In his much-debated television documentary screened on SABC two weeks ago, Australian journalist John Pilger made an impassioned argument that apartheid did not die.
For all its shortcomings, his programme struck a chord.
Apartheid is certainly not dead, just as democracy is not yet fully born. It is true that the political system of apartheid has been replaced by a democratic constitutional dispensation and that we now have a representative parliament and a democratically-elected government. But many of the material elements of the apartheid system still remain in a number of areas throughout society.
We cannot achieve complete and lasting democracy until we have addressed each and every one of apartheid's last vestiges.
That is the essence of what I was trying to say in an interview reported in last week's Sunday Times under the ill-fitting headline "ANC to target watch-dog bodies".
Before expanding on what I was saying, let me explain what I was not saying.
I was not saying the attainment of a two-thirds majority by the ANC in the 1999 elections is viewed as a central vehicle for the transformation of this country. Nor was I saying that the ANC is considering far-reaching or fundamental changes to the constitution.
The ANC does, however, view the attainment of an overwhelming ANC majority in the 1999 elections as crucial to continuing and accelerating the process of reconstruction and development.
But we will campaign for such an overwhelming majority unfettered by the constraints of what is in many senses a rather arbitrary fraction. Whether it is two-thirds, four-fifths or five-eights, the ANC will seek a substantial and unequivocal mandate from the people of South Africa to proceed with the process of transformation.
We have achieved much as a nation in progressing towards a mature and sustainable democratic society. We have a constitution which not only guarantees the rights of all citizens, but establishes a framework in which society can begin to redress the inequalities and injustices of the past.
We have a national parliament, nine provincial legislatures and close on 850 local councils elected directly by the people of South Africa.
We also have a broad range of institutions established by, and enshrined in, the constitution which have the express responsibility of supporting and safeguarding democracy. Progress has also been recorded in the massive task of overhauling the public service and re-orientating its resources, mandate and institutions to better serve all South Africans equally.
We have witnessed the largely successful integration of former adversaries into a new defence force which is subject to the Constitution, the law of the land and civilian oversight.
We are firmly on the road to democracy.
But it would be a serious mistake to allow ourselves to be lulled into believing that democracy has been fully achieved, or that the democratic gains that have been made cannot be undone.
How democratic is a society in which it is estimated that half its people live below the poverty line? How democratic is a society which is characterised by extreme inequalities in wealth and opportunity?
Clearly South Africa cannot be fully democratic its people cannot be fully empowered as long as the vast majority do not have access to the resources and opportunities which enable them to exercise real control over their lives.
Nor can South Africa be democratic as long as the public service is not in its composition at all levels representative of the people of South Africa. It cannot be democratic as long as that public service, with all its public resources and capacity, is not accessible to the people or orientated to meet the needs of all the people.
That then is the challenge of transformation.
Transformation is not about "targetting" watch-dog bodies. It is not even about reviewing the independence of these bodies, and it is certainly not about making them subservient to the whims of the ANC, or any other party for that matter.
Transformation involves instead the pursuit of measures which give real meaning to the notion of independence, and enables these institutions to fully exercise their responsibility to democracy and to the people of this country.
What value is the independence of the judiciary, for example, when the vast majority of judges and magistrates sitting today were appointed by the National Party and represent only a small fraction of the population?
Certainly they might be independent of the present government, but are they independent of other political interests? The evidence suggests not.
The same could be said to varying degrees of other independent institutions inherited from the old order, including, but not limited to, the office of the attorney general, the auditor general and the Reserve Bank.
How then do we ensure that these institutions are both independent and serve the interests of democracy? The first order of business must be to ensure that they are representative, for unless they are representative of South African society they will not be able to win the confidence and respect of the people. Nor will they be able to demonstrate their independence from any particular political interests, past or present.
Secondly, we need to review the mechanisms through which these institutions are to be held broadly accountable to the people. Independence from the government of the day should not be taken to mean that these institutions are accountable only to themselves and their hats.
Many of the mechanisms contained in the Constitution and in legislation for ensuring such accountability are more than adequate. Others are clearly not. We need to examine in some detail all of these institutions and review the mechanisms of accountability as well as the mechanisms of appointment.
The 'watch-dogs' are not the only state organs in need of transformation.
>From the defence force to the police service to the public service in general there is still a long way to go to make the state truly representative. The White Paper on Affirmative Action in the Public Service acknowledges as much, and provides concrete mechanisms for achieving greater representivity and equity within the public service.
Yet transformation of these public service is not limited to greater representivity. Transformation also requires fundamental changes to the way the public service operates and provides services to the people of this country. Transformation of the public service covers such diverse areas as training and skills development; resource utilisation and management; public relations; service culture; structure; and management systems.
These matters don't require changes to the Constitution, nor do they require a two-thirds majority. But they do require that the people of South Africa renew the mandate of the only organisation in South Africa capable of effecting such transformation.
That is why the ANC will approach the elections next year with the intention of winning the support of an overwhelming and convincing number of South Africans.
Kgalema Motlanthe
ANC Secretary General