Fiat justitia ruat caelum - Let justice be done though the heavens should fail!

On 10 June, the date of the publication of this edition of ANC TODAY, an important solemn ceremony will take place in Cape Town during a Joint Sitting of our Houses of Parliament.

The President of the Republic will formally hand to Chief Justice Pius Langa and Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke their Certificates of Appointment. The outgoing Chief Justice, the Hon Arthur Chaskalson, will also hand over his gown of office to his successor, Justice Langa.

The President of the Republic and the leaders of the political parties represented in Parliament will also have an opportunity to deliver valedictory addresses to honour the Hon Justice Chaskalson on his retirement from the bench, as well as listen to a speech by the outgoing Chief Justice.

The ceremony will give all of us the opportunity to speak on behalf of our people and in our own names, to convey our unqualified gratitude to the Hon Justice Chaskalson for his unprecedented contribution to the birth and development of a democratic, non-racial and non-sexist South Africa.

We are privileged to take this opportunity to thank Justice Chaskalson for the outstanding role he played in the struggle to end the system of apartheid. Despite the privileges he enjoyed as a white person, he chose to take a stand on the side of justice and the oppressed, knowing that this could not but evoke the wrath of the apartheid regime.

He played an important role in the negotiations that led to the victory of the democratic revolution in 1994. He was then chosen as the first President of our Constitutional Court, acceding to the position of Chief Justice when these two senior judicial positions were merged.

These appointments confirmed the confidence of the democratic order in Justice Chaskalson as a tried and tested combatant for democracy and human rights. The high positions he occupied gave him the possibility to make groundbreaking contributions to the development of our young democracy and consolidate the progressive foundations on which the new South Africa rests.

We are indeed very pleased that Justice Chaskalson could hand over the judicial reigns of leadership to a most worthy successor, the Hon Justice Pius Langa, who served under him as his Deputy. We therefore take this opportunity to extend our warm congratulations to Chief Justice Langa and his esteemed Deputy, the Hon Justice Dikgang Moseneke, on their appointment to the highest positions of our judiciary.

We would also like to use this occasion to thank our Judicial Service Commission and the leaders of our political parties for their support for the appointment of these two eminent South African patriots to the leading positions in our apex court, which they have held since 1 June this year.

Chief Justice Langa and his Deputy, Justice Moseneke, assume their positions at a time when our country is engaged in a healthy and necessary discussion about the transformation of the judiciary. I am certain that they will make an important contribution to the outcome of this discussion which, among other things, must confirm the independence of the judiciary as required by our Constitution, and strengthen the confidence of the people in this important institution of our democratic order.

Understandably, the debate about the transformation of the judiciary has tended to focus on issues related to race and racism. It is however clear that our Chief Justice, his Deputy and those interested to engage this issue will have to go beyond the important matter of racism and deal with many other high profile and sometimes contentious issues.

In a paper he prepared for an April 2005 conference in Granada, Spain, Professor Extraordinary Hermann Giliomee of the University of Stellenbosch commented on the issue of the independence of our judiciary. He wrote:

"By the year 2000 individual rights and the independence of the courts remained as the main shield of the minorities against an overbearing dominant party. The composition of the bench of the Supreme Court in the various provincial divisions is still predominantly white. At the pinnacle stands the Constitutional Court. The head of the court, Arthur Chaskalson, denies that he was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, but he was closely associated with the party and he headed the ANC's constitutional committee in the negotiations. At the latest count more than three-quarters of the judges on this bench are either open or tacit ANC supporters. This means that the difficult compromises made in the negotiations are now being interpreted by a bench perceived by the minorities to be biased in favour of the dominant party.

"Transformation (has) replaced the constitution as the framework of government policy, and.the Constitutional Court increasingly (looks) like an instrument of the dominant party in key areas of transformation."

This would seem to suggest that for judges to live up to the Constitutional requirement that they exercise their powers independently, without fear or favour, they must at least not be members or supporters of the ANC and, at best, be opponents of the ANC. Giliomee goes so far as to suggest that the judges appointed before 1994 stood out as "the main shield of the minorities against an overbearing dominant party".

Boldly and remarkably, he also resurrects the communist bogey that was so central to the ideology of the captains of the apartheid system! Obviously and strangely, he also argues that our transformation agenda, to build a non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous South Africa, is inconsistent with our Constitution.

Were we to accept the Giliomee thesis, we would have to agree that the matter of the independence of the judiciary would be decided by the outcome of a deadly fight to the finish, between "apartheid judges" committed to the defence of "the difficult (constitutional) compromises made in the negotiations", and "communist fellow travellers" serving as "judges committed to transformation", who have no respect for the Constitution!

As he stated his minority view when the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal of the State on the matter of Dr Wouter Basson, concurring with the decision of the Court, Chief Justice Chaskalson said:

"There can be no doubt that this Court has an extensive jurisdiction. The Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic and law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid. All legislation must be made, and all public power must be exercised, in accordance with its provisions. It is the source of the power of the courts, and the power of the prosecuting authority. Chapter 2 of the Constitution, which contains the Bill of Rights, applies to all law and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state. It binds also 'a natural or a juristic person if, and to the extent that, it is applicable'. It is relevant to the interpretation of all legislation and to the development of customary law and the common law."

To the best of our knowledge, in its work the Constitutional Court has consistently respected these prescriptions. We know of no instance when it has acted as "an instrument of the overbearing dominant party", contrary to the constitutional directives explained by Justice Chaskalson.

Indeed the very case which occasioned Justice Chaskalson's remarks, the Wouter Basson case decided by the Constitutional Court on 10 March 2004, involving alleged actions against the forces of liberation, stands out, par excellence, as an example of how the judiciary has not acted as "an instrument of the overbearing dominant party".

The state successively lost this case in our High Courts, in the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court. In spite of its political dominance, and despite its rage at the use of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction against its members, such as Reverend Frank Chikane, the "overbearing dominant party", the ANC, has respected the decisions of our courts.

In very difficult political and moral circumstances, our movement has acted in a manner that respects both the independence of the judiciary, and the obligation of the executive to abide by the decisions of the judiciary. And yet, even with such examples, there are some, such as Professor Giliomee, who deliberately add insult to injury by wilfully arguing with no shred of evidence whatsoever, that our movement poses a threat to the independence of the judiciary, and therefore the very democratic system for which countless members and supporters of our movement laid down their lives.

Whatever the political sympathies of the individual members of the Constitutional Court, about which Professor Giliomee is obviously better informed than we are, I am certain that he would find it extremely difficult to prove that the Court has failed to protect such interests of "the minorities" as might be provided for in our Constitution.

For our part, we believe that the discussion concerning the transformation of the judiciary should not allow itself to be led into wrong directions. In this regard, there are many meaningful observations made by serious legal practitioners that our country must consider.

For example, when he addressed the Conference of the International Association of Prosecutors on 4 September 2000, Justice Chaskalson said: "When we talk about our Constitution, and the present situation in South Africa, we need to remember the reality of the past from which we have emerged. This is relevant, not because the past absolves us from responsibility for the present, but because our history influences profoundly the dynamics of our society and the goals we have set for ourselves in our Constitution. It provides the context within which prosecutors and judicial officers function."

Accordingly, the questions cannot be avoided - how has this context affected the functioning of our prosecutors and judicial officers? How should we take this context into account as we debate the important matter of the transformation of the judiciary?

To assist us correctly to respond to these questions, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) tried to engage our judiciary, unfortunately with limited success. Seeking to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the TRC, our new Chief Justice, the Hon Pius Langa, then Deputy President of the Constitutional Court, made a submission to the TRC and said:

"I am making this submission because I believe that the judiciary occupies, and will continue to occupy, a crucial position in our democracy. The relationship which it has with the rest of the community is therefore important. It should be regarded as an integral part of the community it serves, and it can only function properly if it enjoys the complete trust and confidence of that community.

"I believe that that confidence was severely damaged in the past. In order for it to be completely restored and its maintenance guaranteed, I believe that there should be a common understanding of the role of the judiciary and the courts, as well as how they perceive their functions and responsibilities towards society.

"The divisions and conflicts of our apartheid past have distorted the relationship between, on the one hand, institutions involved in the administration of justice, including the judiciary, and, on the other, significant sections of the South African community. This has to be set right, now, in order to ensure and to maintain a healthy democracy, which fully espouses the values of a new constitutional dispensation.

"I make the submission in the hope that the story of some of my personal experiences, perceptions and observations, shared as they are by thousands of the citizens of this country who were similarly placed, might assist in bringing about a greater appreciation of how others were affected by the operation of the legal system during the (apartheid) period under review.

"I make this submission also because of my belief that the correction of this distortion, the restoration of complete trust, is not something which should simply be assumed because the country now has a new Constitution. A process needs to take place, a process which will not only liberate those members of the judiciary who have felt the alienation, but which will also reassure the formerly oppressed about the judiciary's rededication to justice for all."

In his comments before being sentenced to death by Justice Leon for a 1985 armed operation, the brave combatant of Umkhonto we Sizwe, Andrew Zondo, reflected the depth of the separation and antagonism between "institutions involved in the administration of justice, including the judiciary, and, on the other, significant sections of the South African community". He said:

"I listened to the Prosecutor and I saw that he did not have any ideas about us. He was ignorant of our ways and feelings. I looked at the Judge and the prosecutor and the thought came to me that they were ants and in engaging with them we were dwarfing ourselves. It is a curse to be a Judge when you believe that you hold the life of a person in your hand. Only God holds our lives in His hands. He gives it and He alone can take it."

The matters raised by Justice Langa stand at the very heart of the discussion about the transformation of the judiciary. Because of our history, and because we are still a society in transition, especial acrimony attends the debate of the matters correctly raised by Justices Chaskalson and Langa. These matters also evoke the paranoia expressed by Professor Giliomee.

In its January 8th Statement this year, our National Executive Committee addressed the same issue raised by Justice Langa, that the judiciary "should be regarded as an integral part of the community it serves, and it can only function properly if it enjoys the complete trust and confidence of that community".

As our readers will remember, this set off all manner of false alarm bells about a matter that is, in reality, of vital interest to many jurisdictions. In this regard I would like to cite, at some length, remarks made in a 1998 lecture by the Honourable David K. Malcolm, as Chief Justice of Western Australia, when he discussed the issue of the independence of the judiciary. He said:

"In reality, a strong, independent judiciary forms the foundation of representative democracy and observance of the Rule of Law and human rights. (However), it is primarily the confidence of the community in the legal system which encourages observance of the law. (The practice of judicial independence) also relies on a community perception that in resolving disputes between parties, the judiciary reflect and act upon the basic and enduring values to which the community subscribe.

"If one accepts that the courts work through the voluntary acceptance of their authority by the community, the relationship between the Courts and public must be reciprocal. This doesn't mean that the Courts will decide cases by reference to every shift in public opinion.

"The Courts and the judiciary must have the confidence of the community in order to maintain their authority. Apart from acting in accordance with their ethical obligations, the judiciary must also keep a 'weather eye' on community values in order to retain the relevance of their decisions to that community.

"(But over the years) a common set of moral or social values held by the community (has) become harder to define, particularly in the context of our multicultural society. It is arguable that stability in the law and the longevity of a number of its basic tenets is part of the basis for its authority.

"For society to maintain its respect for the law, the law must bear relevance to the society to which it is applied. There are many occasions upon which a judge is required to decide what is just, what is fair or what is reasonable. In cases of that kind a judge necessarily seeks to apply basic values representative of community values. In doing so, he or she cannot merely reflect public opinion.

"He or she must objectively determine what is just, fair or reasonable so that while he reflects the basic values of the community he does not allow himself to be influenced merely by temporary shifts in public opinion or by prejudice, emotion or sentiment."

Our late and distinguished Chief Justice, Ismail Mohamed, also had occasion to address the issue of the independence of the judiciary. As he did so, he also reflected on two important matters.

One of these concerns the qualities expected of judicial officers to enable them to gain the community respect referred to by Justices Langa and Malcolm. The other relates to the challenging issue of public engagement of judicial decisions.

Addressing a conference of the International Commission of Jurists in Cape Town on 21 July 1998, Chief Justice Mohamed said:

"The independence of the judiciary is crucial. It constitutes the ultimate shield against that incremental and invisible corrosion of our moral universe, which is so much more menacing than direct confrontation with visible waves of barbarism.

"Judges are clearly entitled to demand and to expect fidelity to these truths from the society which sustains them but that society is also entitled to demand from Judges fidelity to those qualities in the judicial temper which legitimise the exercise of judicial power. Many and subtle are the qualities which define that temper.

"Conspicuous among them are scholarship, experience, dignity, rationality, courage, forensic skill, capacity for articulation, diligence, intellectual integrity and energy. More difficult to articulate but arguably even more crucial to that temper, is that quality called wisdom, enriched as it must be by a substantial measure of humility, and by an instinctive moral ability to distinguish right from wrong and sometimes the more agonising ability to weigh two rights or two wrongs against each other which comes from the consciousness of our own imperfection.

"But imperfection is inherent in all evolution; it is the essential energy which propels us to excellence and to the excitement of new vistas into the unfolding heavens beyond, as we grow and mutate to new levels of intellectual and spiritual maturity."

Ismail Mohamed, himself a fearless fighter for our liberation, also addressed the critical issue of how the democratic order should engage the judiciary, as part of the process of ensuring the public accountability of all state institutions. He said:

"Judges must consciously accept the risk that their judgments in crucial areas may be subject to vigorous attack and criticism. This should cause them no distress. A viable and credible constitutional culture evolves most effectively within the crucible of vigorous intellectual combat and even moral examination.

"Judges therefore have no right to demand any kind of protection from the same kind of vigorous criticism to which they subject the contentions on behalf of the litigants who appear before them.

"What they are entitled to demand and do demand is that such criticism should be fair and informed; that it must be in good faith; that it does not impugn upon their dignity or bona fides and above all that it does not impair their independence, because Judges themselves would not be the only victims of such impairment.

"The constitutional covenant itself would mortally be wounded and the civilisation which it seeks to mediate would dangerously be imperilled. It is for this reason that every organ of the State and every component of civil society has a vested interest in the protection of the independence of the judiciary.

"Subvert that independence and you subvert the very foundations of a constitutional democracy. Attack the independence of Judges and you attack the very foundations of the freedoms articulated by the Constitution to protect humankind from injustice, tyranny and brutality."

Our movement and the masses of our people waged a protracted and costly struggle to liberate our country from injustice, tyranny and brutality. We draw great comfort from, and take great pride in the fact that Justices Mohamed, Chaskalson, Langa and Moseneke chose to be combatants for our emancipation from injustice, tyranny and brutality, as Andrew Zondo was.

As Justices Langa and Moseneke assume their new responsibilities at the apex of our judicial system, we, the movement that led the sustained offensive to defeat injustice, tyranny and brutality, must assure them that we will, in word and deed, respect their right and duty to carry out their tasks as part of an independent judiciary.

Whenever we believe we have cause to criticise their decisions as well as those of the rest of the judiciary, we must undertake to do so in a manner that is "fair and informed; that (is) in good faith; that.does not impugn upon their dignity or bona fides; and above all that.does not impair their independence."

We will also do so understanding that imperfection, including judicial imperfection, is inherent in all evolution, and that it is the essential energy which propels us to grow and mutate to new levels of intellectual and spiritual maturity.

Quite correctly, our movement prides itself on its historic role as the leader of the struggle that led to the democratic victory. It has a continuing and heavy responsibility to discharge its obligations as the principal architect of the evolving democratic order, and the leading combatant for the defence of the gains of the democratic revolution.

Those gains include genuine respect for our constitutional order, the guarantee of the independence of the judiciary, and the acceptance of the judiciary as an integral part of the South African community it serves, able to function properly because it enjoys the complete trust and confidence of the community.

As they commence their duties, the new leaders of our judiciary, Chief Justice Langa and Deputy Chief Justice Moseneke, must know that we will respect the directive handed down by their former learned friend and comrade-in-arms, Ismail Mohamed.

We will not allow that the constitutional covenant itself should be mortally wounded, and the democratic civilisation it seeks to mediate dangerously imperilled, because of reactionary arguments such as those advanced by Giliomee.

As Ismail Mohamed directed, we will not, by undermining the independence of the judiciary, give space to "the incremental and invisible corrosion of our moral universe, which is so much more menacing than direct confrontation with visible waves of barbarism", to which we were victim during three-and-half centuries of colonialism and apartheid.

The National Question

Building a common nationhood in a society of equals

The voting patterns of the 2004 election mark the beginning of the end of racial politics and racial and ethnic party political mobilisation in South Africa. In the election the people of South Africa expressed their rejection of ethnic representation. A significant number of whites, including Afrikaners, voted for the ANC, and the ANC emerged as the largest party among coloureds and Indians. Overall, the support for ethnic and racial parties declined significantly.

This occasions an opportunity, and a need, to reflect on the national question. We have to examine whether we can triumphantly proclaim that the new, and long sought after, South African nation has emerged and the national question resolved. Of course, it would be mechanical (and incorrect) to make such claims. But progress has been made towards non-racialism, non-sexism and a common patriotism and nationhood.

While the national question is not the only challenge we face, it is the central political question of our time. The present period of transition and fluidity creates the opportunity to make rapid strides towards the building of a nation and we dare not shirk this historic responsibility.

Africa and the World

The national question around the world, far from being solved, is raising its head in an unimaginably barbaric manner. In our own region, the national question continues to result in untold human suffering in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the Great Lakes region and Sudan. It holds potential for conflict in countries like Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Angola, Tanzania and Mozambique. All over South and Central America, those of Spanish descent practice something akin to a colonialism of a special type. Even in self-proclaimed 'advanced' and 'stable' countries problems persist. We therefore dare not ignore the national question in our own country.

The national question in South Africa is, in the first place, about the liberation of blacks in general and Africans in particular. Secondly, it is the struggle to create a non-racial, non-sexist democratic and united South Africa. Thirdly, it is the quest for a single united South African nation with a common overriding identity. Fourthly, it is about resolving the antagonistic contradictions between black and white. And, fifthly, it is about combating tribalism, racialism or any other form of ethnic chauvinism.

What will make us a nation?

Nations are products of politics, history, and social and economic processes. New issues arise from time to time which require a fresh analysis of nation-building. The following are elements of the defining characteristics of the new South African nation we seek:

• Equal rights. All South Africans to enjoy equality before the law and all national and ethnic groups to enjoy equal rights.
• A common territory. All South Africans to live in the same country and territory, not in a balkanised South Africa, not in a constellation of bantustans or 'volkstate'.
• A common economy. Not a prosperous urban economy on the one hand and a hopeless bantustan economy on the other, and not an economy in which opportunity and inclusion depends on race and ethnicity.
• A sense of community. There should be a kindred spirit among all South Africans.
• A common patriotism.
• A common loyalty to the constitution and the democratic state.
• A common South African culture. All South Africans should enjoy the right to practice their own culture. However, there needs to be a critical mass of common culture and cultural practices that all South Africans practice and identify with.
• A mutual respect for languages, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs of different groups.

The national question cannot be solved any more than nationhood can be proclaimed by edict. In a country with many languages, religions and ethnic groups, the national question will always be with us. But, after ten years of democracy we need to ask whether we are advancing the nation-building project. Are we responding in a correct and progressive manner to the national question?

In the first eleven years of democracy, important strides have been made. All South Africans, regardless of race, colour or creed enjoy equal rights before the law. A system of democratic majority rule - without minority veto - has been established. The tricameral parliament has been abolished and in its place a popular democratic parliament representative of all our people, including women, has been established.

The integrity of South Africa, geographically and territorially, has been restored with the dismantling of the bantustans. The quality of life of the most oppressed under apartheid, the Africans, has improved with the extension of health care services, provision of schools, clean drinking water, housing, household electricity, telephone and postal services. The public service and organs of state are becoming more and more representative of the population. Every day we see signs of a growing common patriotism among all South Africans. All languages enjoy the equal recognition of the law.

But all this progress is insufficient and limited. The painful reality of our country is that, in general, it is still the case that to be born African is to be born into a world of hardships not experienced by whites. This is accentuated if you are a women or a rural person. In many ways it is still a white man's world. Economic apartheid is well and alive.

The successor to colonialism of a special type is a country characterised by two economies. The first is a prosperous and advanced developed economy bolstered by an enabling set of government policies, a legal framework and state institutions. The second is backward and underdeveloped - outside the banking system and not benefiting from the enabling instruments of the state.

Notwithstanding significant progress in black economic empowerment (BEE), the economy is largely owned and controlled by white men. Even companies with black equity partners have white managers. After ten years of democracy, not one of the key financial institutions has majority - or even a significant minority - black ownership or management.

The inequality is not just a feature of the private sector. Whites go to better government schools than Africans; whites get better police services, better municipal services, etc.

A small number of whites still own most of the land. Rural Africans still feel a deep sense of injustice at the inequitable ownership of land. During the first ten years of democracy forced removals continued in the form of widespread farm evictions.

The building of a new and durable nation cannot be premised only on 'touchy feely' notions, but, more importantly, on the objective material reality. The majority of whites and the majority of Africans live in two different worlds, one prosperous and the other poverty stricken. The reality is that there is no sense of common patriotism among the inhabitants of these two worlds.

Racial and ethnic prejudice persists. These contradictions often manifest themselves in destructive ways. Racially motivated acts of aggression continue to be prevalent, especially on farms. The phenomenon of gated communities in the affluent suburbs of Johannesburg and elsewhere has accompanied democracy. These modern-day laagers nurture the desire of their mainly white inhabitants to cut themselves off from South Africa and practice local "own affairs". They serve as a physical reminder of resistance to nation-building.

We must also not ignore the reality that the majority of whites still seek refuge in their 'own' party, the Democratic Alliance (DA). A very significant number of eThekwini Indians voted for a 'minority party' and a very significant number of amaZulu in KwaZulu Natal voted for their 'own' party.

The call on the part of the founders of the ANC to "bury the demon of tribalism" has not lost its validity. Some, like the IFP, engage in this practice brazenly. Others engage in low-intensity tribal mobilisation, including to lobby support for positions in the ANC and in government. During the debate about provincial boundaries, tribal mobilisation took place among supporters of all parties, including the ANC. It was a rude reminder when even some of the most seasoned cadres of the liberation movement took positions on provincial boundaries based on tribal affiliation.

The apartheid and colonial rulers understood tribalism and used it as a weapon. During the years of struggle the enemy used every opportunity to promote the idea that the ANC was nothing more than a Xhosa organisation. Today it has become a habit among some to count the number of amaXhosa in the public service and in government. Accusations are made that many ministers and directors-general tend to appoint their own kind. One of the biggest challenges in the Western Cape is racial prejudice between coloureds and Africans. This problem manifests itself in almost all walks of life, including in the ANC.

Despite the constitutional equality of all languages, English and Afrikaans continue to dominate. The African languages still receive insufficient state resources. The non-official indigenous languages receive virtually no attention.

The African personality still struggles for breath. Our educational system somehow still uses the approach: the more European-like, the better educated. It is still more essential for an educated person to know the story of the French revolution than to know the story of the Congo under King Leopold.

None of this should cause alarm and consternation. The present situation does not constitute a crisis. Only an idealist would have assumed that the national question would be solved completely the moment apartheid falls. The way forward must be based on an accurate and honest appraisal of the reality as it is.

What to do?

The liberation movement is not merely a passive observer in the nation-building process. It carries the historic responsibility to resolve the antagonistic contradictions of the national question.

The first step is to understand the national question and its material basis. The highest priority needs to be given to the actual material upliftment of Africans, especially women and those in rural areas. The second economy must be brought out of the shadows.

The African majority have a leading role to play in building our new nation - just as Africans were the leading force in the struggle. This can only be done on the basis of African unity. If tribalism persists, the emergence of a South African nation will continue to elude us. Yet African unity should not be confused with a narrow, chauvinistic form of Africanism which denies the rights of minorities.

The different languages and cultures of South Africa need to be respected and promoted. While we want to encourage a critical mass of common cultural practices for the purposes of nation-building, we do not advocate a monotonous sameness in which we are all cultural clones of each other. The existence of distinct cultures and languages does not pose an inherent threat to nation-building. In fact, nationhood will never be achieved without all cultural groups exercising their freedom and without a genuine comfort with the cultures of other South Africans.

Much, much more needs to be done to build a sense of pride in our South African and African heritage. It is good to brim with pride when we win the soccer world cup bid. But real national pride cannot be based on a silent acceptance of the colonial imposition of ideas - particularly the lie that African culture without the influence of Europe was primitive and backward.

Our strategic approach to the national question will be shallow if we fail to take the trouble to understand who we are. There is for example, an assumed sameness attributed to the Johannesburg Muslim Indian South African and the eThekweni Tamil Indian South African. Often, in reference to Africans, the Nama are excluded just because apartheid classified them as coloureds. Nor must we regard the white group as monolithic.

The vexing question of terminology must not be swept under the carpet. Racial classification cannot be avoided if we are to ensure representivity in the state and in society generally. But we must acknowledge that this creates the risk of freezing racial and cultural categories rather than allowing for organic development.

The ANC has duty to South Africa and to future generations to deal adequately with the national question.

** This is an edited extract from a discussion document prepared for the ANC National General Council (NGC) being held in Tshwane from 29 June to 3 July.

These documents are currently being distributed to ANC branches for discussion, and are available on the ANC website at: www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/ngcouncils/2005/index.html.

Return to Index