led by Ferdie Hartzenberg, the Bophuthatswana and Ciskei Bantustans of Lucas Mangope and Oupa Gqozo, and other rightwing Afrikaner groups to form an alliance that called itself the Concerned South Africans Group (COSAG).

The aim of COSAG was to derail the process of negotiations and impose a settlement on the country that would result, among other things, in an independent "Kingdom of KwaZulu-Natal" and an Afrikaner volkstaat. If necessary, this grouping was ready to resort to force to impose its will on the country. This it tried to do when it attempted a disastrous armed insurrection in the then Mmabatho, in Bophuthatswana.

The IFP later featured in another alliance of a similar kind, the Freedom Alliance formed in October 1993. In addition to the groups that constituted COSAG were now added the KwaZulu "homeland" and the Afrikaner Volkfront, described by F.W. de Klerk as "a coalition of twenty-one conservative Afrikaans groups".

And now, on the eve of our third General Elections and the celebration of our Second Decade of Liberation, the IFP has entered into a new alliance. With the Conservative Party having to all intents and purposes disappeared, and the Bantustans having ceased to exist, the new ally of the IFP is the Democratic Alliance (DA).

Then called the DP, the latter emerged as the single largest opposition parliamentary party after the 1999 elections. In its election advertisements, it claims to have the biggest support among the white, Coloured and Indian national minorities.

The book "A Marriage Made in Heaven" published in 2001, explained how this came about, providing the necessary details. It said that from 1994 onwards, the Democratic Party (DP) "decided that its principal task was to win the majority of whites away from the NNP. Hopefully, the Coloureds and Indians would come along as well. To achieve these objectives, it had to place itself to the right of the NNP in a consistent and convincing manner.

"In parliament, this meant opposing as loudly as possible every piece of legislation targeted at wiping out the apartheid legacy and creating the legal framework for the fundamental social transformation of our country.

"Of course, the DP was very careful to present these racist positions as constituting an impeccable defence of democracy, individual rights, liberalism and national reconciliation. In the name of all these principles, the DP proceeded to vote against the laws intended to transform South Africa away from its apartheid past."

Thus did it come about that the DP emerged in 1999 as a bigger parliamentary party than it was in 1994. It had displaced the NNP as the Official Opposition by appeasing and absorbing much of the white right wing, which felt that the NNP had betrayed it by working to transform itself into a party working for the construction of a non-racial democracy.

The DP that emerged after 1994 in the manner we have described, has transformed itself into the DA, having attracted the former supporters of the NP, who had come to reject the New National Party (NNP) as a traitor to white interests. This is the new ally of the IFP. Together they have formed a new COSAG or Freedom Alliance, which they call the "Coalition for Change".

The 'Mail & Guardian' (M&G) of March 19 to 25, published an interview with the leader of the IFP, Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi. During this interview he was asked: "Before the 1994 election the IFP had significant white support, which now seems to have evaporated. Why?"

This is the very interesting reply Dr Buthelezi gave to this question: "Only whites can answer that, but it seems to me it can only be based on racism. I 've never disappointed them in any way, but like all human beings they have poor memories. In 1979 when Oliver Tambo urged us to join the armed struggle, we refused. If the Zulu nation had taken up arms, South Africa would have easily been in ashes.

"Whites forgot how I was vilified across the world because of my attitude to sanctions; I urged Lady (Margaret) Thatcher, Chancellor (Helmut) Kohl and President (George) Bush not to endorse the campaign for sanctions and disinvestment. I protected white interests - I don't see what I've done for them to shift their support."

These are very important and interesting confessions. The leader of the IFP says "I've never disappointed (the whites) in any way. I protected white interests - I don't see what I've done for them to shift their support."

The liberation struggle never threatened "white interests". There were therefore no white interests to protect, especially by an organisation, such as the IFP, that claims that it was part of the struggle to end the apartheid system.

The struggle for liberation was for the establishment of the non-racial and non-sexist democracy that our people are now building. It was for the defeat and destruction of the apartheid system of white minority domination. Throughout the struggle and beyond, the ANC insisted that the democratic revolution would free all our people, including our white compatriots. We upheld the view that the perpetuation of the apartheid system constituted a threat to the security and the very survival of the whites as an important part of our population.

Accordingly, when Dr Buthelezi says he "protected white interests", citing his opposition to sanctions and the armed struggle, we must conclude that the words "white interests" are a mere euphemism for apartheid, for white minority rule and privilege.

The comments of the leader of the IFP to the M&G help us to understand how the IFP ended up as the common denominator in three alliances, COSAG and the Freedom Alliance in the past, and now the Coalition for Change. Fundamental to these alliances, was and is the "protection of white interests", which should guarantee the allies the support of those among our white population who continue to hanker after the perpetuation of exclusive white privilege.

Accordingly and for this reason, Dr Buthelezi cannot understand "what I've done for (the whites) to shift their support" away from the IFP. For precisely the same reason, the DA boasts about the support it enjoys among the white population.

F.W. de Klerk's Autobiography, "The Last Trek. A New Beginning" was published in 1998. Writing of the period when we were negotiating our present Constitution, Mr de Klerk said: "(With regard to the struggle for power sharing), we were regularly left in the lurch by the smaller parties like the IFP and the DP, which often preferred to score points in building their own images even if it meant that we could not present a united front in respect of important principles. The failure of (these) opposition parties to align themselves with such a consensus-seeking (power sharing) model will to my mind remain a charge against them."

What is important about these observations is the indication that during the period between 1994 and 1996, the NNP, the IFP and the DP shared sufficient common ground for them to have constituted a "united front" to oppose the ANC and to help produce a constitutional order that would protect "white interests".

However, history has shown that by 2000, when the DA was formed, a lot of the common ground shared by the NNP and the DP four or five years earlier, had vanished.

The DP had become a prisoner of its electoral success, and therefore could not but seek to dominate the NNP and ensure that the DA was a consistent rightwing party. On the other hand and relative to its past, the NNP, had gone too far along the road towards its reformation into an exponent of a non-racial democracy, and consequently could not coexist with the DP in a DA as defined by the dominant ally, the DP. For this reason, as history has shown, the DA as a unified DP/NNP political formation could not survive. Accordingly it collapsed, generating bitter acrimony among those who had thought they could belong to one "united front".

But with regard to the relations between the DA and the IFP, F.W. de Klerk's observations have proved to be correct. When he spoke at the National Assembly earlier this year, the leader of the IFP said his party had gone to bed with the DA out of desperation resulting from what had happened in the context of the floor-crossing process.

The truth however is that the IFP and the DA had been cooperating at the local government level ever since the 2000 local government elections. This was long before the floor crossing took place.

In addition, the fact of the matter is that the greatest pressure for the floor crossing legislation came from the DP and later the DA. For a long time, the ANC resisted the introduction of this legislation. This was because of our concern that the floor crossing would undermine the proportionality between the number of votes and parliamentary seats that resulted from our electoral system of proportional representation.

In the end we agreed to the introduction of the legislation among other things to accommodate the DA, which wanted to work in parliament as one party, no longer divided into DP and NNP factions. To limit the distorting effect of the floor crossing on proportional representation, we insisted on certain provisions in the law to limit the possibility for too drastic an impact on this representation.

In addition, the truth is that the floor crossing legislation was also approved by the provincial legislatures, including the KwaZulu-Natal legislature. It therefore did not come as a surprise to the IFP.

The argument that it was the floor crossing that forced the DA and the IFP into each other's arms is not supported by facts. If floor crossing was the matter that drove the IFP to seek allies, the last of these would have been the DA, given the way it had pushed for the introduction and passage of the floor crossing legislation.

The truth with regard to the formation of the Coalition for Change is reflected in the observations made by F.W. de Klerk in his autobiography, and the comments made by Dr Buthelezi to the M&G about his dedication to the protection of "white interests".

The DA has been putting out the claim that together with its allies, it will obtain 30 percent of the votes cast during the forthcoming elections. It goes further to claim that this will result in the constitution of a credible opposition to the ANC, allegedly principally in the interest of democracy, rather than the promotion of the agenda of this opposition.

So keen is the DA to see itself emerge as a stronger and more credible opposition to the ANC, that it has not hesitated to denigrate the other opposition parties. Earlier this year, at the National Assembly, one of its leaders said the DA, and none of the other parties, offered the possibility to constitute such a credible opposition. The party has gone further, openly to argue that a vote for the other opposition parties, excluding its coalition partners, would be a wasted vote.

Whether the DA and its allies will get the electoral support it claims they will, is a matter that will be resolved by the electorate. However, we must note the sustained effort of the DA and the IFP, certainly since the end of 2000, to form a rightwing coalition that sees itself as potentially capable of forming a government in the medium term.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with entertaining this hope. The Coalition for Change presents itself as the best guarantee of democracy in our country, the only barrier to the emergence of a one-party dictatorship. Again, there is nothing wrong with any political formation trying to present itself in the best possible light.

However, it is our duty to tell the truth as we see with, with regard to what the Coalition for Change really stands for. The fact of the matter is that this is a rightwing coalition, which is opposed to many of the initiatives we have taken since 1994, especially to address the interests of the poor at home and abroad.

We have an intelligent electorate. I have no doubt that it has the capacity to see the reality behind the disguise of seemingly seductive words. It has learnt to see the scarecrows that the Coalition for Change uses to try to win votes, for what they are - scarecrows used to frighten the voters to think and vote in a particular way.

It will decide freely whether it wants our country to have the kind of rightwing opposition visualised by the DA. For its part, the ANC will continue to put forward its own policies, focused, among other things, on the vigorous intervention of the democratic state to ensure a better life for all our people, both black and white.

We will continue to encourage the formation of a people's contract among all those, including the overwhelming majority of our population, who are committed to the building of a non-racial and non-sexist people-centred society.

In this regard, we will continue to work with the NNP and others, respecting their independence and appreciating their commitment to the construction of a new South Africa that truly belongs to all who live in it. This, together with our Tripartite Alliance, will constitute the progressive coalition for change, which our country needs to eradicate the terrible legacy of apartheid.

Elections 2004

Only the ANC can unite South Africans for a better life

As South Africans prepare to go to the polls on 14 April it is becoming clear that only the ANC has the ability to unite all South Africans in working towards a better life for all.

From its formation in 1912, the ANC has consistently and tirelessly worked to unite South Africans in the struggle for political, social and economic liberation. It has actively championed a vision of an inclusive South African nation that belongs to all who live in it, black and white. This vision underpinned the ANC's struggle under apartheid, and it has characterised its work during the first ten years of democracy.

While some sought to maintain old divisions and fuel old animosities, the ANC has urged unity and reconciliation. While some sought to sow fear and encourage despondency, the ANC, through its pronouncements and its actions, provided vision and hope. While others divided, the ANC united.

The impact of the ANC's approach is evident in the achievements of the first decade of freedom. Before the 1994 election, South Africa was a country racked by bitter conflict. State-sponsored violence had been unleashed on communities that had already suffered generations of racial discrimination and exploitation. The world held its breath as South Africans held their first democratic elections, fearful that a bloodbath would ensue.

This, of course, did not happen. Instead, the elections ushered in a new epoch in South African history in which peace and stability replaced the violence and conflict of the past. South Africans of all races, faiths and backgrounds were able to sit together and forge a new democratic constitution based on the will of the people. They were able to gather at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to own up to the crimes and human rights violations that littered the country's apartheid past. As both perpetrators, victims and survivors told their stories, the people of South Africa collectively agreed to never again allow such atrocities to be committed. Through the TRC process, South Africans said that the values of human dignity and respect should be paramount in our new society.

This process was made possible because of the political leadership provided by the democratic movement, and by the active contribution of people from all sectors of society. It was a process that owed its success to the approach and practice that had been developed over decades of democratic struggle, and which was now fast becoming instilled in the institutions of the new democratic order. It was an approach which the ANC, as the leading party in government, was keen to encourage and promote.

The past ten years has seen this approach extend to practically every area of public life. The National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) was established to bring government, business, labour and community representatives together to find common approaches to tackle important economic and social development issues. School Governing Bodies bring together all relevant stakeholders in a cooperative approach to the management of schools. Community Policing Forums bring together communities, local businesses and the police service in tackling crime.

For the first time in the country's history, the development of government policy and legislation is subject to public comment and participation. From national right down to local level, members of the public are involved in the process of determining the shape of the programmes that government will implement. And members of the public and organisations of civil society are often involved in the implementation itself, often providing support and networks for government programmes particularly aimed at the poor. The significant involvement of faith-based and other organisations in the extension of social grants is a case in point.

Common to all of these institutions, forums and process is the fundamental believe that only by working together, in partnership, can South Africans hope to respond to the challenges that face them. That is the believe that has guided the ANC throughout the first ten years of democracy, and which underpins the ANC's call in its 2004 manifesto for a people's contract to build a better life.

This believe in the ANC's approach to governance and relationships with other parties. Though not required to, the ANC decided to invite a number of other parties to participate in the government in the belief that these parties would make a valuable contribution in the effort to build a better society. It has built relations of cooperation with other parties because of the belief that, despite areas of differences, there were important areas of common ground and common purpose.

This remains the approach of the ANC, to find ways to work together with all those who are willing and able to make a contribution to the objectives which the vast majority of our people share.

The ANC, because of its ability to bring South Africans together, has managed to achieve much in the first decade of democracy. Working together we have managed to halt, and even reverse, the economic decline of the apartheid years. We have managed to bring public debt under control, reduce the deficit and bring down inflation. At the same time, we have managed to redirect significant resources towards meeting the needs of the poor.

We have provided water, sanitation, electricity, homes and telephones to millions of South Africans who never had them before. We have been able to expand access to quality education and provide an improving level of basic health care to millions of poor South Africans. We have intervened in the area of poverty by significantly extending the coverage and value of social grants to the most vulnerable in society.

We have managed to begin to turn the tide against crime, as all major categories of crime have either stabilised or started to decline. We have set up institutions that daily detect instances of corruption and act decisively against offenders. As a nation, we have managed to achieve much because the ANC, unique among political parties in South Africa, is able to unite the people in action.

But for all the achievements of the last ten years, much more needs to be done to improve people's lives. Poverty needs to be effectively tackled and work created in a growing economy. We need to improve education and skills development; fight diseases like HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis, malnutrition, malaria and diabetes; and build safer communities.

Our experience of the last ten years tells us that we can achieve these things if we work together. It tells us that there is only one organisation with the ability to unite South Africans in such an undertaking. Our experience tells us that only the ANC - because of its vision, its record and its programmes - is capable of building a united nation at work for a better life for all.

Return to Index