The National Party and the Democratic Party have managed to whip themselves up into quite a frenzy over the possibility that the ANC could win a two-thirds majority in the 1999 elections.
The question that needs to be asked is why, in a constitutional democracy where voters are free to decide on the party of their choice, have the opposition created such a fuss about this particular fraction.
The answer lies in great measure in these parties' approach to contesting the ANC's support.
Lacking a coherent or realisable vision for a better South Africa, these parties have fallen back on the promotion of fear to erode the ANC's support and to generate a mood of resistance to meaningful change.
The 'swart gevaar' and 'rooi gevaar', now devoid of their previous menace, have mutated into the two-thirds gevaar.
If fear is the opposition's most enduring weapon, then a two-thirds ANC majority is their latest ammunition.
The National Party tells us that a two-thirds ANC majority spells danger for democracy, reconciliation and nation building. The Democratic Party calls for a stand against an 'autocratic, all powerful government'.
Their recent preoccupation with this question is quite telling.
For one thing, it demonstrates their abiding fear of the will of the people. A fear of democracy.
It was with great reluctance in the first place that these two parties acceded to majority rule in South Africa, and to this day they continue to show scant regard for the wishes and aspirations of the people of this country.
They fail to acknowledge that the ANC's majority in this country constitutes a solemn and overwhelming mandate to implement a programme of reconstruction, development and democratic transformation.
When ANC members of parliament push transformative legislation through parliament on health, education and other matters they do so not because the ANC is autocratic, but because it is profoundly democratic.
The ANC is often forced to use its majority to pass legislation which opposition parties bitterly object to not because it is arrogant or unreasonable, but because it has a responsibility to the millions of South Africans who elected it to create a more equitable society.
Even during the negotiations process, some of these parties sought a constitutional arrangement which would forever entrench a minority veto in this country. They wanted to constrain the will of the majority by promoting disproportionately the narrow interests of a few.
Their latest outbursts about the 'danger' of a two-thirds ANC majority shows that they have not yet moved very far from this inherent dislike of democracy.
It speaks volumes, also, that so early in the election campaign the NP and DP are preparing to lose. The only question for them, it seems, is by how much and at what cost to the ANC.
That is surely not the approach of parties who have confidence that their policies and programmes can win the support of the majority of South Africans.
It is the approach instead of parties who are acutely aware that the policies they propogate appeal only to those small sections of the population who want to cling on to the privileges they gained under apartheid.
The National Party and Democratic Party have neither the capacity nor the inclination to lead this country towards a better life, and they know it.
They have therefore cast themselves as spoilers in the democratic transition.
Their responsibility, as they themselves define it, is to place whatever obstacles they can in the way of a smooth transformation. Their performance in the national Parliament, the various Provincial Legislatures and numerous local councils around the country have provided ample evidence of this.
They see themselves as opposition parties in the most literal sense of the word oppose the ANC at all costs, and don't bother too much about developing a viable, sustainable alternative.
But perhaps the most astounding feature of their new-found preoccupation, is that it demonstrates how very short their memories are.
Was it not the Democratic Party which "expressed reservations" on the adoption of the new Constitution? Was it not the National Party which said it found it "difficult" to vote in favour of the Constition?
The new Constitution gave enough power to Cosatu to make or unmake governments and to break the economy, Tony Leon warned us. South Africa would pay a high price for opting for majority rule, FW de Klerk said. "It is a mistake," were his exact words.
The ANC, by contrast, had no reservations about voting for the new Constitution. No difficulty. No hesitation.
The ANC voted for the new Constitution because it encapsulates the fundamental human rights and democratic values for which the ANC had fought since its establishment in 1912. More than any other party in this country, the ANC embraced the new Constitution because it considers it a vehicle through which the rights of all South Africans can be safeguarded and the inequalities and injustices of the past redressed.
The intervening two years have done nothing to diminish the ANC's support for the Constitution, nor for the basic freedoms and rights which it guarantees.
How then do you explain the opposition's insistence that given the opportunity the ANC would willingly undo the very freedoms for which the organisation fought over many decades, and for which many of its cadres and supporters lost their lives?
Certainly not by virtue of any logic.
The only way to explain this obsession with a two-thirds majority is to recognise what both the NP and the DP have recognised: that the ANC is the only organisation in South Africa capable of fundamentally transforming our society and replacing inequality with a better life for all.
They recognise also that in order to achieve this objective, the ANC needs to continue to enjoy the support of the majority of South Africans.
And it is for that reason that they are trying so desperately, even at this early stage, to deny the ANC the overwhelming electoral manadate it needs to continue and accelerate the reconstruction and development of South Africa.
Kgalema Motlanthe
ANC Secretary General