Once more
- a matter of life and death
Steve Biko was murdered in September 1977, 27 years ago this month,
and now our Heritage Month. Quite correctly various activities were therefore
undertaken this month to honour this great hero of our people. During
this same fateful month, we bade farewell to another great patriot, Ds
Beyers Naude, who passed away after a long period of ill health.
Steve Biko and Beyers Naude had been comrades in arms. They occupied
the same trench of struggle for the defeat of the apartheid system. Both
stubbornly refused to be terrorised by the apartheid regime to abandon
the cause of the oppressed masses of our country.
At first the apartheid regime punished them by subjecting them to all
manner of banning orders. In October 1977, this regime then banned the
organisations they led, as well as various publications. It also proceeded
to detain a large number of leaders and activists of the broad movement
for the liberation our people.
But before these arrests were made and the banning orders imposed, agents
of the apartheid regime murdered Steve Biko. Earlier in the year, they
had already murdered another of his comrades, Mapetla Mohapi.
The apartheid regime acted as it did, to silence the voice of dissent
and crush the dream of freedom that inspired Mapetla Mohapi, Steve Biko,
Beyers Naude and the millions of our people. Most fortunately, Oom Bey
was able to survive all the dangers posed by an angry oppressive system,
and experienced the first decade of the freedom for which he had sacrificed
so much.
Unfortunately, the ruthless agents of the apartheid regime had ensured
that others such as Ongopotse Tiro, Mapetla Mohapi, Steve Biko and others
could not be with us as we celebrated and enjoyed the freedom for which
they had fought. Nevertheless, the very fact that freedom was won, despite
the campaign of terror conducted by the apartheid regime, made the unequivocal
point that their sacrifices were not in vain.
Because of those sacrifices, today all our people enjoy all the freedoms
that the apartheid system denied them. Today, and for the last ten years,
there is not a single person whose voice has been silenced. No political
or any other organisation, and no publication has been banned. Nobody
has been arrested and detained because of their political beliefs.
In tribute to the heroes and heroines who died and sacrificed in other
ways for our liberation, we have made certain and will make certain that
we defend the fundamental rights of all our people to the freedoms of
thought, speech, assembly, and other freedoms that combine to constitute
the body of fundamental human rights provided for by our Constitution.
The two-week period allowing local government
councillors to "cross
the floor" to other parties or form new political organisations
also fell within this same month of September. Many councillors therefore
took this opportunity to change their various affiliations, joining or
forming other parties or political organisations.
Our Constitution, adopted in 1996, provided for
the adoption of legislation that would regulate such floor crossing.
Those who negotiated our constitution,
the Constitutional Assembly itself, as well as the Constitutional Court
not only found nothing wrong with the phenomenon of "crossing the
floor", but also thought it might be necessary.
Not too long after the Constitution was adopted, some of the opposition
parties started agitating for the passage of the floor crossing legislation
allowed by the Constitution. Recently our Deputy President, Jacob Zuma,
told the story of how the then Democratic Party (DP) had approached and
shown him draft legislation it had prepared, to speed up the adoption
of the floor crossing legislation.
The ANC engaged in a protracted internal debate about this matter, seeking
to arrive at what it would consider to be the best outcome for our democracy
and country.
Then, as now, our electoral system governing the election of the members
of the national and provincial legislatures is characterised by the two
features of party lists and proportional representation. Because of this,
the number of representatives each party has in these legislatures reflects
the level of support each of the parties enjoys among the people.
As the ANC debated the desirability or otherwise
of the adoption of the floor crossing legislation, the point was made
very strongly that
such floor crossing would undermine the will of the people. It was argued,
correctly, that our movement had to adhere to the vision contained in
the Freedom Charter, that "The People Shall Govern".
Accordingly the point was made that at all times, the number of party
representatives in the legislatures should reflect the strength of the
party as indicated in democratic elections. Inevitably the floor crossing
would therefore breach the principle and practice that the people shall
govern, resulting in some parties having a disproportionately larger
representation, or vice versa.
Contrary to this, the point was equally strongly made that ours was
a very young democracy. Inevitably there would be a fair degree of volatility
and dynamism in terms of the social and political consciousness of many
of our people. The point was made, for instance, that it would take some
people time before they outgrew the negative and false perceptions of
the ANC they had been fed by the apartheid regime.
Those perceptions had been part of the body of "white fears" which
our movement deliberately and consciously addressed in the period before
and after 1994. It was therefore argued that it would take time for these
fears to disappear, as essentially white South Africa came to understand
that it had nothing to fear from democracy, non-racism and our liberation
movement.
Nevertheless, it was clear that these attitudes would necessarily change,
as those who had fears in the past experienced the security provided
by a democratic and non-racial South Africa. As a consequence of that
experience, they might, naturally, change their political affiliation
even between the set election years.
These arguments were advanced to make the point that our political system
should show sufficient flexibility, taking into account the reality of
the volatility and dynamism of the evolving situation in our country.
It was said that it would be incorrect to seek to freeze people's views
for whole periods of five years, allowing for no political evolution
except at five-year intervals.
In itself, such insistence on a relatively static system might result
in a system of representation that would not be congruent with evolving
popular opinion. In this regard, the point was also made that even supporters
of the ANC, who had come into the movement because of their opposition
to apartheid, might now want to move to other parties on the basis that
these provided them with a different ideological home of their choice.
Thus ANC members could very well find themselves attracted to Liberal,
Christian Democratic or other parties, reflecting similar sentiment among
sections of the masses that had been happy to follow the leadership of
the ANC during the struggle against apartheid. The argument was presented
that it would be incorrect to frustrate such natural evolution, on the
basis of a proposition that the evolving political consciousness should
only be allowed to manifest itself and make an impact on society once
every five years.
Nevertheless, despite this argument, it was also
felt that the legislation we should propose, that would enable such
new consciousness to be reflected
in our legislatures, should be "restrictive" rather than "permissive".
Thus, while enabling people to "cross the floor", it would
set various conditions that would make such crossing somewhat difficult
rather than easy.
This, it was argued, would restrict, limit and contain the possibility
to ignore the will of the people, and discourage floor crossing that
might be occasioned more by selfish interests rather than genuine political
evolution on the part of the representatives.
Of course, inherent in all this, was the argument in favour of the exercise
of the freedoms of thought, expression and association by the representatives
themselves. Despite the fact of their election on the basis of their
party political platform, we considered it wrong that these representatives
should be denied such freedom, such that they would not have the possibility
to adopt different political positions.
In this regard, it was thought important that people should not be obliged
to stay as members of parties long after they had outgrown the understanding
that had made them to join these parties. Therefore the fact that they
might lose their seats in the legislatures would have to be dealt with,
so that it does not become an obstacle to our country's political evolution.
On this basis we decided that such representatives should be allowed
to cross the floor with their seats. This would free them from having
to stay in organisations they felt they had outgrown, simply to preserve
the membership of the legislatures.
Perhaps the biggest and most dramatic evidence of the evolution of political
thought in our country has been demonstrated by the fortunes of the former
Democratic Party and New National Party (NNP). In the first instance
this led to them deciding to merge and form the Democratic Alliance (DA).
This, in reality, is what caused the DP to approach the Deputy President
as Leader of Government Business, arguing for the floor crossing legislation
that would enable the DP and the NNP to form the DA.
Of course the DA did not last for very long because yet another political
shift was taking place or was making itself felt. The New National Party,
the former party of apartheid, found that it could not successfully merge
with the Democratic Party, because it had come to believe unequivocally
in a non-racial democracy. On the other hand, the DP, the party of liberal
democracy, had become the home of the forces and ideas that sought to
resist the entrenchment of a truly democratic and non-racial society,
for whom the NP had originally provided a home.
The DP was correct to have approached the Deputy President with regard
to the floor crossing legislation. It would have been incorrect to allow
the absence of such legislation to distort the natural political evolution
in our country, which prompted the formation of the DA, by blocking the
emerging sentiments about party affiliation from finding their organisational
expression. All this is also fundamental to the exercise of the freedoms
we have already mentioned.
The late Stanley Chetty, then Speaker of the
Estcourt Municipal Council in KwaZulu Natal exercised this right when
during the floor crossing
period this month, he crossed over to the ANC. But now he is dead, having
been shot by some as yet unknown murderers. The Estcourt Municipal Manager
is also reported to have sought protection, after people described as "bodyguards" assaulted
him.
The ANC Provincial Chairperson in KwaZulu Natal and Premier of the Province,
Sbu Ndebele, has already said he is convinced that Stanley Chetty's was
a political assassination. He has pointed to the fact that other councillors
who crossed over to the ANC have been threatened with death.
Murder under any circumstances is totally unacceptable. With regard
to this as any other murder case, we are certain that the Police Service
will do everything it can to apprehend those responsible for Stanley
Chetty's death and bring them before our courts. However, we also cannot
ignore the possibility that this might have been a political assassination.
As we have said, Steve Biko who was murdered 27 years ago this month,
and Oom Bey who passed away this month, and many others, sacrificed everything
so that all our people could enjoy full democratic rights. Nobody in
our country has either the right or the power to deny any of our people
the possibility to use and enjoy those rights. We will not allow that
anybody restores to our country even one element of the repressive practices
that characterised 1977 and other years.
When he "crossed the floor", Stanley
Chetty was expressing the freedom Steve Biko and others made possible
for him to form and express
his opinion and join any organisation of his choice, without fear of
harassment, arrest, imprisonment or death. He was using the rights that
have therefore been expressed in both our Constitution and legislation.
Accordingly, to block anybody from exercising those rights would itself
be a criminal act.
All the state law enforcement agencies have an urgent responsibility
to look for and find those who killed Stanley Chetty. The net must catch
all those who might have been involved in the incitement, conceptualisation,
planning and execution of the murderous deed.
If, indeed this was a political assassination, we must all communicate
a clear message to the assassins and those who might want to emulate
them - that democratic South Africa will give no quarter in the struggle
to defeat those who want to continue the practices of the apartheid regime!
We extend our heartfelt condolences to the Chetty family. We will not
allow that anybody confers upon himself or herself powers to decide which
democratic rights our people should enjoy and exercise and which, not.
Stanley Chetty's killers murdered a man, but they also sought to drown
in his blood our liberty and the rights we have won through struggle.
Stanley Chetty's murderers must be found and subjected to the full might
of the law. Councillor Chetty's death must, like Steve Biko's death,
serve to spur us to engage in further action to realise the goals of
the national democratic revolution.
|
