laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Registration of Services-type Uniforms Bill [B 74—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Education).
2. (2) Cultural Institutions Amendment Bill [B 75—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Education).
3. (3) Education Laws (Education and Training) Amendment Bill [B 76—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Education).
4. (4) Workmen’s Compensation Amendment Bill [B 77—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs).
5. (5) Marketing Amendment Bill [B 78—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs).

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

That a select committee be appointed to form part of a joint committee to enquire into and report upon the Electoral Act, 1979, the committee to have leave to submit legislation.

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, when the House adjourned yesterday I was referring to clause 18 of the Bill and I expressed the standpoint that authorisation to appoint Deputy Ministers represented an important step for the self-governing territories. That in itself is not a very great discovery and I assume that all the parties in this House are basically in agreement on this development. However I think it is important to draw attention to the reaction of the parties in this House to this new step.

We on this side of the House welcome this of course because it is a further step in the development of our policy. Through the hon member Prof Olivier we gained the consent of the PFP despite the fact that the development of self-governing territories is not an essential step in the policy of that party. The PFP at least recognises the fact that this clause provides for the training of Black Ministers and people of promotion calibre in the self-governing territories. We have now had two speakers of the Official Opposition and from neither of the two have we had any praise or consent at all in regard to this provision. That is the case despite the fact that the establishment of self-governing territories is an essential part of CP policy.

The hon member for Soutpansberg specifically mentioned a number of clauses here that his party was going to oppose, and clause 18 was not one of them. In other words it is acceptable to his party, but he has not gone so far as to say so. He could not bring himself to express any praise in this regard. It is not that we on this side of the House have any need of the praise of the CP; the voters of this country pronounced their opinion on that party a month ago. The reason why those spokesmen of that party could not bring themselves to praise this development, which constitutes an essential step in their own party’s policy, is that there may be the suggestion that the salaries of these Deputy Ministers will be paid out of the pockets of White taxpayers. During the recent election campaign that party led its supporters to believe that everything that was paid towards Black services by White taxpayers was a bad thing.

That party has conditioned its voters to adopt a negative attitude to the development of Black communities. I want to warn them here and now that they are sowing the wind because if there are no other hon members of this party, then the hon member for Randfontein will at least, with his more positive approach, know that if ever they want to sell their party’s policy to South Africa as a positive policy, they will also have to single out positive aspects of that policy and not only put forward the negative aspects of the NP’s policy in respect of the Whites. If one also takes into account the other considerations as to why Deputy Ministers for self-governing areas are important then one must consider the physical demands that these Black states make on their Ministers. We must take into account—I want to mention kwaZulu as an example because I know it better than the other Black states— that there are Ministers’ Councils consisting of fewer than 10 people but which serve populations of five to six million people.

Not only do we have relatively small Ministers’ Councils that have to serve a very large population; we also have Ministers’ Councils that have to perform their task in extremely unfavourable circumstances. There are councils that have to work in a relatively needy community where the revenue from tax is relatively small, where the availability of skilled administrative and clerical staff is very limited and where the road and rail links are deficient in many respects. In such circumstances it is surely obvious that the demands made on those Ministers’ Councils are tremendous and that the help that those Ministers are going to receive from Deputy Ministers will be of the utmost importance.

The CP cannot put this consideration to the voters of South Africa either, because they are too afraid to risk telling their people that it is the harsh reality of South Africa that we will all have to co-operate in developing the infrastructure of the whole of South Africa. They dare not risk that because they have led their people to construct their entire policy on race hatred. [Interjections. If we also bear in mind that these self-governing areas also have a credibility problem—we all know that suspicion has been cast on these self-governing territories from the outset by leftists in this country and that their parliaments have been called “bush parliaments” and their leaders “puppets of Pretoria”— surely it follows logically that political leaders of the self-governing territories have to a very large extent to devote their time to building up their credibility and the workability of their political system. This also means that they often have to visit their own people in White South Africa and that they have to travel not only to the White parts of South Africa but also abroad. From this it logically follows that those Ministers need the services of Deputy Ministers from time to time.

The CP does not dare put this positive aspect to the voters of South Africa either because they have told their people that these Black Ministers gad about and that the expenditure incurred in this way is paid by White taxpayers. Ultimately the CP is going to anger its people because if it were ever to happen that the CP’s policy were to be considered as an alternative policy in South Africa by thinking voters then they would surely also have to consider the positive aspects of that policy and that policy would also have to be stated in a positive light.

In the final instance the single primary consideration, and perhaps the most important consideration behind this authorisation, is that the Black leaders in those self-governing territories asked for this themselves. When a legislative authority such as this Parliament grants certain autonomous powers to certain communities, as was done in the case of kwaZulu and other self-governing territories, it does so because it has faith in the good judgment of the leaders and in the ability of those people to produce capable leaders. Accordingly, when those people say that they need the help of Deputy Ministers it must accept that.

Through its backbenchers the CP has on occasion told us in this House that it is not really concerned about the goodwill of Black leaders. That party must come and tell us …

Who said that?

… how it will eventually succeed, when it comes to the crunch, in negotiating with Black leaders on the vision for the future that the CP has for South Africa. The hon member for Soutpansberg …

Order! I think the hon member should revert to the Bill under discussion.

I am coming back to it now.

The hon member for Soutpansberg wanted to know who said that. He would do well to put that question to the CP backbenchers behind him. They said this very week that as far as the CP was concerned, negotiation was unnecessary.

We on this side of the House believe that this is an essential provision. We believe that it is a necessary and logical step forward in the development of Black communities and Black political structures.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, Mr Chairman, my time is extremely limited—in fact my time has expired—and I cannot take a question now.

We on this side of the House are also grateful that this is an unopposed measure. All we ask is that each party have the courage of its convictions to state unreservedly whether it agrees with this measure.

Mr Chairman, I do not have a great deal to say on the subject of this Bill, and I will not follow the hon member for Umlazi in the line that he took—largely in argument with the CP. I am not so sure that this would have been an unopposed Bill had it been possible for us to go right back to the principle of the establishment of homelands and the splitting up of South Africa into territorial areas based on ethnic segregation. That would have been a different matter altogether. We are not here, however, to debate that principle; it was accepted years ago.

We voted against it at the time and our attitude remains the same. What we are dealing with now, are adjustments to that principle which has been accepted and I do not see anything that we object to in the adjustments that are being made in this particular Bill.

The main reason, therefore, why I am speaking now, is that I want to express my appreciation to the Law Commission for having recommended the changes that we on the standing committee put forward as far as Black women’s rights and their ability to have contractual capacity in obtaining housing loans from building societies were concerned. This was a matter which I thought was extremely important and, as the hon member for Mossel Bay pointed out, we spent a great deal of time in the standing committee debating his subject. I certainly pushed very hard in favour of that change whereby Black women are to be given that contractual capacity.

I think it is common knowledge that Black women in the urban areas today are in many cases the breadwinner of the family. Indeed, I believe that approximately 28% of the families living in Soweto are single parent families, which means that the woman of the household is the breadwinner. It is obviously a tremendous hardship if such a woman is unable to secure a loan in order to provide a home for her family on either a 99-year leasehold basis or a freehold basis, as is now allowed.

The main problem that the building societies encountered, was the sudden appearance from nowhere of customary law husbands. They would appear on the scene and the woman would often lose the right to her home. Moreover, her children would lose that right when she died. This was one of the reasons why building societies were very reluctant to grant loans. They could never be sure, although the woman said that she was unmarried, that there was not in fact a customary law husband lurking in the background in one of the homelands. That was the great problem. Therefore, when the standing committee considered this matter, we recommended that the whole question of the contractual capacity of Black women be considered. Of course, this was only a minor point, as hon members of that standing committee will recall, in the whole question of Black marriages which were excluded from the purview of the Matrimonial Property Amendment Act of 1984.

The Law Commission has just issued its latest report, which I read with interest. I find that it has now indeed made a thorough study of the entire body of matrimonial property law pertaining to Black persons and that it has not only investigated common-law marriages. As we all know, Black women fall under the marital power of the husband regardless of whether they are married in or out of community of property, and so marrying out of community of property was of no help to such a woman who wanted to obtain a home. Now, however, that whole question has been reinvestigated, not only as far as common-law marriages are concerned but also in regard to customary law marriages. I note that the Law Commission states that it has already submitted its report, and I very much hope that we shall have the opportunity of debating it during the second half of this session because this is a matter which is in urgent need of consideration.

Meanwhile, however, one small step forward has been taken as far as Black married women—or Black women in general, for that matter—are concerned—in that their contractual capacity in regard to obtaining housing loans from building societies and other organisations has now been rectified. For that reason, we are very pleased indeed, and this is also one of the main reasons why we are supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, by way of a change the hon member for Houghton’s contribution was positive in that she welcomed the legislation and the provision it makes in respect of ownership.

I believe this legislation is most important because it addresses the issue of ownership, which is a very important aspect of reform. The hon member for Pietersburg said this process was supposed or so-called reform. We are, however, engaged in the process of real reform in this country.

Ownership is one of the methods whereby peace can be attained in this country. It is therefore of great importance that we continue with further reform in order to address this very important matter. People, with their needs and desires, have basic rights. Firstly, there is the right of private ownership. It makes no difference who these people are or what colour they are. In the second place, there is the right to live where one wants to, and in the third place, the right to be able to reach agreement with one another. Fourthly, there is the right to participate or to compete. Some of these rights are dealt with in this legislation to make it easier to get people to reach agreement with one another, and to deal with the rights to which, basically, people in this country lay claim and which we shall have to consider.

This is far removed from what the hon member for Pietersburg said, namely that the NP envisages a unitary state in South Africa. We are here to address ourselves to the realities in this country. We are not here to surrender, but to see whether we cannot deal with the problems in this country and in this way live together in peace. We think this is possible. We do not create expectations in people; we fulfil the expectations that dwell in people’s hearts. We have to address and accommodate the reasonable demands of reasonable people in South Africa. That is what this legislation is attempting to do. We on the NP side are not trying to steer away from power-sharing; we are in fact trying to share power. Whereas in the past the Whites had all the power, we now want to give the other people in South Africa a share in the government of the country and in the process of addressing the problems of the country in future. It is true that CP policy is heading …

Order! The hon member will have to move closer to the Bill under discussion.

Very well, Sir.

I want to return to another aspect of this legislation, namely the Commission for Cooperation and Development and the role it has played in South Africa. Mr Chairman, you yourself were a chairman of the commission and you will understand what important and difficult work the commission has done over the years. It addressed the important problem of land apportionment in South Africa. It was embodied in legislation of 1936. It was then realised that certain areas in South Africa should be set aside for Blacks.

The Official Opposition must concede that this process of ours in the past made possible the policy they are now following. I therefore want to say that they ought to be supporting us in order to facilitate the process of land apportionment so that it will be possible for each of the peoples of South Africa to have a share.

The work of the commission was not always popular and it did not always take place in easy circumstances, but the commission performed its task to the best of its ability. Of course, this task has not yet been completed and the commission is still dealing with it.

Mr Chairman, at this stage I want to move:

Agreed to.

Precedence given to private members’ business.

Mr Chairman, I move the motion as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. (1) that the only way in which peace and security can be ensured in South Africa is by granting Blacks satisfactory and acceptable participation in the political decision-making processes;
2. (2) that such participation will have to take place inter alia in the highest legislative and executive authority of the country;
3. (3) that such participation will only be satisfactory and acceptable within the structure of a new constitution, which must be the product of negotiation with the real and accepted leaders of all population groups in South Africa; and
4. (4) that the Government should forthwith take steps to convene a national convention or constitutional conference of such leaders in order to launch the process of negotiation.

To begin with I have a few remarks to make. I appreciate the opportunity we have to discuss this matter in this House calmly and peacefully. The subject of the debate is of paramount importance and I hope and trust that we shall approach this matter with the utmost responsibility, honesty and circumspection. To that I wish to add that it was with interest that we took cognisance of the recent visit of the hon the State President to the Vaal Triangle and the way in which he there made contact with the Black people themselves. We have also taken cognisance of the statements by Prof Oosthuizen of the President’s Council on the latest developments in the President’s Council. It was with great interest, too, that we heard about the latest development relating to the hon the Deputy Minister who is the member for Helderkruin. I believe that we all wish him everything of the best for this great and important task that is now being entrusted to him.

The motion in my name comprises four parts. The first contains a basic philosophical statement, viz that we will only have peace and security in South Africa once a satisfactory way of accommodating Blacks politically can be found. Indeed, I believe one could say that Black political accommodation has become not only the predominant issue in politics, but a decisive factor for the future of our country.

The present state of emergency is in essence a reflection of the resistance shown by a large portion of the Black population to the present political dispensation. I venture to say that there is no one in this House who wants the imposition of emergency regulations aimed at maintaining law and order, to be continued indefinitely.

In this regard I want to say that we are inclined to forget that the present unrest situation is only the latest in a long series of similar situations. It is something that has taken place time and again over the years. It is nothing new, but I wish to say that this situation of unrest should bring home to us afresh the message that we can permit no further delay in the achievement of a satisfactory political accommodation for the Black people of our country. In addition, it is a tragic fact—I reiterate that in my opinion it is a great tragedy—that Blacks cannot be accommodated politically within the existing constitutional framework. Even if the Government wanted to, therefore, it could not accommodate Blacks within this Constitution. This is because the Constitution provides that the decisive instruments of power—that is to say the electoral colleges electing the State President and the Speaker, as well as the President’s Council—are constituted according to a 4:2:1 ratio. What this in fact amounts to is that the majority of the “Whites”—and if one wants to be more to the point, of the majority party—is the decisive factor. By way of those two fundamental instruments of power the White majority party in the House of Asssembly has the final say.

I shall come back to that immediately. Let us be honest. We cannot accommodate Blacks within that system. If we work on the basis of a 4:2:1 ratio, which reflects the demographic facts of our system, I want to ask what we are going to do in such a situation with that ratio if we bring in the Blacks. After all, we cannot say that it should be four Whites, two Coloureds, one Indian and half a Black man! It is unfortunate and a tragedy that Blacks cannot be accommodated within this Constitution, even were the Government to decide today that that was what it wanted. The Government has already said that it does not want a fourth Chamber, but I want to say that in my opinion it was a big mistake to create a constitution which, in comparison with the previous constitution, incorporates that inflexibility, in that one cannot accommodate Blacks within the constitution even if one wished to do so. Therefore, if we want to accommodate Blacks it will have to be within a new constitution.

We and the Government are in agreement that such a provision must be made. The Government has stated time and again that it accepts the need for an arrangement to be made to provide for the satisfactory political accommodation of the Blacks.

The Government and ourselves also agree that that political accommodation will have to be provided at the highest executive and legislative level. Therefore a new constitution will have to come into being, and if I interpret the standpoint of the Government correctly, provision must be made in the new constitution for Black representation at the highest executive and legislative level. This has been stated very clearly in various NP publications and I should like to quote an example to hon members here now:

Therefore this is stated very clearly. On the question as to what is meant by participation at the highest level, this NP publication has the following to say:

This sounds very fine, My problem, however, is that the NP blows hot and cold. I never know when to believe it, because here, in another NP publication, Die Nasionalis of March 1987—the election edition—reference is made inter alia to the Independents and to what they want, and it is stated that the Independents believe that—

I shall not go into what results from that. According to them the Independents also maintain:

Die Regering is nie bereid om magsdeling met die Swartmense op die hoogste vlak binne een Parlement te aanvaar nie.

In reply to this accusation levelled by the Independents, Die Nasionalis states:

How can the Government say, on the one hand, that Black people must be present in this Parliament and at the same time say that power cannot meaningfully be shared with Blacks within Parliament? [Interjections.] I quote further:

Flights of the imagination!

I am unable to reconcile these statements.

No one can.

These statements appearing in Die Nasionalis and those that appear in the other NP publication cannot be reconciled. This causes people to doubt where the NP is really heading and whether it is really in earnest about negotiating with a view to a constitutional dispensation that will make provision for representation for the Blacks in the highest legislative and executive authority in the country, represented by this Parliament and Cabinet.

The NP also concedes that that new constitution must be the product of negotiation. Now I want to add here and now that it is obvious to us that that process of negotiation is essential to the legitimacy of any constitution. With reference to the present Constitution I can only say that I do not believe there is any doubt whatsoever about the fact that even the two other groups for whom this Constitution was intended, the Coloureds and the Indians—judging by the election results this is true of the vast majority of those people—reject this Constitution. The reason they reject it is that this Constitution has no legitimacy because it is not the product of negotiation. As everyone knows, the present Constitution was created unilaterally by the Government, by the NP. Subsequently they sold this Constitution to the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.] In the process of true negotiation …

That is their “braaivleis diplomacy”! [Interjections.]

In the process of true negotiation this existing Constitution certainly is not the product of open negotiation even among those three groups. [Interjections.]

Any constitution that is to have legitimacy in South Africa must be seen to be the product, the creation, of negotiation among all the groups and people of South Africa.

The important question that arises in this regard relates to several fundamental problems. As I see it there are four fundamental problems. One of these is the lack of mutual trust in South Africa. The sober fact is that it is extremely difficult, particularly owing to the policy pursued over the past 30 to 40 years in this country, to expect of Blacks and also of others that they should trust this Government. Whether we like it or not, those are the sober facts. After all, we all know, if we are only honest with ourselves, that one of the basic problems we are faced with is the total lack of trust between the Government and our other population groups. This really bedevils the entire process of negotiation. Let us be very honest, Sir. This is a simple fact. That, of course, is the price we have to pay for the policy that the Government has been pursuing in this regard over the past 30 to 40 years. I do not wish to elaborate on it now, Mr Chairman. I believe it is a self-evident fact. We simply have to accept it.

The second fundamental problem relates to the issue of those with whom negotiations must be conducted. Now I want to add at once that the principle is very clear that all groups in South Africa must be involved in this process of negotiation. All organisations in South Africa that are in any way representative will have to participate in that process of negotiation. This applies to Whites. It also applies in the case of the other groups. Naturally it applies to the Black groups as well. Now, I want to add here and now that during the past election much mention was made of the ANC. The question has often been asked whether we want to negotiate with the ANC. Here I regard two matters as being of immediate importance. In the first place, the ANC is not the only body in South Africa that is representative of Blacks. Having said that, the following is also of great importance. According to all the indications at our disposal, according to all the surveys, a considerable section of the Black population of South Africa does support the ANC. Therefore, if the ANC is not involved in that process of negotiation, then that simply means that we are not according representation to that considerable portion of the Black population in that process. That is how simple it is, Mr Chairman.

I must immediately point out, however, that Swapo was unbanned in South West Africa— it had often been said that Swapo would not be allowed to participate in the process of negotiation—and indeed, this was done without major problems for South West Africa itself. What I have said here, Mr Chairman, must please not be seen as a condonation by me of any acts of terrorism or anything of that nature. Indeed, it has nothing to do with that. I am referring to the need for all bodies in South Africa that are representative of substantial parts of the population being involved in the process of negotiation. After all, this is a principle that does not require justification. It is a principle for which I do not apologize; a principle which I believe to be essential.

Then, too, there are also Inkatha and other bodies that are representative of the Black population of South Africa.

As we know, the major problem is specifically that we do not know who can really be regarded, or who can be distinguished, as those Blacks who are really accepted by the Black people themselves as their leaders, particularly outside the self-governing territories. In the self-governing territories the political process has caused the true leaders there to emerge. It is the absence of a political process in the other areas that has placed us in this dilemma, that we do not know today who are recognised by the Blacks themselves as those in whom they have confidence and whom they regard as their leaders. If we had continued with the legislation of 1936 we could indeed have found ourselves in a different situation today. At this stage, however, it is unfortunately the case that we do not know with certainty whom the Blacks outside the self-governing territories accept as their leaders. What this amounts to, then, is the following. If we are honest in the negotiation process then we shall have to create the mechanisms whereby the Blacks outside the self-governing territories will be able to indicate to us whom they accept as their leaders. However, we must not make the mistake of building on the Black local authorities and hoping that they will be regarded as representative bodies. Indeed, I think that the hon the Minister of National Education made that admission.

We know, unfortunate as it may be, that our Black local authorities do not at this stage enjoy the confidence, or as far as we are able to judge they do not have the confidence, of the majority of the Black people in the Black residential areas. It seems to me as if the first step of negotiation will probably be to determine with whom negotiations are to take place. It seems to me that this is the first step in the process of negotiation.

I said that there were various fundamental problems in this regard, of which I had already mentioned two. Now I want to say at once that the third problem is a fundamental one: The fact, as it seems to me, that what the NP presents as the framework within which negotiation is to take place, will make that negotiation totally impossible.

If I understand the NP correctly on the basis of what it has said time and again in the course of this election there are certain non-negotiable preconditions set by the NP in that entire process of negotiation. I know of no negotiations anywhere conducted on such a basis. It is a totally different matter if one comes to the negotiating table with proposals, but if one says in advance that what one is putting forward are not proposals but non-negotiable preconditions, then one makes negotiation totally impossible.

When I consider what the NP puts forward as its non-negotiables—this is not my expression; it is an expression used by the NP itself—then I see that the non-negotiables contain two elements. One is the statement made here time and again by hon Ministers and the hon the State President to the effect that all groups must participate in the process as groups. Those groups are race groups. They are not cultural groups, and they are not ethnic groups; they are race groups. In other words, when the NP speaks about the multicultural character of our population composition, then it is playing with words, because this has nothing to do with culture and ethnicity. It is quite simply and clearly a matter of race and colour. Here, then, we have that fundamental principle that race groups must participate in the process as race groups and that the individual’s participation in the political process can only take place on a basis of his compulsory membership of a race group. In other words, without a mechanism like the Population Registration Act this cannot function. I do just want to refer once again to the study carried out by the HSRC itself in which it was indicated that that Act is the basis for the resistance of non-Whites in South Africa. Moreover, in that process it is impossible to have free political association. It does not matter whether hon members or I agree 100% with the Rev Hendrickse or with others as to what we want to achieve or where we want to go; when it comes to the exercise of our political rights he has to go into his little compartment and I into mine. How we are to build a future in South Africa when we accept, as the NP does, that our fate is shared on that basis is something I cannot understand.

The second non-negotiable element, as the NP sees it, is the division between general and own affairs. That division itself is not accepted by the majority of people in South Africa. However I want to say at once that hon members and I know that those own affairs constitute nothing but constitutionalised apartheid. We can call it what we like, but that is what it is. Now, one can understand why other people regard that whole concept of own affairs as totally unacceptable and offensive.

I have said on more than one occasion that if we as Afrikaners feel that we want to have self-determination over those affairs that are our concern such as our language and perhaps even education, or whatever, then it will be possible to negotiate that. However, we do not have the right to force that concept down the throats of others. Even when we speak about general affairs we speak about a limited sphere because the NP limits negotiation on power-sharing to the sphere of general affairs. There is no power-sharing whatsoever in the field of own affairs. Even in regard to the limited sphere of general affairs the NP has failed to tell us what the structures are that it wants to create to bring about that power-sharing.

Unfortunately there are at present several perceptions among the Blacks of their interests in this regard. The first perception is that the NP will never move away from a situation in which the final decisive instrument of power is in its hands. The challenge faced by the NP is to say that that perception is false— if it is false. [Interjections.] This is a perception which is to be found among a very large section of the people of colour in our country: The NP expresses fine sentiments and says fine things, but the crux of the issue is whether or not the NP is prepared to share power and not keep the balance of power for itself. As far as this issue is concerned, there is a total lack of trust among the vast majority of people of colour. I say this with regret, but it is the sober truth that that perception does exist—just as there is a perception among many Whites that power-sharing must necessarily lead to a take-over of power. This, too, is a mistaken perception because there can be power-sharing—many models of this are available—without there being a take-over of power.

As I see it, therefore, it is a choice between that perception on the part of a major section of the people of colour that the NP is in fact not prepared to share power in the true sense of the word and that it will always keep a position of dominant power for itself, on the one hand, and on the other the restraining factor that so many Whites do not want to speak about power-sharing because they equate power-sharing with a take-over of power. Let me say at once that there are undoubtedly Blacks—we are aware of this— who speak about a take-over of power.

I shall come back to this subject later but let me just conclude at this stage by saying that time is of the utmost importance in this kind of situation. We have no time. When, for example, we recall the past 30 to 40 years and when we consider the international reaction to South Africa in regard to the fact that Blacks have been excluded, we must appreciate that time is becoming a crucial factor in this regard. We cannot delay that process any longer.

Now, it is true that there is only one body that can lead or initiate that process, and that is the Government itself. That is why I ask in the last part of my motion that the Government waste no time in convening a national convention—or whatever we want to call it— I use this term merely because it links up with our own past—or a “Turnhalle” or constitutional conference to initiate that process as soon as possible so that we can make progress in some respect and so that the conviction may be fruitfully instilled in our people that the Government is in earnest about a new constitution in which provision will be made for the due political accommodation of the Black people.

There is no getting away from that imperative. I myself do not foresee that that process could be finalised in the course of two to three months, or even within two to three years, because in the course of that process the existing lack of trust would have to be removed and a relationship of mutual trust would have to be created. However, we can initiate that process in an honest way so that it may be regarded, experienced and accepted by those people as evidence of the serious intention of this Government to find a new constitution and to negotiate. We may not postpone that process any longer.

Mr Speaker, there are aspects of the hon member Prof Olivier’s motion with which I personally can associate myself, and I am sure hon members on this side of the House can too. In fact, there is a great similarity between the hon member’s motion and a motion that appears on the Order Paper under my name. I myself have assumed the standpoint on more than one occasion, both inside and outside this House, that it is not possible to establish freedom, security, peace and prosperity for one population group in this country at the expense of any other population community or communities in the country. Either we are all going to enjoy freedom, security, peace and prosperity together, or we are all going to go under in this country.

The hon the State President stated unequivocally that the standpoint of this side of the House was that Black South African citizens inter alia should be able to participate up to the highest levels of authority in decision making that affects them.

Will they have representation in Parliament?

As far as such participation in the decision-making processes cannot take place in terms of the present Constitution, it stands to reason that an amendment or adjustment of the existing Constitution will be necessary to make provision for that.

The standpoint of this side of the House is that such an amendment or adjustment of the present Constitution must be the product of negotiation with the leaders of all the population communities involved. In fact, the time when one population group could decide unilaterally for and on behalf of other population communities, has definitely gone for good as far as South Africa is concerned. The Government is actively involved in negotiations with Black leaders with a view to further constitutional developments.

The UDF as well?

The Government is doing everything in its power to stimulate and continue the dialogue in a meaningful and constructive way.

I do not differ with the hon member Prof Olivier’s motion so much in what he says, therefore, but rather in what he does not say in his motion. There is no distinction, for example, between general and own affairs and no mention is made of the respective population communities’ right of self-determination in respect of their own affairs, without which co-partnership in respect of general affairs would not be acceptable.

Nor is there any mention of what the proposed Black participation must comply with to be “satisfactory and acceptable”. Must the participation also be satisfactory and acceptable to the radical left-wing elements among the Blacks and—what is more important in my opinion—also to the White electorate? I state unequivocally that as far as this side of the House is concerned, a dispensation which will not be satisfactory and acceptable to the White electorate will definitely not be accepted. What is at issue here, therefore, is not only the urgent requests of the Blacks; the urgent requests of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians is also, and most particularly, at issue.

The motion of the hon member does not indicate which people are regarded as being the real and accepted leaders of the respective population communities. Experience has taught us, however, that as soon as a Black leader says he is prepared to negotiate, he is summarily dismissed as an “Uncle Tom” or a Government stooge. By definition, Black leaders are recognized as leaders only and as long as they are unwilling to negotiate.

In this connection the hon member’s motion leaves the question of negotiation with the ANC wide open. From what is being said by hon members of his party and the media that support his party, and in fact from what the hon member himself said this afternoon, it is clear that the motion must be interpreted as reading that negotiation should also take place with the leaders of the ANC. There must be negotiation, therefore, with the leaders of a banned organization under communist control, which is committed to seizing political power—I am not talking about power-sharing, but about the exclusive political power—by means of violence, and which has no interest whatsoever in negotiation, except in negotiation about the handing over of power. According to the hon member’s motion, negotiations must also take place with the leaders of this organization. That is definitely not acceptable to this side of the House. Hon members of the CP must also take cognizance once and for all that that is not acceptable to this side of the House.

The fourth point of the hon member’s motion involves a national convention or a constitutional conference or whatever it may be called. There have been frequent debates about this in the past. This side of the House and I are not in favour of this section of the hon member’s motion, inter alia for reasons which I shall refer to in a moment. In the first place such a national convention is not possible. If we keep in mind the efforts the PFP itself has made recently to get a mini-national convention off the ground in terms of its recipe, and the adversity they have experienced in the process, I am really surprised that the hon member Prof Olivier is once again trying to saddle this old mule that refuses to run.

In the second place, a national convention of this kind cannot succeed. It cannot succeed before the leaders of the various population communities who are to take part in it have been identified. The hon member himself admitted that this was one of the biggest stumbling blocks in the way of constitutional development. Only once the leaders who are prepared to commit themselves to constitutional development via negotiation have been identified, can one proceed seriously with negotiation. One cannot convene a national convention with people whom one has not identified. Whether one eventually arrives at a national convention or not, the first step must be the identification of the leaders with whom one wants to negotiate. But a national convention of this kind is not necessary. There is sufficient opportunity for negotiation at present. The Government is more than prepared to create more opportunities for negotiation if only people would make use of the opportunities.

It is not necessary to “launch” a process of negotiation, as the hon member Prof Olivier’s motion reads. It exists already. If the hon member wants to make a meaningful contribution, he can try to use his influence to persuade Black leaders to take part in the opportunities that already exist for negotiation. In this way he can make a meaningful contribution.

Mighty presumptuous!

Archie Gumede.

What we need is not a national convention or any other structure for negotiation, but a positive attitude and a willingness to take part in meaningful negotiation on the basis of the recognition of ethnicity and group diversity in the South African society in the first place. That is the point on which the hon members of the PFP falter, however. They pay lip service to the plurality of the South African society, but as soon as one wants to recognize that same plurality in the process of constitutional development, they say we must establish a unitary community in South Africa. I tell them that this side of the House is not prepared either to accept a unitary community, or to ignore ethnicity.

The reason is that throughout the world and throughout history, ethnicity has proved to be the most important factor, and a factor which refuses to be denied. We are not prepared to ignore ethnicity in South Africa either.

Then negotiation is dead! That is what you are saying!

The other underlying principles which I want to point out briefly, are the distinction between general and own affairs and the recognition of a people’s right of self-determination in respect of own affairs, to which I have referred. Thirdly there is the protection of minority rights and the prevention of the domination of one group by another, and fourthly, the recognition of the fact that constitutional change can be implemented only by this Parliament.

I should therefore like to support the Government’s efforts to promote meaningful negotiation, and therefore I cannot support the motion of the hon member Prof Olivier.

Mr Speaker, no doubt everyone in this House is in agreement as regards the fact that the objective of those who incite violence and unrest in this country is to establish Black political authority over this entire country.

This is so because among the non-White groups there are clearly two factions, the so-called non-violent ones on the one hand, and on the other, those who wish to achieve their objective by way of violence. However, in our approach to this matter there is no difference between the actual objectives of these two groups. It is also an oversimplification merely to want to negotiate with the one group, as the Government does—wishing to negotiate only with those who ostensibly wish to function within the system. We say this because the most eloquent example of this group is probably Mr Gatsha Buthelezi. That is why it is perhaps appropriate that we just consider his view of what ought to happen in this country. I refer to the following statement that he made in 1976:

On another occasion he said:

This is an example of the people who are presented as those with whom it is possible to negotiate about the establishment of a new political dispensation in our country. It is clear that the motion before this House is about making things acceptable and satisfactory to the Black man. There I agree with the hon member for Mossel Bay that this is set as a minimum requirement and in addition, according to the motion moved by the hon member Prof Olivier, that there must be Black participation in the Cabinet and in Parliament and that that participation must be within the structure of the new constitution, concerning which negotiation must also take place with the true and accepted leaders. It is striking that in the motion under discussion it is held out as a consequential prospect that there can be full agreement with what is put forward as a final objective by radical and so-called moderate leaders. Therefore in terms of this motion there need be no conditions or guarantees. In essence, what this amounts to—it does and can mean nothing else—is that a Black majority government will come to power in this country.

As we see the matter it is also true that power-sharing by all the inhabitants of this country must, in terms of the vision of the Government, be the objective of reform, although it is also stated that this must take place in a peaceful way without one group dominating another. The factor that is common to the Black people or the Black interest groups mentioned, and the Whites on the left and on the opposite side of the House is the acceptance of a unitary state or, as they seem to prefer to refer to it, an undivided South Africa with equal political rights for all. The only difference relates to the way of going about it, the timing and the eventual form of government. In the achievement of this objective there is a difference of opinion as to who may and may not participate, the method of operation and the time factors that play a role here, and this gives rise to frustration and friction among the Black people.

Let us consider what has emerged recently on that side of the House, as articulated by Adv D P de Villiers. He said that it would be necessary to take a fresh look at what he called “new factors” in South African politics. He referred in particular to a new species of Afrikaner, namely the so-called “Boland Afrikaner”. Hon members on that side of the House will have to tell us whether that “Boland Afrikaner” is regionally bound or whether they agree with the view of Adv De Villiers. On the other hand we shall have to consider the possibility that this species of Afrikaner is not regionally bound, since some of them have already put in an appearance in Randburg. Hon members on that side of the House must tell us what their view of this matter is.

In essence, we on this side of the House say that the solution cannot lie in negotiating with so-called moderates, because these moderates have already set the precondition for negotiation that the radicals must be involved in this process of negotiation. If these radicals are involved in the process of negotiation we foresee that it will be inevitable that these negotiations are doomed before they have begun. The reason for this is that no basis whatsoever can be laid on which these people can become involved without also involving the radicals. Therefore we shall certainly not support this motion at this stage, and we move the following as an amendment:

Mr Speaker, I want to begin by telling the hon member for Ermelo immediately that the “Bolandse Afrikaner” referred to, was not mentioned by this side of the House. I shall not say anything concerning the question as to whether or not such a species or subspecies exists. Afrikaners do live in the Boland, however. These Boland Afrikaners do not intend to move to a White homeland. We shall not permit these Boland Afrikaners to be drawn together in a White “Boerestaat”. Nor will these Boland Afrikaners permit the CP to make a Coloured homeland of this part of the country. [Interjections.]

Let us talk about the one thing we do have in common. That is that we know—and every party in this House admits it—that Blacks must have political rights. That standpoint is shared by all the parties in this House. To tell the truth, this side of the House took this concept, under the leadership of the then Prime Minister, the late Dr Verwoerd, and established four independent states and six self-governing states in terms of it.

Our point of departure at that stage, however, was that the Blacks outside those states were here on a temporary basis. That is why we could say morally that since they were here only temporarily, they could exercise their political rights in their country of origin. We could do that morally. In the course of time it became clear to those of us on this side of the House, however, that in the first place the people were not satisfied with that kind of situation and that secondly, it was not morally just to ask someone who had been born outside that national state or self-governing state and whose father, grandfather and even great-grandfather had not been born there, to exercise his political rights there. That is the basic difference between us and the CP; we recognise the permanence of the existence of the Blacks outside the self-governing Black states. That is the basis of the difference between us and the CP. That is why the CP, by denying this fact of permanence, can succeed in saying that they are going to link the people with the homelands. I am afraid we are not capable of denying the reality of our time. Unfortunately that is the way things are.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, Sir, unfortunately I do not have the time for that. I want to repeat that we cannot get away from the political fact that the linkage policy does not work.

Another point I should like to put is that all Blacks cannot be accommodated in the independent Black states. That simply cannot happen. That is why we shall have to make provision for them outside those states.

Earlier we could do so. When the homeland policy was introduced, we thought we could succeed in accommodating all those people in those homelands. We tried money, technical assistance and everything else, but nothing worked. Hon members can go and look up the facts; urbanisation among the Blacks increased under every prime minister or president of this country. It happened in any case; the figures prove it. It did not increase under Mr P W Botha. Urbanisation increased under each of his predecessors.

When the hon member for Lichtenburg says, therefore, that within a period of 15 years he is going to get all those people back into the homelands, I think he is misleading the people of South Africa. It is not possible. [Interjections.]

With reference to the recent election in particular, when the CP said we were spending too much money on the Black independent states, when they said we were spending the Whites’ money on the homelands, and when they said we were doing everything for the Blacks and nothing for the Whites, I want to ask them how they want to get those people back into the homelands in 15 years? There is only answer if they want to get them back there, and that is with violence. They do not want to spend any money, and therefore they will have to make use of violence to achieve their goal. [Interjections.]

Let us be frank with one another. The urbanised Blacks did not come here to look at the lights. Urbanised Blacks come to the cities in search of work. They come here to seek jobs, because they do not have jobs where they have come from. We must stop telling the people, therefore, that they are coming to look at the lights.

Like the Turks in West Germany?

I do not have a great deal to do with Turks. [Interjections.] This hon member’s problem is that he wants to make only Whites part of this country. I tell him that he cannot do that. It cannot work. We must make provision for everyone. He can call Turks and whoever else he pleases to witness, but it cannot work in Africa.

I want to tell him that there will always—a politician should not use the word “always”, but I want to do so today—be more Blacks in so-called White South Africa than there are Whites. There will always be more Blacks than Whites.

Tell me …

The hon member must not talk to me in any case. He owes me. He cannot talk to me until he has settled his debt. [Interjections.]

There is another aspect that we must not lose sight of, viz that political power is sought in groups. We cannot deny that. Another factor that I want to mention to the PFP today, is that they must not deny the existence of colour groups in this country. They must not deny the existence of colour groups. We do not even deny the existence of the hon member for—who is the little fellow who stands with his hand raised? What is his name? [Interjections.]—the hon member for Greytown. The hon member who catches flies and beetles. That is how he was photographed.

There is no point in denying the existence of colour groups in this country. There is no point in doing so. The question we must answer in our search for a solution, however, is the following. Why do people want to escape the connotation of a colour group? I think it is important to address that question very clearly in future. In my opinion the answer lies, correctly or incorrectly—I want to repeat that, Sir—correctly or incorrectly, in that the perception exists that because one belongs to a specific colour group, one is more badly off than people who belong to a different colour group. That is the fundamental reason that people want to escape the concept of colour. One will not achieve what one wants by trying to do that. One will still have to recognise the colour connotation as a factor. One will have to recognise the existence of a group in one’s thought’s about what is going to happen in our country’s future.

Unfortunately time does not permit me to discuss it, but I want to say that constitutional negotiation can take place only without intimidation of the negotiators. I think that is very important. That is why I want to tell hon members that it is of the utmost importance, and I want to thank the Government for this, that the maintenance of law and order is permitting us, to a very great extent, to create security in our country once again. It is necessary to remember that as long as this unrest continues and intimidation is rampant, we shall not be able to progress in the process of negotiation.

It is the other way round.

In conclusion, I believe that as long as intimidation takes place and the Black community itself does not take a stand against intimidation, the conference table will remain empty.

Mr Speaker, having listened to both the hon member for Mossel Bay and the hon member for Parow from the Government side, I must say that one is left with the very strong impression that if they really expressed the views of the Government there is very little hope for peaceful negotiation to succeed in South Africa. I found those two speeches exceedingly disappointing. One would have hoped in the present circumstances that there would have been a far greater degree of reality from the Government benches relating to the motion moved by the hon member prof Olivier.

The hon member for Mossel Bay was disappointing because while he paid lip service to negotiation—he said the Government was interested in negotiation and believed in it— he showed that he had a very closed mind on the subject of negotiation when he actually set out what he thought of negotiation and how he defined it. He also showed arrogance by asking what the hon member prof Olivier meant by the words “satisfactory and acceptable”. He then developed that argument by saying that if it was not acceptable and satisfactory to the Whites it could not work.

That may be an attitude but I wonder if he has ever thought to apply that attitude in reverse. If one came up with something that was not satisfactory and acceptable to the Blacks how would negotiations succeed? This is my problem with the Government when they talk about negotiation. One seldom sees in their attitude any spirit of compromise, any willingness to meet the argument of others or any willingness to look at the South African situation in its totality and outside the narrow confines of the NP.

The hon member went on to say that the NP would not under any circumstances consider negotiating with the ANC. He said that with great emphasis.

No! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mossel Bay shakes his head. As I understood it, it was an emphatic statement on his part that under no circumstances could he concede that the NP would involve the ANC in any negotiation. Did he say that or not? I see the hon member’s leader, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is suggesting that he should not respond. Perhaps the hon the Minister will clarify the situation when he enters the debate.

Yes, I will.

The hon member for Mossel Bay certainly left that very firm impression. [Interjections.] The hon member went on to suggest that they could only identify with leaders who themselves identified with lawful negotiation. Nobody has suggested otherwise.

We too have said that in the process of negotiation in South Africa one will obviously negotiate with people who are committed to constitutional and legal forms of change in South Africa. One does not negotiate with revolutionaries. [Interjections.]

The hon member then went on to set out his preconditions for negotiation in South Africa. If those are the Government’s preconditions for negotiation in South Africa they can forget about it because it will not work. The hon member’s first condition was that they will only negotiate with people who acknowledge ethnicity and the group character of various groups in South Africa. I want to tell him that if that is the basis on which his Government is entering into negotiation there is absolutely no hope for negotiation in South Africa. He can forget about it. They are simply wasting the taxpayers’ money and they might as well forget about any changes and continue to govern South Africa on the present basis.

This is what disappoints me. There is no doubt that the terms of the motion moved by the hon member prof Olivier deal with the central issue of South African politics at the present time. It is a motion that is totally relevant to every facet of national debate in this country. It stands in stark contrast to the nonsense that was uttered at great length about totally irrelevant issues during the recent election campaign.

In this motion we are dealing with the fact that Parliament is trying to address itself to the issue of Black participation in the decision-making processes. If we can succeed in meeting the aspiration of Blacks along the lines suggested in this motion I believe that many of the major problems confronting South Africa will disappear overnight.

The motion refers for example to a situation of peace and security in South Africa. If we look at the need for peace and security in South Africa it is self-evident that if we can satisfy the political needs and aspirations of Blacks there will be internal peace and security in this country; it will become a reality.

The opposite side of that argument is that, unless we can satisfy the aspirations of the Black majority in South Africa in regard to their political rights, there is no hope of peace and security being established in South Africa on an ongoing basis. No matter what we may spend on security measures, no matter how strong and how effective our security forces are, that peace and that security will elude us until such time as we can satisfy the criteria set out in the motion before us. We know that the security of South Africa is primarily an internal problem involving the majority of our own population who resent the laws in terms of which they are being governed and who particularly resent the fact that they have no say in the making of those laws.

The other problem which could be resolved in the spirit of the motion before the House is the whole question of our international standing and the international pressure and hostility which is directed towards South Africa. Hon members should know that when one discusses the South African situation with anyone, the bottom line is always: What about Black representation in the Parliament of South Africa? One can talk of all kinds of other reforms. One can talk about mixed sport or “normalised” sport, whatever one wants to call it. One can talk about integrated hotels and restaurants and point out the changes which have taken place in South Africa. One can talk about the fact that Blacks have their trade union rights recognised in South Africa. One can talk about the abolition of influx control and the pass laws. One can name all these things as major changes in South Africa. However, the bottom line and the last question is always: What about Black representation in the South African Parliament in the decision making processes? Therefore, we must realise that this motion before us is a vital one.

Another matter which would quite naturally follow if we want to solve problems in South Africa, is the whole uncertainty around the economic situation in South Africa. Again we know this situation depends and rests on the base that there is political uncertainty in South Africa and therefore people do not find the stability which they are looking for in the economic field. So, the question of Black participation is absolutely vital if we are to resolve the problems in South Africa.

I want to say that when future historians write the history of South Africa covering the latter half of the 20th century, they are not going to be concerned about what the NP thought of the CP, what the CP thought of the NP or what both of them thought of the PFP. They are not going to be concerned about who won and who lost seats in the previous election. History will be concerned with whether and when the White minority in South Africa, the White power group, was able and prepared to negotiate the participation of the Black majority in the political process of South Africa.

The terms of this motion set out essential guidelines as to how the participation of Blacks can be achieved. Firstly it says that there has to be effective participation at all levels of legislative and executive authority, from the lowest to the highest. This is extremely important, because it is quite futile to think, as the Government often seems to think, that we can meet the challenge of Black participation on a localised basis. To think that we can meet it on a localised basis, isolated from or even different from the basic basis of government which obtains in the rest of South Africa, is a futile exercise. It is also futile to think that one can offer Blacks a share in participation in one part of South Africa and deny them that share of participation in another part. That is also an exercise in futility.

One can certainly adopt a constitutional structure which involves decentralisation or devolution of power in the interests of better government and administration. We on this side of the House advocate that sort of policy when we talk about a federal system of government in South Africa. One can do that, because it is a way of dealing with the situation by suggesting a different constitutional structure which can provide a better basis of government. However, one can never do that as a substitute for sharing power at central government and executive level. It can be in addition to that, but it can never be a substitute for sharing power at top executive and legislative level.

A second point in the motion before the House is that it not only stipulates the sharing of power at all levels but also postulates the truism that political participation will only be acceptable and satisfactory if it takes place within the structures of a constitution which itself must be the product of negotiation with all groups concerned. We believe that is absolutely vital. However, that is the lesson which the Government still has to learn. We know—the hon member Prof Olivier has already dealt with it—that the legitimacy and viability of a constitution depend on that kind of negotiation. They depend on the fact that the people who are to be subject to that constitution have participated in the negotiations resulting in that constitution.

This, as the hon member has said, is of course the blatant weakness in the present constitution. We know that it was not the product of real negotiation among all the people of South Africa. We know that initially it was the product of the caucus of the NP and that afterwards they decided to consult rather than negotiate with other people concerned. So our present constitution was the brainchild of the caucus of the NP and therefore its legitimacy will always be in question. We know that and we have already seen the flaws in the constitution emerging since it was put into operation. That is why we believe that the participation of the Blacks has to be properly negotiated, and we stipulate that these negotiations should take the form of a national convention or call it what you like.

I believe we have to decide how we are going to negotiate and with whom. I do not believe one can negotiate on a basis only stipulated by oneself. That is what the NP is saying. The hon member for Mossel Bay virtually said that they will negotiate but that they will negotiate within the confines of the belief, the policies and the philosophies of the NP. He is shaking his head now but he said that the very first requirement must be to negotiate with people who will accept enforced ethnicity and the group character of the nation. If one starts off on that basis, Sir, one is not talking about negotiation at all.

[Inaudible.]

That was what the hon member said.

In the limited time at my disposal I also want to say that one cannot prescribe to people whom to appoint to participate in the negotiations. This is what the Government so often does. They may talk about the kind of people they would like to negotiate with—that is one thing—but if they are really concerned, sincere and serious about negotiation they have to realize that they will have to negotiate with people elected or nominated by the groups themselves who are involved in the negotiating process.

The hon the Minister is going to participate in this debate and he is probably going to try to clear up what the hon member for Mossel Bay said about the position of the NP when they look at the ANC as a possible factor in a negotiating process. I want to ask the hon the Minister what their attitude is towards what they would term moderate, law-abiding leaders whom they are now trying to involve in the negotiating process but who say that they will not negotiate until the Government releases Nelson Mandela. What is the Government going to do about that one? Is the Government going to say that they will not do so and therefore that they are not going to negotiate with those people? Those leaders whom the hon member for Mossel Bay called “law-abiding” are saying that they will not go to the negotiating table until the Government unbans certain organizations and releases certain political leaders. If they are released and there can be proper negotiations, and then they will negotiate. I want the hon the Minister, when he replies to this motion, to indicate what the present attitude of the Government is to that issue which is a vital and fundamental one if we are going to get the process of negotiation off the ground in South Africa.

I support the motion moved by my hon colleague.

Mr Speaker, I have followed the debate up to now with interest. Of course, when one takes note of the wording of the hon member Prof Olivier’s motion, one expects hon members on the other side of the House—the NP—on the basis of their declared political policy, to have no choice but to agree with this motion. It is very clear from the declarations of NP policy, particularly also as became apparent during the past general election, that in respect of all the fundamental points of the motion under discussion they should agree with the proposer of the motion, the hon member Prof Olivier.

In the first place the motion refers to the satisfactory and acceptable participation of Blacks in the political decision-making processes of this country. From all the statements by hon members on the other side of the House, it is surely obvious that this is one of the motives behind—actually the golden thread running through—their new constitutional model of power-sharing. It is clear that this is the reason they accepted this constitutional model, the model they are now propagating, namely that Blacks should have a say in the political decision-making process.

The second point of the motion mentions that they must have that say in the highest legislative and executive authority of the country. In the debates that took place in this House during the past session, hon members on the Government side have already made it quite clear that this is also the standpoint of the present governing party. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, for one, said that Blacks should also have a seat in the Cabinet of this country. Admittedly it is true that an hon colleague of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning intimated that it was not necessarily true that Black people had to have a seat in the Parliament of South Africa.

Be that as it may, the NP does not deny that Blacks should participate in the highest legislative organ of the country, regardless of what its name or structure may be.

Thirdly, the motion mentions that a new constitution is necessary and that this new constitution should be the product of negotiation between the real and accepted leaders of all population groups in South Africa. Once again, this wording could have been taken practically just as it is from the propaganda documents of the NP—a new constitution, which is the product of a negotiated settlement between the real and accepted leaders.

Fourthly, the motion mentions that a national convention or constitutional conference of such leaders should be convened in order to set the process in motion. After all, at this stage it is common knowledge that one of the structures the NP is proposing is a so-called national statutory council. What, we ask, is the National Statutory Council but the same kind of forum as a national convention or a constitutional conference? The same functions the hon member Prof Olivier has set as objectives in this motion, are envisaged by the NP for the National Statutory Council. I was therefore quite astounded when hon members on the Government side stood up one after the other and dissociated themselves from this motion.

They do not know they are Progs yet. [Interjections.]

One asks therefore why they do not then support the motion under discussion. The answer to this question is clear. It is that the NP dare not associate itself openly and in public with the constitutional ideas of the PFP. [Interjections.] They are fundamentally in agreement, but they do not have the courage of their convictions to make it known openly, in public. [Interjections.] They cannot do this, particularly not after they went out of their way, so to speak, during the election campaign to make it clear to the public how far left and how liberalistic the PFP was in its view of the country’s constitutional setup.

The so-called centrist position of the NP in South African politics is all-important to them because from that position they can attach all kinds of labels to their political opponents—for those on the left the label of left-wing radical, and for those on the right, where I am apparently placed as a member of the CP, the label of right-wing radical. This is the new magic word that seems to have emerged during this session. It is being used to brand hon members of my party.

When one considers of the implications of the motion itself, it is clear that this is fundamentally a motion dealing with peace and security in South Africa. It is also significant that not one of the hon members on the other side of the House has touched on this aspect. I maintain that what this implies is quite clear. This motion implies very clearly that unless Black people in South Africa are accorded participation up to the highest level, peace and security in South Africa cannot be assured. This means, therefore, that as long as the demands of the radicals and the aggressors are not acceded to, this process wil continue. [Interjections.]

Let them have it! [Interjections.]

From the CP side— this has already been said in the present session by the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke—there will be no negotiation with aggressors or those that commit violence.

Do you understand that? [Interjections.]

Just listen closely!

By giving away the authority if the State one cannot … [Interjections.] … allay aggression of the kind that is occurring in South Africa at present. This aggression is fundamentally a communist onslaught on the Republic of South Africa. It would stand hon members in good stead were they perhaps to build a closer and better relationship with the SA Police so that they could become aware of these facts—that is to say if they have not yet taken cognisance of them.

It is now the case—we may as well admit it— that because of the actions of the NP, through which Coloureds and Indians have been admitted to the Parliament of South Africa, whereas the urban Blacks have been left outside, a moral basis is probably being created for the communist agitators who work through their fronts in the Black community; a moral basis from which they can agitate and, on the strength of the fact that the Coloureds and Indians have been brought into the legislative and executive authority, are able to ask why urban Blacks did not gain admittance to the political decision-making process at the highest level. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mossel Bay kicked up a great fuss, using certain well-known clichés which have now become part of the NP vocabulary. He discussed the fact that if the constitutional model was not acceptable to the Whites, it was not acceptable. He went on to say that ethnicity as well as own affairs should be maintained. He went even further and said that negotiation with the ANC was not acceptable to the NP. Those are all very fine words, but we are already used to those clichés. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the facts. Let us consider the recent actions of the NP. I want to start by referring to what the hon member for Innesdal said. I am sorry to see he is not in the House this afternoon. In one of the issues earlier this year of the glossy magazine Inside South Africa it was reported that the hon member for Innesdal had indicated that it was his personal view that unless the ANC was involved in the negotiation process, there could be no lasting and peaceful constitutional solution in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, it was reported in The Argus as recently as 8 June this year that the chairmam of the UDF had been approached by the chairman of the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council for negotiations regarding the proposed new constitutional dispensation. According to The Argus this discussion was confirmed by the chairman of the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council. In the light of this information, one wonders where the hon member for Mossel Bay finds the justification for these statements.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Parow has already to a large extent reacted to the arguments of the Official Opposition. He pointed out that regardless of its arguments and its explanation of its policy, it would never be able to escape the fact that Blacks would always be present. Even the Official Opposition accepts in terms of its own policies that even if its so-called “volkstaat” policy were to be fully implemented, this would have to take place through negotiation and ultimately community matters would still remain which would have to be deliberated on by both sides. One would, after all, have to create structures for that purpose, so they cannot escape the fact that ultimately they will have to sit together with Blacks in those structures after all. This is evident from their own policy documents, if one can believe Die Patriot of March 1987 or of any other date.

Another great irony in South African politics is being played out here this afternoon, and here I refer to the arguments from the ranks of the PFP. I believe the “progressive” part of that name is increasingly becoming an anachronism because for almost a decade their story has remained exactly the same. The only party in this House showing real progress on the strength of development of its policy, and tackling the new challenges and developing its policy for this purpose, is the NP.

It is systematic surrender.

They have been trounced in one election after another, but year after year their story remains the same. [Interjections.] They accuse the Government of being trapped in an ideology, but they do not see the beam in their own eye because we are constantly hearing an oversimplified 19th-century liberalism and unacceptable formulae. [Interjections.] They are having absolutely no success in developing their policy further and then get themselves entangled in rather interesting problems. I want to illustrate, with what happened in the House today, what kind of problems one could encounter on the path proposed by the hon member Prof Olivier.

He says it is well known that there are groups among the Blacks, such as the ANC and Inkatha, that represent people, and we should bring them to the so-called national convention. However, can one bring a group of people, to an exercise such as the national convention purely because they represent or are supported by an unknown number of people as in the case of the ANC? If that approach is correct, it means that that national convention cannot be legitimate unless the AWB participates too. No one can deny that that organisation represents a certain number of people. This would also mean that the national convention could not be legitimate unless the Official Opposition in this House also participated. Can they really be so naive as to think that such an exercise could work, or that it could get any further than a terrible confrontation?

You negotiate only with those that matter.

They are missing one step. We agree with them and we do not have problems with the basic spirit of the motion; we do, however, have problems with the details of it. We agree that negotiation must take place, but there is a step one cannot leave out. This is the democratic step of bringing forward leading figures from the various groups with whom one can negotiate. It must, however, be proved that they represent the majority of those communities. One cannot simply include every little group, particularly not if they try to demonstrate their support by violence and intimidation of other people.

Lastly, I want to address one further subject, because I think the motion also lacks …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

I am sorry, Sir, but I have very little time left.

I should like to make the last point because I think there is an oversimplification in the hon member’s motion. In the first paragraph reference is made to “the only way”. There are so many other aspects that have to be taken into account. One aspect that I believe is being excluded here by implication is the economy of the country. I want to advocate that it be accorded a high priority in the total national debate on constitutional development. Reform has a price and it is not the price, as is claimed, of the structures that are being created, but the price attached to the expectations of the people involved in the system. Ultimately, no system can continue to exist in the long run unless it produces results in accordance with the expectations of the people for whom it is being designed. In addition we shall really have to give continuing priority to keeping the economy going so that the process of reform can be supported.

Mr Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the hon member for Springs has no problems with the spirit of the motion; in the same way that the NP has no problems with the spirit of the indaba. They have no problems with the spirit of the process or with the process itself. The problem with the NP is that they have no problems with the spirit of what the CP is suggesting. They only have problems with the details. Until now not one single member of the NP has given us an indication of what process they believe should be followed in order to get negotiations off the ground and what our constitutional future is. [Interjections.] Not one of them has done this. The hon member for Mossel Bay only told us what was not possible. He did not tell us what they actually intended to do.

†When one talks about negotiations and the prospects of success of negotiations, I think that it does to a large extent depend upon what one understands by the term “powersharing”.

The Government, as presently constituted, understand power-sharing to mean the sharing of power without the loss of control. For as long as one’s definition of power-sharing is one of not losing control, negotiations cannot and will not succeed. This is quite clear when one takes a look at the precedents for negotiation that we have in South Africa. The Government draws a clear distinction in its approach between negotiating about something which does not affect its power and negotiating on an aspect which does in fact affect its power.

When we consider the negotiations which took place with Samora Machel—the Nkomati Accord—we note that the National Party Government made contact with a self-confessed Marxist who at that time was harbouring ANC cadres in Mozambique, who in turn were blowing up Sasol’s and other installations in South Africa.

Quite right!

Despite that, the hon the State President sent his emissaries to speak to this communist, the intention being to talk about talks. The talks about talks then ironed out differences, laid the foundations for an agenda and that in turn led to negotiations between our State President and a self-confessed Marxist from a neighbouring state.

All this nice talk about the ideology of the ANC and quotes from Inkatha, is nonsense. It is put forward by the NP because internal negotiations affect their position of power. The hon the State President is prepared to negotiate with Marxists when it does not affect his sole hold over total power in the country.

When one considers the indaba, one sees that the negotiations took place with people who were far removed from socialist or Marxist ideologies or anything of that nature. Here it was a case of “ons stem saam met die gees” but the proposals were rejected because they could affect the Government’s position of power. That is what it is all about. This Government will not negotiate a deal which involves genuine power-sharing and therefore what this Government is doing is leading us towards chaos, violence and revolution.

Why is the NP not prepared to start talking about talks with the ANC, with Buthelezi, with the PAC and with other groups which are significant? It is simply a case of talks about talks. One does not start a process with negotiations. One starts talking about talks, behind the scenes, without publicity and without ceremonies or trumpets. Why not, Mr Chairman?

I have no doubt that if the negotiation process were to be initiated by means of talks about talks, the NP would with justification be able to say to the ANC that they were not prepared to negotiate for as long as the strategy of the armed struggle was implemented. I do not think that one can expect it of any government, including the NP Government, to negotiate for a new constitution whilst the ANC implements its strategy of armed struggle. That is a subject which the NP, this Government, needs to discuss with the ANC before negotiations commence. One needs to make contact with them and talk to them about it.

I think the ANC would be justified in saying to the Government that they would not be able to negotiate as long as Nelson Mandela was in jail, or for as long as the ANC continued to be banned. They would be justified in saying that in Namibia the internal wing of Swapo was unbanned so why could the same not be done here? In that way the process of give and take can start before negotiations proceed. Why cannot this be done?

In the propaganda and on TV throughout the election campaign we were fed with quotations and attitudes attributed to the ANC which portrayed one side of the ANC.

We are being told again today that the ANC do not intend to negotiate and that they intend taking over power through violence. It is just not correct to send out a perception that there is neither room for manoeuvring nor a degree of pragmatism which should be exploited.

At a function which was held in Lusaka on 8 January of this year to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the ANC the national executive of the ANC prepared a considered statement which was read by Mr Oliver Tambo. I think it is important that one has an idea of what they had to say about negotiation. In that lengthy statement they did say they were going to proceed with the armed struggle. That is true. They also said that they wanted people’s education. They also said in that statement that they wanted to make the country ungovernable. They laid out those strategies in that statement, but the national executive of the ANC also said the following:

There are two sides to the story. [Interjections.] There is room to explore the possibilities of negotiation, and this Government is failing in its duty by not exploring those possibilities. [Interjections.]

When one looks at the attitudes displayed by speakers opposite today it becomes clear that not even with internal leaders whom everyone classifies as “moderate” can this Government get negotiations going. Why not? The reason is that it comes with preconditions such as forced group participation …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a question?

I have no time, Mr Speaker.

If there is one lesson that one learnt at the indaba it is that the Government’s concept of having forced groups as the building-stones for a future constitution will be totally rejected by 90% of South Africans. Only a small scared group, namely the NP in South Africa, insists on that. The other 90% of South Africans feel confident enough about themselves, their culture, their language and their traditions to proceed into a future South Africa on the basis of voluntary association.

We see in front of us one small minority group which is scared because it is not prepared to be bold enough to tackle the realities of South Africa, with the others who are even more scared to the right of us even though they make more noises. Forced group concepts as building-stones for a new constitutional dispensation are a sure recipe for failure in negotiations. What the Government says, as mentioned by the hon member for Springs, is: “Ons moet leiers na vore bring.” The NP will feed them and pump them up and these are the leaders with whom the NP will then negotiate because they have been brought “na vore” by the party. Leaders cannot be brought “na vore” by the NP; they have to establish themselves through the support of their communities.

What the hon member prof Olivier emphasises in paragraph 4 of his motion is that the process of negotiation must start. The process does not start when one sits around the negotiating table to negotiate formally; it starts with talks about talks. Perhaps the hon the Minister would give me an indication why the hon the State President was prepared to have talks about talks with the Marxist Machel but is not prepared to have talks about talks with a South African organisation which has widespread support in South Africa. I would be very interested to hear the reasons.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he agrees with me that the violence which is being perpetrated by the ANC, and which we reject, is part of a strategy, and not as the hon the Deputy Minister of Information said in an article yesterday, part of an ideology. It is not. What does the executive of the ANC say in its statement of 8 January about violence? It says, and I quote:

It is a strategy, Mr Chairman, and because it is a strategy, I believe there is room to persuade them to discard that strategy. For as long as the ANC continues with that strategy there cannot be constitutional negotiations. Why does the Government not make use of the power which it has—the power which it again has since the election—to explore those areas to see whether the ANC can be persuaded to move away from violence? At the same time the Government will have to consider, as I said just now, unbanning the ANC and allowing them to operate in South Africa within the law. Without that we can fiddle around with “foefies” by negotiating with town councillors on constitutional matters which affect the country as a whole, but we are not going to get one step closer to a stable South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I support this motion wholeheartedly. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon member for Durban Central. I must admit right at the outset that I am not as optimistic as he seems to be about the ANC. I am pretty sure that they do not have in mind a liberal Western democracy when they talk about democracy. It is certainly a different approach which they have. I believe, however, that there are other people to whom we can talk when we talk about the process of negotiation, especially where the hon member speaks about talks about talks. There are other ways to get to the position where, I think, we would all like to be.

I think it is also very important to say right at the outset that we have to approach all constitutional development on the basis of a two-legged strategy, to which I referred in my speech during the no-confidence debate at the beginning of the year; one which deals not only with the concept of politics and negotiation but also with security policy in terms of dealing with those extremists who attack the system on the basis of violence. I do not have time to elaborate on that because I want to refer to some other matters as well.

*Inasmuch as Prof Oliver’s motion makes mention of representation at the highest legislative and executive levels, it is in fact true to say—the hon member for Roodepoort also referred to this—that that party could fully support the wording of this motion, because they are words which they themselves have bandied about. [Interjections.] So there is no problem in that regard. The question is, however: How are these words interpreted? Perhaps the hon the Minister should react to this when he gets up to deliver his reply.

During the censure debate, the members of the Official Opposition were able to induce him to go so far in his speech as to define the highest executive level as being the Cabinet. Nowhere in those circles, however, has there been a reference to the fact that the highest legislative authority could be Parliament. In any event, when we say certain things, let us say them in Afrikaans. I have pleaded for this over the years—hon members will know this—with specific reference to these concepts.

The highest legislative executive authority is the Cabinet, the Government. The legislative authority is Parliament. That is the body which makes the laws. Let us say it in Afrikaans. If we are honest, we will also say that it makes no difference what a person’s colour is; he may also occupy the highest position of executive power here. He may become president in a future dispensation. I make the plea that the Government will take a look at this.

I also want to express my concern regarding the third leg of the motion in which mention is made of population groups. For heaven’s sake, let us not speak of population groups when we are talking about race. The way in which the motion has been framed corresponds with the rhetoric of that side of the House. The hon member for Parow referred to this in his speech. He said we had to accept that there would also be colour groups. I accept that there will be colour groups, but let us rather depart from the premise that they are political groupings. If political groupings should form on the basis of colour, that would be legitimate in the process. Then we should let them participate as such groups.

I now refer to the process of negotiation. In this regard, too, I want to make the statement that when we talk about political groupings, Beyers Naudé and Desmond Tutu will always find themselves in the same political grouping. They are people who think the same way. They will participate jointly in a process, and one cannot expect them to be represented in different camps, for example Beyers Naudé by P W Botha and Desmond Tutu by Oliver Tambo or Nelson Mandela or whoever. We must allow in our way of thinking for negotiation on the basis of political groupings. This means, of course—to the hon member for Springs as well—that the Official Opposition and the PFP, as political groupings, must be a part of the process. It would not help the Government to reach an agreement with Blacks which made the CP and the PFP unhappy and brought about further polarization. They must be part of the process.

I want to come back to the motion. I am afraid that the approach of a national convention is not a valid one. I gain the impression, however, that the Government is painting itself further and further into a corner, moving in the direction of just such a convention. I am referring to the concept of a constitutional conference or national convention. A directive has been issued to the President’s Council to investigate ways of involving people in the President’s Council and its function, and there have been discussions with Mr Archie Gumede. I have no problem whatsoever with that. It is a positive development that the discussions are taking place. I want to issue the warning, however, that we should not fall prey to the idea of a national convention at which everyone would simply attend a round table conference and, as Dr Worrall said during the course of the election, draw up a constitution over a long weekend, whereafter it would be implemented. We are running the same risk.

In this regard I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Durban Central. Discussions about discussions. I want to discuss a few guidelines regarding this concept, because it deals with the essence of negotiation. The first of these is that when we discuss negotiation, we must first negotiate about negotiations. We have to know what the process is to be aimed at and what ground the talks must cover, and those talks must be proceeded with, as in the case of the talks between Dr Dries Oosthuyzen and Mr Archie Gumede. The talks must take place, but not on a detached level. If we want to succeed, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning or the hon the State President should invite Mr Archie Gumede to dine with him in order to talk to him on a personal level. They must seek those people out. They ask who the leaders are. We know, do we not, which people are in a strong position. A number of them are tremendously strong and occupy positions in large organizations, whether these be trade unions or whatever. Send them an invitation; make contact on a personal level, so that a relationship may be built up founded on mutual trust on a personal level. Hold those talks.

This leads to a second thing, namely that the talks about negotiation—the negotiations regarding negotiations—must be aimed at providing the framework of a broadly stated objective about what we are going to agree to negotiate. All this must take place before the negotiation stage. It is only at the third level that this will lead to a commitment to each other to really get the negotiation process under way in order to make that objective a reality and to search for methods and models, policy adoptions and accommodation compromises, in order to find the key to a single South Africa in which we will all participate in these individual institutions of government, that of the Cabinet and of the legislature, that of Parliament. Regardless of how we constitute it, everyone will, in fact, have to participate. Come to an agreement in that regard. Commit the Government to the achievement of that objective.

Having said that, there is a fourth point I want to make, namely that it is impossible to predict the outcome of the process of negotiation. One cannot say in detail, at the outset, what the results of the negotiations will be. This means by implication that one party to the negotiations can also not control the process alone, otherwise one would in fact be able to predict its outcome. If that fact is not accepted, we shall never get anywhere. The process can only be managed that everyone who participates continually adapts in this process of negotiation.

When one has reached the stage at which one is really involved in the negotiation process, one really makes use of one’s abilities in order to influence the other person’s point of view. One tries to win him over, and one keeps on holding discussions with him. One would like to achieve what is important to one, but at the same time one wants to let the other person feel that he is also satisfied with what he is going to get. The other person will reciprocate in a similar manner. The understanding is that people influence each other but ultimately one would like to reach a situation in which what is important to both parties is accommodated. If the process were to lead to a situation in which one person or group became so powerful that they could act prescriptively and control the process, negotiation would fall away altogether.

I now want to direct a plea to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I know that he means well, and he knows that I know it. I have believed for many years that he is seeking the best for South Africa, but I have often argued with him, my contention being that he should gain a better understanding of the concept “negotiation”. Negotiation is not consultation or persuasion. These things are small subdivisions of the whole process. Negotiation is the acceptance of the points of departure I have just spelt out.

The way in which the hon the Minister acts creates the impression that he is the original benevolent dictator, because he does not give the other people or parties the impression that they are really being consulted, that they are being listened to, that their contributions are forming part of the process or that they are an active party in the process.

Furthermore, this is not merely the hon the Minister’s way of doing things, but unfortunately that of the whole Government. If the Government cannot adjust, then we have no hope for the future. I want to ask the hon members of the Cabinet—another hon member remarked quite rightly that the initiative had to come from them—to take the trouble to get in touch with those leaders whom they know to be the real leaders. It is an illusion to think that the ANC is based only in Lusaka. The Freedom Charter has a non-violent base in South Africa. Those people are ranks of the UDF. Nor does the entire UDF operate under the ANC banner. They are also there, and we can hold talks with them. I do not think it is necessary to go and talk to Lusaka now. If we were to go there, the talks would explode in chaos because we would not be able to get them under way. Otherwise they will get under way so quickly that there will be no discussion about the negotiations and the entire process will in any event not get off the ground.

Your friends were in Lusaka. Harald Pakendorf and …

Your friends too, André!

Yes, my friends were in Lusaka and some of the hon members’ friends were also in Lusaka. I have no objection to talks being held with those people. In fact, they are necessary. If one does not talk to people, one will not know what they are thinking. What I am saying, however, is that the Government must not attempt to go and negotiate with the ANC in Lusaka. The scope for that does not exist. However, a strategy will have to be implemented in terms of which the Government must attempt to arrive at the politics supported by the ANC and the Freedom Charter. The fact that that strategy has to be implemented, is as plain as a pikestaff. If this is not done, then there is no future in this country. I believe, however, that there is a future for it, provided we really want to seek, on the basis of negotiation, a future for all of us in this country.

Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I had hoped the debate on the motion of the hon member Prof Olivier would give us the opportunity to get to the essence of his motion. Basically, this motion deals with constitutional or political objectives and processes or methods of achieving these. Unfortunately, the debate has degenerated to a large extent into a difference of standpoint on how the product that is being negotiated should look, instead of our confining ourselves to the essence of the motion.

I immediately want to tell the hon member for Randburg that the Government has never taken the standpoint that it does not want to negotiate with political groupings. As a matter of fact, the Government repealed the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. By no means, therefore, is there any obstacle from the side of the Government as far as negotiation with political groupings is concerned. I believe what the hon member actually had in mind was to talk about the accommodation of people in terms of groups, on a political basis.

That is what I said.

The hon member said “negotiation”.

To begin with I just want to make a general comment and then leave it at that, because it is impossible for me to deal with all the speeches in detail. Hon members will appreciate that.

An astonishing thing happened in the House this afternoon. It was the speech of the hon member for Ermelo, which we cannot simply ignore in a debate of this nature. If I understand or interpret him correctly, the hon member is saying that basically there are only two groups of Blacks in the country. The first group is made up of those people who want to achieve their political objectives by means of violence. The hon member agrees that that is what he said. The second group of Black people is that group which does not want to achieve its political objectives by means of violence. Their objective, however, is the same. That is why the hon member says that one cannot negotiate with either of the two groups. What is the implication of this disturbing point of view? This hon member is the chief spokesman on the motion and he introduced an amendment! Must we come to the inescapable conclusion that the Official Opposition is not interested in negotiation at all? The further implication is that they are no longer even going to negotiate in order to reach their goal of partition. [Interjections.] It will be enforced. One cannot deduce anything else from what the hon member has said. We now find ourselves in a situation in which the Official Opposition’s standpoint, which applies to the future, is that of forced and not negotiated solutions. [Interjections.] One can make no other reasonable deduction.

AWB connections.

Does this explain the association with the AWB? Is the AWB the weapon with which non-negotiated, enforced partition will be imposed?

I am not surprised that you won by only 39 votes.

I am surprised that the hon member won at all.

The hon member for Roodepoort says that the CP will not negotiate with those who commit acts of violence or aggression. What about the other CP members? I want to suggest that the hon member enters into a discussion with his hon colleagues.

Go and see what our declared standpoint is.

No, I do not want to read the CP’s booklets now; I am referring to their speeches. I suggest that the hon member starts negotiating with the hon member for Ermelo so that at least we can get a standpoint that can be construed as the official standpoint of the Official Opposition.

I should like to make a few more statements. As I listened to the hon members of the Official Opposition and other hon members in the opposition, I felt that there was one remark I had to make today. That is that the perception that one population group on its own can find solutions for the society we call South Africa, is an illusion. If this country had a homogeneous population and we did not have such a diversity of peoples, we would not have conducted this debate with one another today, because it would not have been necessary.

The debate we are conducting here is dictated by the reality of South Africa. I want to state very clearly today that this country has a dangerous reality as far as constitutional and political solutions are concerned. It is easy to talk, as the hon members are doing, about a non-ethnic and a non-racial South Africa; we can have the most marvellous theoretical discussions about that. However, no constitution of this country can detract from the fact of multi-ethnicity and multiracialism. [Interjections.]

It is a reality, a fact, that where different groups live in the same country, all the groups compete for power.

What do you mean by a group?

“Group”pertains to ethnic groups, race groups, interest groups, political groups and all other groups. All compete for power, but the hon member for Randburg knows that none of the democratic systems uppermost in our minds, have succeeded in a comparable society. [Interjections.] We can argue, therefore, about the group, about the composition of groups, and even about groups that practise free association. We can debate all that, but a system that does not embody the essential feature of this society has no hope of maintaining a democracy.

I want to tell the hon member Prof Olivier that if I had read his motion in isolation, without listening to his motivation and that of his hon colleagues, I would have said he was welcome in the ranks of the realistic reformers. That is what I would have told the hon member. I would have bade the hon member a hearty welcome to the land of the true liberals. Having listened to him, however, I fear that he has made what was acceptable in his motion totally unacceptable.

I want to debate a few points with him. The first is his assertion that the resistance in the country which led to the declaration of the state of emergency, is a consequence of the political dispensation that applies to the Blacks here. There is not one hon member or any party in this House which does not accept that the status quo has to change, constitutionally and otherwise. There is not one hon member in this House who does not believe that the Blacks will have to participate in a central executive and legislative authority.

In their own fatherlands.

I am talking about the fundamental things now. No hon member will differ with me on that score. We have various models and various methods for achieving that. The hon member Prof Olivier knows, however—or he should know—that the state of emergency was directed at a revolutionary climate or a revolutionary struggle which does not have lofty objectives in mind, but rather is bent on the destruction of the country. These revolutionaries are bent on destroying a democractic system. They do not accept the concept of power-sharing. No, they have in mind a take-over of power by an elite clique. I have a high regard for the hon member’s intellect, but it is beyond my comprehension how he can entertain such a superficial view of the revolutionary climate we are experiencing in South Africa.

The hon member says Black people cannot be accommodated in terms of the present Constitution. But surely the Constitution never purported to do that! That is why the process of negotiation with Black leaders was initiated on a structured basis on lines parallel to the debate on the 1983 Constitution.

The hon member Prof Olivier knows that no previous Constitution provided for the Blacks’presence here. In the first place, it was not this party that excluded Blacks and Coloureds from the South African Parliament. The fact of the matter is that it was the NP Government that granted people of colour representation in Parliament and in the Cabinet. It is my responsibility today to say that this is not the final step. If it were, the recent policy statements of the hon the State President, and his invitation to negotiation, were unnecessary, because we would already have found the final solution.

In a further point the hon member Prof Olivier described the conditions for or limitations on successful negotiation. He made the statement that the Blacks do not trust the Government. If that is true, I am not surprised, because who but the PFP is leading the Black leaders to mistrust the Government’s intentions. [Interjections.]

They can think for themselves!

What gave rise to my mistrust?

Thirdly, I should like to make the important remark that in the practice of politics, we all look to potential winners. The hon members for Durban Central and Berea expressed the same sentiments as the hon member Prof Olivier. In their speeches they were critical as far as the identification of real leaders is concerned. What does the hon member Prof Olivier say, however? The other hon members expressed the same sentiments as he did; and he said the Government should negotiate with all leaders who are representative of the Blacks, without any qualification. That immediately puts the PFP around the conference table on the principle of violence. Our standpoint is not to negotiate with the ANC, but to negotiate with people who do not promote violence in the achievement of their objective. Whether that violence is committed by Whites, Blacks or whoever, it is equally unacceptable.

†The hon member for Durban Central posed a question to me. He asked why the hon the State President would negotiate with a communist in Mozambique but not in South Africa. The irrefutable conclusion is that he is now propagating negotiations with the Communist Party in regard to South Africa’s internal affairs. There is obviously a difference between negotiating on common matters with an independent state for which one did not choose the government and negotiating with communists within one’s own borders as to the future of one’s own country.

That is a real smear!

That is the difference between these sets of negotiations.

Why don’t you take the debate seriously and stop talking rubbish?

I am not talking to the hon member for Green Point; I am talking to the hon member for Durban Central. I am asking him whether he is propagating or proposing that we should negotiate with the SACP. [Interjections.]

I am saying you must talk to the ANC.

The hon member has used the analogy of our negotiations with Mozambique; it has nothing to do with the ANC. [Interjections.]

Read the Hansard!

Now let me take it further. I said that people in this country are looking for potential winners. As long as political parties such as the PFP and others as well as their extra-parliamentary operations moot a possible victory for the ANC, negotiations will be impeded. This will also aggravate the fear of leaders. Thirdly, it will result in people not coming to the conference table.

That is a pathetic thing to say.

It is not pathetic, it is true. I negotiate with people, regardless of that hon member’s own observations as to whether I consult or negotiate with them. [Interjections.]

*Let us take it further. Just look at what the hon member Prof Olivier proclaimed to the world as a fact. He said that we unilaterally planned this present Constitution in the NP caucus. But that is an untruth. I want to state immediately and honestly that the NP caucus saw it after we had negotiated with Coloured leaders. Those are the facts.

After they had seen it?

Yes, after they had negotiated. I shall come back to that point.

No one has ever pretended that this Constitution was acceptable in all respects.

Not in any respect.

What is the hon member for Greytown doing here then? [Interjections.] After all, if he does not like the system, he has a choice. [Interjections.]

Order!

Give us some indication.

The fact is that when the Constitution was introduced and discussed, we told one another that it was not the final constitution. Although we said that to one another, we also said that it was a point of departure, so that for the first time people could debate future constitutional development with one another. As imperfect as the Constitution is—no one claimed that it was perfect—I want to say that the former member for Bryanston warned his party about that and said that the Coloureds and Indians had achieved more under this system than ever before.

I want to make a second point in this particular connection. The hon member Prof Olivier said—in this connection I associate myself with the hon member for Springs— that the only way of ensuring the security of the country and of maintaining peace here was purely and simply by providing political accommodation. I want to tell him that that is an erroneous view of the circumstances. First of all, if reform or adaptation in the constitutional sphere cannot be synchronized to run parallel with social development with the expansion of the population’s economic participation, and with the enhancement of the country’s financial capacity, it will not work. Democracy carries a price tag, viz more collective services and a reasonable distribution of income. Political accommodation alone will not ensure peace for us.

The hon member is a student on the subject, after all. He should go and look at the Third World countries and ascertain whether political rights alone have brought them peace, security and freedom. The hon member will not have to look far to find the answer to that. That is why there are many facets to reform and adaptation.

That is why I say to hon members today that the one of the greatest obstacles to and restrictions on successful negotiation, is the living conditions of many South African citizens. It is argued that, in spite of the historical causes, these living conditions are the breeding ground for communism. Apart from the political adaptation that has to take place—and I agree with that—massive social reconstruction will have to take place in South Africa; otherwise a new constitution …

Why have you waited 40 years to discover that?

I believe, with her history, the hon member for Houghton is the last person to talk about this issue.

What about my history? I have been saying the same things for 40 years.

What has she done about it? [Interjections.] I do not want to argue with the hon member for Houghton now.

*The third point I want to make is that constitutional accommodation and negotiation can only take place in an atmosphere of normality. The process of negotiation can only take place if people feel free and safe to negotiate. I just want to ask the hon member Prof Olivier if it is not a fact that the people with whom he says his party wants to negotiate, have already chosen their objective, their battleground, and their weapons? Their objective is not the sharing of power. The objective of evolutionary power is the take-over of power at the expense of the people they want to set free. Yet, the hon member Prof Olivier and his hon colleagues expect the Government to negotiate with people who hold those objectives. What is more, they have already chosen their methods. Their methods are aimed at making the country ungovernable. What amazes me is that we have not heard the PFP taking a stand against these people.

The hon member for Houghton is known for being first in line when it comes to maligning the Police.

That is not true! [Interjections.]

When people die as a result of police action, many of the hon members of the PFP are conspicuously present, but we have never seen them when a security official was the victim of violence. [Interjections.] We have not heard them directing that same criticism at perpetrators of violence who murder and commit arson, and who damage people’s property. [Interjections.] I have never heard the hon member for Houghton saying to the perpetrators of violence: “Do not murder the members of the Black local authorities who are participating in the civic system.” I have never yet heard that.

We have said that we will never accept violence, wherever it comes from.

I have never yet heard that, and that is why I want to make a fourth point in reply to the hon member Prof Olivier’s motion. It concerns the identification of the real leaders. A perception exists to the effect that if one wants to enter into negotiation with the Government, one is selling out Black, Coloured or Asian interests; but if one follows the path of confrontation, one is a true leader. If one is prepared to identify oneself with Kennedy and Tutu, one is a true leader. When, however, one argues in the national interest that there should be no foreign interference that will harm us financially, one is a puppet of the Government.

The Government itself realises that the identification of leaders is essential. The hon member Prof Olivier should know better than anyone else in this House that it is not easy to identify leaders in a developing community which enjoys no political exposure and in which there are no political processes. [Interjections.]

How then does he manage to arrest everyone? [Interjections.]

This is why the Government said that it would give the Black communities outside the national states the opportunity to choose their own leaders. The Government intends to honour its word.

The hon member says that Black communities should be accommodated. I agree with that. He also says they should be accommodated at the highest level. That, too, is the Government’s point of view.

In Parliament?

In the legislative authority—one can call it “parliament”, or whatever one pleases. The hon member’s party will also put them in a parliament, not so. His party will put them in a parliament.

In this Parliament?

I have just answered that question. Let us not split hairs. [Interjections.]

I want to take this still further. We said it must take place by way of negotiation. Now we come to the fundamental difference in respect of that process or forum. In their election pamphlet the hon member’s party said that in the final instance the differences would have to be ironed out at a national convention. Something interesting happened here today, however, because the hon member said “or constitutional conference”. Surely that must be an alternative for the convention, because the hon member puts it as the alternative in his motion; and surely the Government proposed such a constitutional conference or forum. After all, the Government said that it would negotiate and that it would create a forum for negotiation. The hon member’s party introduced motions regarding the formation of such a national council. I hope we get the chance to discuss that legislation during this session.

I am giving the assurance that provision will be made in the proposed legislation for the election of leaders of the Black communities.

They will oppose it.

I hope the hon member Prof Olivier will not oppose it when we discuss it, because we are going to discuss it with each other. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude. South Africa’s democracy and its possibilities are as delicate as fragile glass. Together we will have to do everything in our power if we are to succeed at all in maintaining some kind of democracy in South Africa. This will demand all our understanding and wisdom. I say in all seriousness today that the chances of a peaceful, democratic system in South Africa are more difficult than most people think.

It is impossible under this Government!

It is more difficult than ever before because the objective of the powers opposing South Africa is by no means to achieve a democracy.

Mr Speaker, I want to say immediately that I had hoped the debate would be concluded on a different note. Time and again, the hon the Minister demonstrates an aggression and a paternalism that totally astound me. I introduced the debate without any personal attacks …

But I answered you!

No, I simply want to say that time and again the hon the Minister takes that attitude in the House, and I want to register my objection to it in the strongest terms.

Why?

I shall leave it at that, but I shall indeed discuss it on a later occasion. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister displays aggression and I want to tell him that if he is going to take that tone in his negotiations with the Black leaders, he may as well forget about it. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must think every other hon member in the House is a fool to tell me—the hon member for Springs also did so—that I did not discuss the economy because I regard the economy as unimportant. As if I would be such a fool as to think the economy was not important! This was a political debate. It was not a political debate on the economy or social construction, and the hon the Minister and the hon member for Springs know that. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon the Minister says it is not the NP that tampered with the rights of the Coloureds and other people in this Parliament. It is true that it was not the NP that deprived the Blacks of the vote in 1936, but it was the NP that removed Black representation from the House of Assembly and the Senate. It was that party that deprived Coloured people of the vote and also removed Coloured representation from this Parliament. I therefore cannot understand why the hon the Ministers should tell me that it was not that party that did those things, because it was.

In addition I also said that the injustice committed here today should be seen as the last of a series. The hon the Minister acts as though this is an exceptional occurrence that simply happened to arise as a result of evolutionary powers. The process that gave rise to White resistance over the past 30 to 40 years had been completely overlooked by the hon the Minister.

I truly regret not having the opportunity to comment on all the points the hon the Minister mentioned because I should like to have done so. I want to express my disappointment that he concluded the debate on this note.

Nevertheless, I want to say I am pleased we had the opportunity to discuss this matter. I also want to convey my thanks to the hon the Minister. He made several things very clear to us here regarding where we stand and what we should expect of this Government. All the same, allow me to say that I express my appreciation to the hon members for Mossel Bay, Springs, Randburg, Ermelo and Roodepoort for their contributions. I thank in particular my two hon colleagues the hon members for Berea and Durban Central. With that I formally withdraw my motion.

Order! The hon member has withdrawn his motion on an excited note. Is the hon member for Ermelo prepared to withdraw his amendment?

I withdraw my amendment, Sir.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.