Order! Before calling for notices of motion, I wish to draw hon members’ attention to the following procedural matters:

Notices of motion

It will be possible for hon members, at a joint meeting such as this one, to give notice of motions which are to be moved in their individual Houses. It will be possible for hon Ministers to give notice of motions to be moved in all three Houses.

Points of order and of explanation and questions to speakers

An hon member must go to one of the six microphones in the Chamber and attract the attention of the presiding officer when he gets to the microphone.

The line between the speaker and the presiding officer

Hon members will only break the line when passing between a speaker speaking from one of the six microphones in the Chamber and the Chair. I wish to appeal to members to move across the floor of the Chamber as little as possible. They are requested to make use of the broad passageway around the Chamber behind the benches.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Firstly, this point of order is being raised today because the Bill appears for the first time as the first order of the day on the Order Paper of a joint meeting. It could not be raised in any of the Houses individually because a joint sitting is necessary, and only the Speaker is authorised to give a ruling on this point of order.

Secondly, Rule 103 of the Standing Rules of Parliament reads:

He is not bound by the advice, but he is compelled to hold consultations.

Thirdly, in this context “interested parties” means representatives of all the political parties in Parliament. This interpretation of the word “parties” is confirmed by its use in Rules 53(3) and (4) and 71(3).

Rule 53(3) provides:

Rule 53(4) also provides that Mr Speaker “after consultation with the Whips of each party affected” has certain powers. In Rule 71(3) there is also a reference to political parties. The word “parties” in Rule 103, therefore, means political parties.

The fourth point I want to make is that the concept “consultation with interested parties” has been argued and discussed at length for the past two years in the Rules Committee, in which all parties of Parliament were represented. The problem was, in fact, that the words “after consultation with interested parties” had been omitted originally, and several representatives of political parties felt very strongly that the Chief Whip of Parliament should not be allowed to come to a decision in these matters without prior consultation.

I have the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Assembly of Friday, 17 June 1988 before me. Item 4 states merely that the Chief Whip of Parliament, with leave, made an announcement “on the business of the Houses in connection with the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill”. According to Hansard, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said the following on 17 June:

He says nothing about prior consultation. That is the first occasion on which the opposition took note of the fact that this matter would be debated today in a joint meeting.

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament went on to say:

Mr Speaker, no consultation took place, as indicated by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, or in terms of Rule 103. It is clear that these words “after consultation” cannot relate to Rule 103, because consultation must specifically relate to a decision as to what proceedings on general affairs can be referred to a general meeting. The object of the consultation, inter alia, relates to the question of the duration of the debate, the times allocated to the various Houses and turns to speak for the various political parties.

According to indications given by the hon the Chief Whip, this joint meeting will not sit tomorrow evening. In terms of Rule 11(2) Parliament must sit until 20h00 on Wednesday evening. On Thursday, 16 June, a meeting of the Whips of the House of Assembly was held under the chairmanship of the hon the Leader of the House of Assembly. No mention was made at this meeting of the proposed joint meeting. Subsequently the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament did not in any way consult me or any other CP Whip.

I maintain that the CP is definitely an interested party in terms of Rule 103, and that in view of the fact that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has not consulted with duly authorised representatives of the CP, as required by Rule 103, this meeting of the three Houses cannot take place as proposed. For this reason, Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule this meeting out of order. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall give my ruling on the point of order tomorrow afternoon at 14h15.

Mr Speaker and hon members, you will realise that today’s meeting is an important occasion. I should like to say at once that I acknowledge my own inadequacy in this specific context, and thereby also my dependence on our Creator.

Today is indeed an historic day. The development of countries and peoples can take place in two ways. It can dramatically be wrenched off course or it can be steered in a new direction without any melodrama. As far as the politics of our country are concerned, the South African Government has chosen the second option. I acknowledge that this is less exciting and much more difficult to achieve, but as a first choice it is much more satisfactory in the long term.

Of course there have been important moments in the constitutional development of our country in the past. The advent of Union in 1910 was one such moment. The advent of the Republic in 1961 was the second. The commencement of the 1983 Constitution, in terms of which we are gathered here today, was the third.

The legislation before the joint meeting certainly heralds an historic occasion. This is, after all, the first occasion in the history of our country on which legislation is being introduced which is aimed at laying the foundations for the participation of all South Africans and all communities in the political processes and processes of Government. This gathering is certainly not attentionriveting, in any case not the way a coup d’etat would be, but the consequences could have a far-reaching effect on the lives of all the people and communities in our country.

These three events, ie Union, the Republic and the new Constitution did, to a large extent, contribute to the great moments in the developmental history of our country’s politics. This has required wisdom and insight, but specifically leaders of exceptional quality to achieve what they have achieved and to give substance to this.

If the Bill before the House could be implemented successfully, it could be an important historic event. What is more, it could herald an important historic era of peaceful development in our fatherland. The fact that as members of this House we are discussing the legislation in a joint meeting is likewise an important and historic event.

This affords us, as members of the House, a special opportunity, but on the other hand it also entails great responsibility on our part. If we were to use this opportunity, as a whole, simply to try to score points against one another, I submit that the opportunity would be lost. If we were to use the opportunity, however, to score points for our fatherland, our country and all its people would be on the winning side. It is my fervent prayer that we shall receive the necessary guidance to allow us to build upon the magnificence of this occasion.

The Bill confirms very important points of departure and presents us with specific choices. I believe that these are points of departure and choices that all members of the House and all political parties have in common.

Firstly, the 1983 Constitution is not the final answer on our country’s constitutional dispensation for any political party in this House. We are consequently all committed to changing or adapting it in accordance with our respective policies and principles.

We are all committed to an evolutionary process of development. We are all committed to the fact that that process should be a parliamentary process and should, in the final analysis, give its stamp of approval to all processes. We are all in favour of a process of consultation and negotiation, and consequently of a negotiated constitutional product for our country.

We believe that a blueprint that ultimately addresses all our problems is not possible, but that the process of development and the level of development of our community will, to a large degree, determine the form and substance of constitutional models at a given period.

We believe that because all South Africans are not yet part of the parliamentary process, as we see it, Parliament must create forums or opportunities for deliberation and consultation with leaders from other communities. South Africa does, in fact, find itself in a period of change and adjustment. In no decade in the history of this country has there ever been such a comprehensive process of adjustment and development taking place as during the term of office of the hon the State President.

Hear, hear!

South African is in the throes of adjustment and change taking place simultaneously in all spheres of life. This parliamentary session is specifically characterised by various steps which have had repercussions throughout the broad spectrum of adjustment and reform. With the opening of Parliament at the beginning of this year the hon the State President specifically dealt with—and in doing so emphasised— the economic and financial facets which form the basis of successful reform. I venture to say that it is indicative of some of the most far-reaching standpoints on those matters which we have ever encountered in this House.

During the Appropriation, too, Parliament gave exhaustive attention to the improvement of the living conditions of all South Africans. What is more, several other measures were submitted for consideration, measures which do promote and must promote the process of adjustment in the constitutional, social and economic spheres. It is true that times of change, particularly as extensive as the ones we are experiencing, always embody an element of uncertainty which can, on the one hand, give rise to instability. The reason, of course, is that we are confronted by the unknown.

On the other hand the forces of revolution can exploit that instability and misuse it for their own aims and purposes. It is therefore not enough simply to address the constitutional, social and material aspects of our society. Order and security must also receive attention. The employment of the security forces and the country’s security capability in dealing with unrest and violence in our country should not, in my opinion, be viewed negatively in the light of constitutional changes. I believe that they should be positively utilised to create a climate for and to support the overall reform process.

Today, in the discussion of the Bill before us, we are specifically addressing central constitutional problems—the problem of finding lebensraum and achieving political participation for all the people of our country and also that of developing a system that fits in with the demands of our society, but which will enable us to dwell and live together in a spirit of justice.

The initial Bill was published in May 1986. After two years we have at least achieved consensus amongst the majority parties in the Houses of Parliament on the provisions of the Bill. This endorses the fact that we cannot find overnight solutions or one-off solutions to all our problems. A process of consultation and reflection is necessary before unanimity can be achieved.

The Bill also confronts us and the country with specific choices. It represents a choice in favour of a negotiated solution to our constitutional problems. The concept of negotiation aims at the orderly adjustment of society and social institutions, and it can therefore rightly be stated that this Bill represents the constitutional method of change.

This Bill therefore contrasts with any endeavours or choices based on violence. It therefore addresses the alternative to that of the revolutionaries, and the proposed council is therefore an obstacle to revolution.

It does not take a prophet to predict that this Bill and this envisaged council will meet with the relentless opposition of these forces. Those who want to perpetuate racism will certainly regard the legislation as the last nail in the Whites’ coffin. Those who place no value on the protection of the cultural heritage and values of people and communities will undoubtedly say that this is too little too late or that it is racist.

Those who are prepared to persevere and search with dedication for solutions in the interests of the country and all its people, however, will see this gathering today and the legislation as an effort to give substance to the high ideals of emancipation and freedom.

Although orderly change is nothing new, and although we have been engaged in this process for a long time now, in our country the emphasis is increasingly falling on a choice between constitutional versus unconstitutional methods of change.

Let me emphasise that it is not, by definition, a question of extra-parliamentary action, because extra-parliamentary groups can still employ and negotiate constitutional and peaceful methods for change. What is involved here are those extra-parliamentary groups who pursue or preach violence, revolution and other unlawful methods of change, or act in such a way that their actions must, of necessity, give rise to violence. These groups will not like the proposed negotiating body or the fact that we want to negotiate either.

It should therefore be clear that this Bill and the body it envisages will be subjected to a barrage of criticism and condemnation. As in the case of the 1983 Constitution, this piece of legislation is a modest step forward on the road to the ultimate achievement of the ideal of a constitutional dispensation in which all communities can participate without domination. Just as the 1983 Constitution elicited criticism from those who had nothing whatsoever to do with the essence of peaceful change, we shall repeatedly come across this again. As in the case of the 1983 Constitution, with all its defects or alleged defects, in letter and in spirit this legislation bears the stamp of good neighbourliness.

The envisaged council essentially presents the following additional choices, ie whether we want to change society by negotiation or violence. Do we want to adopt the peaceful evolutionary course, or do we want to adopt that of confrontation, violence and revolution? The Government believes that it has the support of the majority of the population when it states that its choice has been that of peaceful development based on negotiation. We believe that for this reason the majority of South Africans will support the proposed council.

Various opinion polls have consistently, over the past few years, proven that the Government perception that the majority of South Africans support negotiation, is correct. That is why we are proceeding with confidence and with conviction.

It is vital that those who support negotiation should now be mobilised. It is important that negotiation is now given palpable substance and that those South Africans be presented with a concrete negotiating situation to which they can lend their support and in which they can express or fulfil their urge for freedom. We can no longer expect these South Africans to resist the revolutionary agitation if we do not now convert the alternative into a reality.

We see the revolution in all its naked reality every time a bomb bursts. We owe it to our people to present them with an alternative in a body such as that proposed in the Bill. That is why every leader has a tremendous responsibility in the face of this piece of legislation. If we did not now seize upon this Bill in an endeavour to create new possibilities for peaceful solutions in the future, we in this House would be neglecting our duty towards peace-loving South Africans and placing them at the mercy of those who want to persuade them to adopt violence as a solution.

†Mr Speaker, this Bill has not come about overnight. The point of departure of the Government has been, and still is, not to finalise legislation of this kind rashly and unilaterally. A searching process was in fact started as early as 1986. At the opening of Parliament in January 1986, the hon the State President envisaged such a body for negotiation. On 15 May of that year in an address to the President’s Council, the hon the State President referred to the possible functions of such a body, namely to advise upon a new constitutional dispensation and to afford Black communities a voice in Government processes on an interim basis. On 23 May 1986 the National Council Bill was published in the Government Gazette for comment.

In the period of approximately five weeks allowed for such comment and in the subsequent months, some 122 written replies were received, while at least 250 discussions took place with various bodies and persons concerned.

Reaction throughout was overwhelmingly positive with regard to the concept of such a body. Criticism was, however, voiced against the composition of the council, in particular in regard to the necessity for a more acceptable representative basis for Black members of the council.

The Government was engaged in continuous negotiations and discussions with representatives of these communities and tried to rectify the alleged shortcomings in the first Bill. The Bill was for instance adapted to provide for the election of Black representatives.

The second amended Bill was published on 11 September 1987, when it was introduced in Parliament. The Bill was referred to the Joint Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which again published it for comment. As a result 43 written replies were received, after which the joint committee heard oral evidence from seven persons and bodies.

The joint committee then had in-depth discussions on the Bill and eventually held 15 meetings. These deliberations led to the drafting and submission to Parliament of the Bill which we are now discussing.

Allow me to emphasise that the Bill is the product of the consensus reached in the joint committee. I wish to record my deepest appreciation to all the members of the joint committee who made this possible. The most important amendments by the committee deal mainly with the composition of the council to make it as representative as possible.

The joint committee thought it well-advised to remove the provision in terms of which the State President would have been a member and the chairman of the council.

The committee felt and argued that he should not be a member of a body which has to advise him on constitutional affairs and on which he would have to adjudicate in his capacity as State President. He will, however, be entitled to participate in the proceedings of the council.

In addition, provision has been made for alternate members empowered to take part in the proceedings, which naturally broadens the base of representation enjoyed by each category of members.

The electoral basis of the nine elected Black leaders has also been amended. They will now be elected by electoral colleges comprising of the members of the Black local authorities. It is believed that this will simplify the election process and will enable the earlier establishment of the proposed council.

I wish to point out that the council will be able to consider any matter; including its own composition and functions. Therefore we believe that we should now leave the provisions of the Bill unchanged and leave it to the council itself to propose further changes according to circumstances in future.

The Bill now surely reflects in the most tangible manner the sincere desire of all of us to create a new constitutional dispensation through a peaceful process of deliberation and negotiation. It also reflects our belief that solutions along this way are indeed possible.

I want to emphasise that the Bill is proof of the Government’s sincerity, which I believe Parliament shares, that constitutional structures, representing all South Africans and in which power will be shared in a way preventing domination, must be developed in this country. Our object is that these institutions should develop through the work of the proposed council.

From this it should be clear that the council is not a goal in itself, but an instrument through which new structures can be brought about; in other words, the council will be an instrument for further reform, not the end of that reform. I want to add that the process which I have briefly described has already caused the talks to go beyond the scope of the Bill itself. These discussions are inevitably already dealing with further constitutional development. I have already stated that negotiation should now be concretised. These discussions to which the Bill has given rise should therefore now be channelled through the body envisaged in the Bill.

Everybody propagates his own constitutional guidelines and models on which we can only make real progress when everybody is prepared to put particulars of his model on the table of the council. Insofar as specific leaders maintain preconditions for participation in negotiations, this council offers the opportunity to place their requests on the table. I repeat: All peace-loving South Africans must now seize the opportunity to prove their commitment to negotiations and not only to talk about them.

The Bill contains no impediment to the free participation by any political organisation or individual interested in peaceful democratic processes and in constitutional power-sharing. The agenda is open.

*I want to tell all leaders that our credibility amongst our own political supporters will not be determined by our fear that we may lose support as a result of our choices, because I submit that it will be determined by the results we can achieve through our commitment to a choice.

Through our participation in this body we can furnish a compelling demonstration of the fact that Whites and Blacks want to stand together to prevent conflict, violence and chaos. We would thereby be sending our own people a resounding signal of hope indicating that those who desire peace are prepared to stand up and be counted and that they are prepared to work towards that end.

Therefore, in conclusion, let me say that this Bill is a critical test for us all in this Parliament, because it is Parliament that must take the lead when it comes to making these processes possible. I believe that Parliament remains the instrument for the promotion and protection of peaceful processes in this country and that Parliament will place this legislation on the Statute Book.

Mr Speaker, this legislation attests to faith in South Africa because of the possibilities it presents, and not despair as a result of its numerous problems. It attests to confidence in South Africa’s people owing to their love for their fatherland and their common destiny; not to suspicion owing to past conflicts. It attests to optimism at the possibility of political solutions; not pessimism at the possibility of political deadends. In brief, it is a motion of confidence in our country and its people, and in the process also a motion of no-confidence in those who want us to fail.

This legislation, as in the case of the 1983 Constitution, says that we want further negotiation, that we are prepared to share political power without domination, that we want to contribute to the peaceful emancipation of people and communities and that we want to create an opportunity for all South Africans and communities to furnish a contribution in the chambers of this land, to the development of South Africa into the beautiful country which it can and ought to be.

Mr Speaker, we in the CP are also anxious to find peaceful solutions in this country for the problems confronting us. But we do say that we cannot agree with the constitutional path the Government has taken in bringing about those peaceful solutions, because we see in this the danger of a continuing struggle for power between groups in this country.

We say we are also in favour of finding an answer by constitutional means, but we say that the constitutional solution we are seeking should be one in terms of which this country should be divided up, so that each people, and each group which associates itself with that people, will without any restriction be able to achieve its own freedom. [Interjections.]

White supremacy!

Order! The necessary respect must be shown to hon chief spokesmen of the various Houses and parties during the course of their speeches. Such hon members must not be unnecessarily interrupted, unless it is essential. The hon member for Ermelo may proceed.

That is why we are implacably opposed to this proposed legislation, because in our view it is a further step on the fatal path which must of necessity lead to Black majority government…. [Interjections] … and the downfall of the Afrikaner people and other minority groups in this country.

What we have here today is a repetition of the events which preceded the legislation of 1984. Then, as now, a constitutional body was proposed which would work out a new dispensation in terms of which Coloureds and Indians would be given a joint say in the government of our country. At that stage the parties to the left of the Government indicated that that constitutional path was the right one, but that the methods adopted for including the Coloureds and Indians, while the Black man was excluded, were the wrong ones. According to them there would have been a lack of legitimacy and they asked, therefore, that the Black man should also be included so that there could be peace in this country if that path were to be chosen. For that reason those parties argued that it was wrong to exclude the Black man.

The parties to the right of the Government argued at that stage, on logical grounds, that it was the wrong path to follow at the time because it was predictable that one would also have to include the Black man if Coloureds and Indians were to be included. The Government would be forced to do that, because it was morally indefensible to include certain groups and exclude the Black man. The Government would later be forced to include the Black man as well.

At the time of this campaign there was a very effective attempt to point out what the two conflicting standpoints represented. These two standpoints were played off against one another as if neither could be the right one. The prophets of doom said that neither of the two could be right and would not result in the projected outcome, that the Black man, regardless of the consequences, also having to be included.

In our view, time has shown that both these standpoints were right, because here we are today and the Black man is going to be included if the proposals in the Bill are adopted. [Interjections.] The similarities between what is happening now and what previously happened are obvious. Once again there is a body which must work out how the Black people will participate in the government of this country. From the left-wing we again have the warning that it is the right path, but that the wrong methods are being used to involve the Black people, because this must also permit the inclusion of other groups and other leaders. The group basis must be abolished. The left-wing group says, therefore, that it is the right path, but that the right methods are not being adopted and there is a lack of legitimacy.

We on the right wing are telling the present Government that they are choosing the wrong path. They will be forced to give in to the proposals of the left-wing groups, and will therefore also be forced to accept the inevitable consequences of their decision. This will entail the rejection of what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning referred to as the protection of the rights of minority groups and the maintenance of communities each with its own lifestyle.

On the path it has chosen the Government has run out of options. According to the Government an acceptable solution to the problems must be found along this road. We say that great pressure will be brought to bear on the Government to give in to the demands of left-wing elements. We have various arguments which indicate to us why the Government will submit to this pressure. At this stage we can present these arguments on logical grounds far more forcibly than we did when the Constitution Act of 1983 was introduced.

In the first place, in spite of a public invitation to participate, there were behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Black people, but nevertheless they were not prepared to take part in the proceedings of the joint committee.

Secondly, virtually unwavering conditions for participation in this process were laid down. These prerequisites included the release of Mandela—clause 5(e) of the relevant Bill—lifting the ban on banned organisations, lifting the state of emergency and the repeal of the Group Areas Act. If the Government wants to succeed on the path it has chosen, it will have to heed these calls with obvious consequences, of course.

In the third place, the leaders of the self-governing states were not willing to participate in these constitutional proposals. Here it is significant that one of the most outstanding, recognized leaders of the Black people in this country, Chief Buthelezi, not only refused to participate, but openly expressed his opposition to the proposals.

It is clear that today these so-called moderate leaders are imposing precisely the same conditions as the so-called radical leaders. We want to tell the Government again that great pressure will be brought to bear on them to give way if they want to obtain the goodwill of these moderate leaders. We say further that the Government’s acceptance of numbers as the Christian, just, fair and morally defensible basis for representation in the present dispensation is incontrovertibly one of the major factors which will bring pressure to bear on the Government. The Government cannot, to serve its own ends, fully utilise the numerical basis—the Government does in fact do so in the President’s Council, the ultimate decisionmaking body—but deny this to the Black man when he is included.

In the fifth place, we say quite clearly that despite what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said here in regard to racism, we in the CP contend that we are just as opposed to racism as any other group. [Interjections.] We are unashamedly in favour of retaining our national character (“volkskap”), and that is what we shall continue to do, and if in preserving my national character I am labelled a racist, so be it. [Interjections.] In contrast, it is ironically the Government’s very acceptance of the principle of race, serving as the basis for representation in the present Constitution, which negates any argument on the Government’s part about why the Black man as a race should not be included in the new constitutional dispensation.

The success or failure of these guarantees given by the Government and the success or failure of the implementation of this Constitution is wholly dependent on the willingness of the Black man to participate as a nation, thus making South Africa a country of minorities, because that is the only basis on which this constitutional dispensation the Government proposes can have any hope of succeeding.

We say that if the Black man is not prepared to accept such a classification, the philosophy and basis of the Government’s policy will crumble. We say it is significant that in this very Bill the Government has departed from its basis of ethnicity. This is apparent from that section in terms of which the country will be divided into nine regions on the basis of which representation will be granted, without ethnicity playing any role or being applicable in any way.

We say too that democracy demands that there be a free rein and that democracy permits of no restrictions. Attempts to limit the workings of democracy with talk of self-determination in own affairs and joint responsibility for general affairs creates an intolerable situation, and democracy will not permit itself to be restricted in that way.

We say it is an indisputable fact that the Government cannot, as it claims, protect minorities through constitutionally structured measures. In a democracy the majority will govern. It is precisely for that reason that we also say that the pressure on the Government will not decrease— nor will the pressure from within its own ranks for relinquishing the group concept and for including leaders of other groups to sit together around the negotiating table.

We go further. We say it is clear that amongst the Government’s newly-found fellow-campaigners for the establishment of a new constitution, there will also be pressure groups which will try to force the Government to accept that self-determination and the distinction between own and general affairs are not viable. In the long run the Government will be confronted with the ultimate choice. A possible choice will be what the Government itself on the one hand regards as viable but unacceptable. That is the course represented by the left-wing parties. Another possible choice, of course, is what is acceptable to the Government, but is not regarded as viable. That is the right-wing orientation.

On the strength of the facts being presented by us today, it is obvious that the Government will be obliged to accept the choice which the left-wing elements offer. We therefore call on the Government today to stop this. In doing this they will destroy the people in whom they had their roots. [Interjections.] Yes, calls will go out from this Chamber for participation by other groups and organisations. It will be said that their co-operation is indispensable to the successful implementation of the policies basic to this proposed Bill.

Mr Speaker, we are telling you today that no constitutional solution is possible in South Africa without the participation of the Afrikaner people. [Interject ions.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, just as in the past the NP always had the right to claim that it was in the vanguard of the Afrikaner movement, we tell the NP today that it is unquestionably true that the majority of the 600 000 voters who voted for the CP in the 1987 election, strengthened by clear indications from three subsequent by-elections, have shown without doubt that the Afrikaner people are, in ever-increasing numbers, joining the ranks of the CP. [Interjections.] On this basis we say today that the Government will not succeed in its new constitutional dispensation without the co-operation of the CP, because the CP is replacing the NP in the political forefront of the Afrikaner movement. We say unequivocally that the CP is not prepared to give the co-operation the NP seeks; on the contrary, the CP will seek a future dispensation along other lines, but will never ever be prepared to work for a so-called undivided South Africa. That would lead to our downfall. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on an auspicious occasion such as this it is unfortunate that I have to start on a note of protest. The fact that the CP, a minority party in this Parliament, was allowed precedence over a majority party is certainly a demonstration and an acknowledgement of the fact that White privilege is still a factor. I want to state clearly that if we are going to seek the success of the National Council, or whatever one may call it, recognition must be given to the fact that there are people of greater importance for the future of South Africa than members of the CP. [Interjections.] Unless we move away from White privilege and prerogative, the success of future deliberations will certainly be endangered.

I am not going to reply to the previous speaker, but one is reminded of the fact that the CP made no contribution whatsoever at joint committee level to the whole question of the need for such a body to deliberate and plan the future of South Africa. Their completely negative approach here this afternoon is an insult to the intelligence, integrity and well-meaning attitude of others who have dedicated themselves to finding peaceful solutions in the circumstances of South Africa. [Interjections.] I believe that if they are not prepared to accept the challenges of today and the possibilities of tomorrow, they have but one choice, and that is to leave the precincts of this building. [Interjections.] I do not believe that they have any contribution to make to the process of finding constitutional solutions for the future of South Africa.

Perhaps I should remind them of the experience of the people of Israel in the Old Testament. They were warned by the prophet Jeremiah that they had to make a choice between life and death. The Scripture goes on to say clearly that those who choose to live must move away from where they are, but those who make the choice to die must remain where they are. I believe that in a time of challenge which requires so much statesmanship and perhaps even greater dedication to the survival of this country and of its people, we cannot remain where we are. We must move away, and the event of today is certainly making a considerable contribution to this end and marks the start of a new era of politics in the South African circumstances.

I want to pay tribute to the members of that committee, and in particular to those belonging to my party, for their patience, their perseverance and their dedication to success, not forgetting the quality of the leadership given by the chairman of the joint committee, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

It is important that we who are present here this afternoon look at the future as realists, and perhaps help remove the blinkers of those who cannot perceive the future as clearly as others do.

Mention was made today of the great events of the past that took place in 1910 and in 1961. I believe that in importance, today far exceeds the relevance of those particular occasions, because from our perspective 1910 certainly marked the beginning of a political process of dispossession. Before 1910 we had the right to elect and to be elected to the old Cape Assembly. Those rights were taken away from us in 1910. Therefore, while 1910 and 1961 were important events from a White perspective, thinking back on where we stood then and where we are today, today is far more important to us.

I should like to remind the antagonists, the critics and those who are not interested in finding a solution as we are attempting to do, that those people who talk about a historical analysis should stand still and take note of what has happened and what is happening, and they should adopt a historical perspective which should be seen in the light of the reality of the situation.

Mr Speaker, we are still living in a society of contradictions. I am not saying that all is well at the moment. However, we have to be aware that there are people in this country who are seeking to make positive contributions to the survival and well-being of our country and all its peoples. Whilst talking of contradictions, I am reminded that we find ourselves in a situation which is comparable to the opening paragraph of Charles Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities where he says:

When we consider the reality of South Africa’s circumstances today and the fact that we are meeting here, we conjure up the picture that this may not be the best of times but, certainly in terms of political development, these are the best times we have ever had.

However, there is also the perspective—which was already obvious this afternoon—of those who cannot see the good in the changing times. Certainly, an event like this one will remain indelibly engraved in their minds as the worst of times. It is also true that in sitting together where each one of us can make a contribution to enable us to find solutions, wisdom has prevailed. I want to say very clearly that participation is the answer in the South African circumstances. A recent survey has shown that the majority of Black people—Coloureds, Indian and Africans—have opted for participation as a peaceful means of change in this country. I believe that in itself is indicative of the age of wisdom.

It is imperative that I should remind those who have had difficulty in deciding whether to participate or not, of a situation that existed in 1958, when Dr Nelson Mandela, who was leader of the ANC, was faced with a decision to participate or not to participate.

In 1934 the Africans who had the vote in the Cape were removed from the common voters’ roll and Native representation introduced, as it was then called. They had to make a decision as to whether they would participate on a separate voters’ roll for a White Native Representative. Nelson Mandela lead the ANC to accept the principal of participation. Although it was on the basis of a separate, non-acceptable voters’ roll, the ANC participated in that election, resulting in the election of Sam Khan to the Parliament of that particular year.

That rationale in terms of the voices of the dispossessed, the underprivileged and of those not present being heard in the highest echelons of government, is still the principle which ought to be operative in the minds of those who are doubting the whole question of participation. One is particularly pleased that there has been so much progress in the thinking of people generally.

I am appreciative of the fact that clause 5 as it now stands in the proposed Bill does represent a remarkable movement away from where we were when we started speaking about the National Council, in the sense that it is correct that there are people still outside the precincts of this House who have an invaluable contribution to make to the future of South Africa. Whereas in the past clause 5 had a limiting effect on the question of who would participate and who not, it does now enable participation by people who in the past were not allowed to participate.

I believe those who are still standing aside because of the non-participation now of Dr Nelson Mandela, should not forget that this particular Bill does not prevent his participation under certain circumstances. That is far from what the situation originally was.

I believe our presence here this afternoon vindicates the stand the Labour Party took in 1983 to participate in the tricameral structure, recognizing that it was a beginning rather than an end, recognizing that the reform process, or the end product of reform had to start somewhere. The fact that we are here is indicative of the success of the politics of participation and, more than that, the politics of persuasion.

The past weeks and months have indicated that the more people sit together, the more people talk together, the more people of different perspectives, attitudes and political motivations come together, the greater the understanding. This country certainly needs a greater under standing. This understanding can only be achieved if people are willing to get together.

The answer to the South African situation is one in which we must seek to find each other. There must be a reconciliation between those who have been dispossessed in the past, as well as those who at the moment are non-participants and those who are participating. We have said at Eshowe that the tricameral structure does not represent the end product. Let me state firmly, unashamedly and loudly: Nothing less than the participation of all South Africans—irrespective of race, colour, culture or creed—in all decisionmaking processes of this country, can bring about the desired peace and security.

Hear, hear!

While striving towards a process of reconciliation, one should also realise that there is a tremendous backlog. By participation one could address the inadequacies of the past, and thereby immediately contribute to the upliftment of people in order to enable them to participate as equals in the process of reconciliation.

Reconciliation has never been a vertical process. Vertical reconciliation only exists between man and God. However, reconciliation between man and man is a horizontal process. While White privilege has ensured one group on top, and dispossession and the lack of opportunity at the bottom, the process of upliftment is absolutely necessary to bring about that end product of reconciliation.

This Bill, despite the little inadequacies that may still exist, opens the door to peaceful solutions and a South Africa in which all people can play a part. I am reminded at this juncture of an article which appeared in The Argus of 20 June 1988. In this article there is an extract from The Sowetan which commented on the whole question of 16 June, and I quote:

The article concludes with these most important words, and I quote:

There was goodwill on the White side and there was goodwill on the Black side. The article continues, and I quote:

In dealing with a changing situation and a changing world, we have learned to accept that from both sides—those in a position of power and those who are attempting to reach at least a platform of powersharing—there will have to be compromises.

The Bill before us this afternoon is a product of compromise in the interests of the country we all want to live for, the country in which we all wish to ensure that all people would like to live. This does not mean that by participating or by reaching compromises we are abandoning our principles in a cowardly fashion. We accept, however, that the future depends upon a willingness to give and to take, the willingness to consider other people and their perspectives. One has often to remind one’s own constituency that what may be minimal in terms of progress in legislation as a result of participation, from another perspective has been a gigantic stride.

One cannot help but accept the fact that there has been—I say this with respect—a revolution of thinking in the minds of so many persons who were supporters and members of the NP. I am going to accept what the previous speaker said— that Afrikaners have a particular role to play in the future of South Africa, and without them no solution is going to be found. Recognition must then, however, be given to the fact that there are other people who as a result of their situation and birth are also Afrikaners, even if they do not have the same cultural heritage. I think one has, as a point of departure, to remember that there are other people to take into consideration, and in the free society we are striving for no one group or nation can expect to have things entirely its own way. If this happens, the situation becomes disastrous for everybody concerned.

It has been said that man is innately too selfish and too ignorant to be entrusted with much power over his fellows, and a satisfactory settlement of any issue is usually one that satisfies no-one fully. I believe that the platform, once the council has been established, will certainly allow us the opportunity to come forward with the formula as we see it, that the answer to the South African situation lies in an understanding of perspectives, as well as in a willingness to seek honestly the solutions for the well-being of the whole.

The LP has opted for a non-racial geographic federal structure which we believe can accommodate the real issues facing South Africa today. Those real issues include the question of Black aspirations, something which can no longer be denied. Cognizance must be taken of them. As long as the majority of South Africans are excluded from decision making processes we cannot find a solution. Those aspirations are real, and must be recognised.

I say with love and respect also, that besides the Black aspirations there are the White fears which are also real. I think it has been demonstrated here this afternoon that there are fears that are real. However, the interesting thing in the South African situation at the moment is that it is no longer simply a question of Black/White fears or White/Black fears. A situation has developed where there are White/White fears, and—this is reality again—Black/Black fears. In finding constitutional models recognition will have to be given to those White/White fears, those Black/Black fears, and to those polarised Black/White fears.

We wish to say that in the recognition of those realities, the council can and must find the suggested solutions. I have no doubt in my own mind that, having created that structure, we are all dedicated to the non-political domination of any one group over another. We are also dedicated to the fact, as was enunciated by the hon the State President, that no community should be excluded from the decision-making processes. We also firmly reject injustice and inequality. We believe that all communities should be given equal opportunities and that we must, in terms of the future, pledge ourselves to the removal of any racial discrimination that offends against human dignity. I believe that the future certainly holds tremendous challenges. We must not be guided by our fears of what may happen.

Today is certainly indicative of what is happening in South Africa. Here I stand before this august gathering today as a participant in the highest echelon of Government—that of Parliament. Yet, 12 years ago I was incarcerated by the Nationalist Government, as were other participants in this debate, namely the hon members for Toekomsrus and Addo. We have, however, moved out of that situation into a situation of denying our personal experiences of the past in terms of again complementing this goodwill from all sides. One should not be afraid. The NP history is also indicative of that when one is reminded of the historical fact that a person, who by association was a saboteur, became State President of this country. We should not look over our shoulders only at Black people whom some people see as a threat to the future. I believe that we must, as all South Africans should, seek the best for our country and not listen, or give cognisance, to the prophets of doom. We heard them this afternoon, as we have heard them before. There are those people who take cognisance only of their own option. I will say something about this at a later stage.

We have just come through two by-elections and, as a party, it is our experience that the majority of so-called Coloured people support the whole question of movement towards the establishment of this national body and participation therein. One should not be inhibited by the fact that there are people who are not prepared to seek peaceful solutions in this country. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, when the historic National Convention took place in this country in 1910, one of the greatest pacifists who ever walked the surface of this earth spent many years in this country during his formative years. During that time many letters were exchanged between the great Mahatma Gandhi and the late Gen Smuts.

In one of the letters which became known historically as the famous “Gandhi-Smuts Agreement”, Mahatma Gandhi said:

He was referring to the indentured Indian labourers and the traders who came to this country—

Nevertheless, Mahatma Gandhi was dealing with the circumstances of the time. He was dealing with the thinking of the age at that particular time. However, he produced another great leader in India, and that was the first Prime Minister of independent India, the late Jawaharlal Nehru. On the night India became independent he uttered some very significant words. He said:

That is why we regard 21 June 1988 as a very historic day. The previous speaker, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, referred to the injustices and the bitterness of the past. This day is a great day, a significant day, and a very historic day for all of us, not only for those communities that are represented in the South African Parliament, but also for those whom we want to have a just say at the levels of decision-making in this country.

This is the new Parliament’s first joint debate. We are deciding on a matter which is considered by many as the most significant constitutional step since the passing of the famous 1983 Constitution, which most certainly shifted the course of the history of South Africa and consequently the history of the Southern African region.

The present Constitution has its flaws, but there is no constitution in this world that is perfect. There is no constitution in this world that is regarded as being final as all constitutions change from time to time. Despite the deficiencies in this Constitution I want to say this afternoon that our decision in 1983 to make use of it was correct, because we believe—as some constitutional experts in this country who are opposed to the Government also believe—that change in South Africa must come the peaceful way. For the sake of all its citizens change in this country must come through constitutional means, and change must come through the decisions of Parliament itself.

I am reminded of the attitudes expressed by the major newspapers in this country when Parliament was discussing and deliberating on the 1983 constitutional proposals. In Natal the Natal Mercury indicated that this was a rickety model, but that it was worth a try. So did the giant Sunday Times indicate that despite its flaws, despite its deficiencies, the 1983 Constitution was like an anvil on which the future of South Africa could be reshaped.

I want to say this afternoon in clear and unambiguous terms that the prophecy of The Sunday Times in that famous editorial appears to be correct. This prophecy is being realised today partly by this historic step.

Reference was made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives to the role of the joint committee. I want to say that there is no doubt about the fact that our standing committee system is the real engineroom of our parliamentary structure. It is the joint committee which is the anvil which is reshaping legislation. I also want to remind the critics to study the form in which the National Council Bill was tabled in Parliament. The National Council Bill was most certainly reshaped and was returned for our debate this afternoon in a new form.

The Bill is also a real product of tolerance, patience, understanding and the accommodation of each other’s views. The Bill we are discussing this afternoon is an excellent example of consensus politics, where representatives of various political parties from the various Houses, having divergent political ideologies and being responsible to various constituencies, have found each other on a common ground in a process of give and take. Uppermost in the minds of those who deliberated upon and agreed to these proposals were the interests of South Africa.

I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for his guidance and his wise counsel on this particular matter. We want to say that we, Indians and members of the Coloured community, are not in this Parliament because of any selfish desires for our communities alone. I want to suggest that any critic of our participation study the changes which have been brought about since 28 August 1984.

Reform is not only reform in a constitutional direction. Reform also includes the changes and improvements one brings about in the socioeconomic and educational direction. Here I want to say that change or reform has a price tag. When we joined this tricameral Parliament, we did not realise that we would not achieve our expectations in respect of additional allocation of funds to improve the quality of life of, for example, the Indian community. We realise that there are other communities which require services where there exists a greater need.

I do not think any community which is not represented in Parliament can fault our performances, particularly when we take into consideration the massive socio-economic education programmes for members of the Black community under the guidance of the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. We are here because we believe that this is also the beginning of the process of the broadening of democracy in this country.

We are here because we are convinced that we will be able to play a significant role in broadening this process of democracy. The very fact that this Bill has been reshaped and that it has been the product of our positive participation in the joint committee, proves this dictum beyond all reasonable doubt. This Bill is also the product of a joint exercise of the three Houses of Parliament where common ground has been found on the question of Black participation in Government.

I want to say that there are quite a number of significant points in this Bill. The significance of this Bill is that it provides a label and that is to plan and prepare a constitutional dispensation which provides for participation by all South African citizens. It does not prescribe an agenda in regard to what goes inside this medicine bottle. There is no agenda. Sometimes when the agenda is determined there is criticism and sometimes when the agenda is not determined there is also criticism. As the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has stated this afternoon the agenda is open, so no future constitutional model is prescribed.

Blacks, like others, have quite correctly objected to prescriptive measures. They object to being told or for others to decide what is good or bad for them. They are now being given an effective say, as an interim measure, in the processes of government. Equally important is a say in respect of existing and proposed legislation.

The House of Delegates, like others, stands committed to our declared ideal to get rid of apartheid, and in this respect history has recorded that it was none other than the hon the State President who announced on the occasion of the official opening of Parliament that the old colonial system of apartheid was outdated. It is our ideal to ensure that all South African citizens participate in the process of government. It is also our ideal that all our citizens share the wealth of our country equally, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

We also note with satisfaction that the structures are being created to satisfy these sacred ideals, and the Government cannot be criticised for being prescriptive or by prescribing any models. We consider it equally significant that we should not be prescribed to by others, for example “one man, one vote”. Then one also has “one man, one boat” and one also has “one man, one vote— for one man one time, no second time”!

There is no doubt that Parliament will pass this Bill by a great majority. We might get political commentators referring to this afternoon’s deliberations and the consensus we are about to reach by a great majority and they may regard our joint support of this Bill to be that of strange bedfellows. I may remind critics that the Bill has undergone very drastic changes. It has been reshaped, when compared to its original form.

By us!

The anvil, being the LP, the NPP, the PPSA and the NP, has done its job and has done it well. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives, in responding to the sentiments expressed by the hon representative of the CP, referred to what people do in joint committees.

Unfortunately, joint committee meetings, deliberations or discussions are not open to members of the public or the Press. I do not say that representative parties adopt different standards but from my experience I know that because we are under the glare of the media in our open debates there is most certainly superficial ostentation. I want to say to the media that just before they jump to the conclusion that there was common support for this legislation they should realise that there were many disagreements. It took a long time to reach this stage. Painful discussions and negotiations, accommodation, understanding and a process of give and take for the benefit of South Africa had to take place.

A very important step is being taken and that most important step is to establish the council. It is significant to note that in this interim period stress should not be placed on the type of materials that are going to be used to build a platform or a council. I am referring here to those who could play a vital role by participating in this council. One should rather emphasise the quality of the people who are going to make use of this platform and their performance.

I am reminded of the advice of an important Black leader who once said that we should not use the boycott as a tactic on all occasions—the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives also referred to this. Even Lenin was a person who opposed Trotski and supported participation politics. He regarded his critics at that time as the greatest chatterboxes and the greatest phrase mongers of the age.

During the debate on the hon the State President’s Vote in our House on 20 August 1987 even the hon member for Reservoir Hills said the following:

An appeal is therefore directed to those who can play a role in the new council. They must not find fault with its structure, but use it even if they find deficiencies or discrepancies in it.

Yesterday the hon the State President made ar appeal to those in exile to lay down their arms and abandon violence. I have made reference to the stay of Mahatma Gandhi in this country. He was not a complete boycott politician. He said that one should adjust one’s tactics according to the circumstances of the time. The Indian National Congress in India advocated complete boycott politics until they changed their tactics to participation politics on the advice of Mahatma Gandhi in 1935. One could then see the speed with which reform and change took place on the Indian subcontinent.

I want to stress this afternoon that we must be reminded of the three Ts. According to the prayer of Parliament we must have trust in God, we must have trust and faith in one another and we must try things until the other side lets us down. Today we are making a tryst with destiny. When the Labour Party, the NPP and others decided to try out the new Constitution in 1983 we made a tryst with destiny.

Today we are redeeming part of that pledge and we rededicate ourselves this afternoon to redeem other parts of the pledge or the tryst we have made. We must therefore have trust as the one T, we must have tryst as another T and, to those who are not here, I say let us add another T and let us say: “Give it a try!” Without trial one cannot know whether one can succeed or fail, and I want to say: “Let us not be purists.” The South African situation cannot be compared with another situation. One cannot compare the situation in India or Kenya or Zambia with the South African situation. In those countries one is not negotiating with an absentee landlord and I want to say to the Afrikaners that they are negotiating with a community that has a chequered history in this country of 350 years and whose determination to survive in Africa must never be underestimated. I therefore want to make an appeal that like the Afrikaners and their desire to preserve what they have built in this country, there are others whose activities, way of life and trials and tribulations and struggles in this country could be likened to those of the Afrikaners. One hundred and fifty years ago we saw the Great Trek from the south to the north but let us not forget the unwritten chapters of the history of another part of South Africa that may be forgotten as a last bastion of the British Empire when the Indians arrived here and trekked from east to west. So there is a similarity between and a commonness about the Afrikaner and the Indians. Let us have trust in each other because while we also believe that the 350 years of chequered history of the Afrikaner in this country must not be wished away, in the same manner we say do not do unto others what you do not like to be done unto you. I want to quote Pandit Nehru, and I have quoted this before:

We must recognise these differences and not try to seek to coerce or to compel anyone to function according to a particular way because we have there various groups in South African society.

Once there is an attempt at coercion—and I am appealing to the CP—the seeds of trouble are sown. We have the choice between peaceful coexistence and that alternative which is too ghastly to contemplate.

Mr Speaker, it is not often that I quote approvingly from the Cape Times. On Monday morning, however, this paper had a report on its front page dealing, inter alia, with the subject matter of this debate under the heading “Watershed week”. In a very real sense the measure under consideration, and in fact this debate itself, may indeed be regarded as a watershed in the constitutional history of the Republic of South Africa.

*Sir, reform is not a unique event, but an ongoing process of changing and adjusting what already exists by ridding it of defects and misconceptions. Reform is no simple process either; it is inevitably a multi-faceted process. Reform in one sphere has a fundamental effect on reform in other spheres, and reform in one sphere augments reform in another. Consequently, constitutional reform in South Africa should not be regarded in isolation and cannot take place in isolation either, but must necessarily involve reform in the economic, social, educational and other spheres.

The efforts made by the hon the State President in the recent past to initiate and stimulate economic reform, inter alia his opening address at the beginning of this parliamentary session, should therefore be seen in this context. The measure that we are considering and debating today is a manifestation of the renewed emphasis on the constitutional reform process which was initiated as long ago as 1652, when Jan van Riebeeck arrived at the Cape, and which has been gaining new impetus since the middle of the previous decade.

The constitutional reform process in South Africa has brought us to a constitutional half-way house or refreshment station in the form of the present tricameral Parliament. This is a refreshment station where we can take in provisions, replenish our stocks and from which we can set out again to explore new constitutional horizons and erect further landmarks on the road of reform.

I venture to say that all political parties represented here in Parliament want further reform.

Nobody wants to stay at this constitutional halfway house. However, as has so often been the case in the history of our country and its people, not everybody seeks the required reform in the same direction, and dissension rather than unanimity is the order of the day. Some are looking for reform in inappropriate models. Others are seeking reform on the basis of alien ideologies. Yet others are seeking reform on the basis of false motives, and then there are those who are looking for reform in the past, in outdated views and ideas.

However, the fact is that everybody wants reform—also those who are not present here. I believe that despite our differences, to a large extent we do agree on the requirements for that reform and what we expect from it.

Firstly, the reform should be evolutionary and not revolutionary. However, the fact is that the options for evolutionary reform are diminishing, inter alia because of the pressure that is being brought to bear on us by revolutionaries and because of the radicalization of our politics. Consequently it is imperative for evolutionary reform to show quick, positive results. However, to expect a detailed explanation at this stage of how meaningful participation by Black people in the decision-making and governmental processes up to the highest level of government in the Republic is to take place, is simply asking too much, and any attempt to do so would be overambitious and could even be counter-productive.

Nevertheless, acceptable and workable structures, processes and procedures that will eventually lead to participation in decision-making and co-responsibility by Black people can and should be proposed at this stage. This is what the measure before this House attempts to achieve.

Meaningful and permanent evolutionary reform can only take place in an economically sound or prosperous community, a community in which law and order prevails. For evolutionary reform to succeed, it is essential for economic stability and law and order to be maintained.

Given the efforts by revolutionaries and others to destroy law and order in the Republic of South Africa and to render the country ungovernable; given the actions of international communities and pressure groups in this country as well as all over the world to launch economic boycotts against the Republic of South Africa in order to undermine the economy; and given the radicalization to the left and to the right of domestic politics in the Republic of South Africa, the Government’s achievement in initiating and executing this step in the evolutionary constitutional reform process is indeed remarkable.

At the same time it is a manifestation of the inherent strength of the South African economy and a well-earned compliment to the country’s security forces, which manage to maintain law and order.

A second requirement, on which all of us who are present here are in agreement, is that this constitutional reform should be carried out formally and constitutionally by this Parliament. It follows that the Government should take the initiative in creating the necessary constitutional structures and processes to make such reform possible, and the Government has done its duty in this regard. The Government has taken this initiative, and the Bill before us is the result of this initiative, followed by two years’ structured investigation, consultation and contemplation by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Affairs.

It was my privilege to be a member of this committee and, together with colleagues from all the parties represented in Parliament, to give shape to this Bill on the anvil of consensus. In the process drastic changes were made to the Bill, as originally drafted and presented, in order to reconcile divergent viewpoints.

It must be emphasized, however, that the Bill is not intended to describe the model in terms of which meaningful participation by Black people in the decision-making and governmental processes up to the highest level will be brought about. The Bill does, however, propose an acceptable, attainable and workable method according to which such a model may be sought jointly and in a structured manner. So the Bill does not contain the final answer, but does form an important part of the constitutional process of finding the answer.

Constitutional reform is not only a formal, but also an informal process. Whereas structures and procedures such as the proposed council have to be found and utilized in order to allow the formal reform process to continue, the informal reform process must not be neglected. After all, laws merely form the skeleton of a democratic community, but people are the flesh and blood.

It is by way of informal reform that the personal and inter-group relations, without which no successful formal reform is possible, should be nurtured. It is by way of informal reform that people must be convinced of one another’s goodwill and honest intentions. It is along the line of informal reform that common views, aspirations, goals and ideals must be discovered. It is by way of informal reform that mutual trust must develop and a climate conductive to formal reform must be created.

†Mr Speaker, there is general agreement that a future constitutional dispensation for the RSA should be the result of negotiation by and between duly elected representatives of all communities of South Africa. Although there may not be absolute agreement in regard to the composition of the proposed council, it cannot be denied that the Bill does provide for a structure for negotiation between duly elected representatives of the various communities comprising the total South African society.

*All parties are in agreement that an acceptable and attainable constitutional dispensation for the Republic of South Africa must meet the requirements of fairness and justice. The only problem is that not all people have the same ideas about fairness and justice. On the one hand there are people who confuse justice with paternalism, while to others justice means compensation for real or supposed wrongs committed in the past and the salving of a guilt complex that has developed as a result. On the other hand, however there are those whose subjective interests and personal greed dominate and determine their sense of justice.

By virtue of its objectives, composition and method of operation, the proposed council is a suitable forum for reconciling all these different interpretations of fairness and justice, and for promoting a truly fair and just constitutional dispensation for the Republic of South Africa. The biggest challenge and the real test facing the proposed council will be the finding of a method to solve the dilemma of numbers and to prevent domination by one group or certain groups of another group or groups.

Any constitutional model or proposal that ignores this challenge or fails to provide a satisfactory solution to it, will be doomed to failure beforehand, because—let there be no misunderstanding about this—reform is not merely the substitution of Black domination for White domination. [Interjections.]

The proposed council will also have to ensure that further constitutional reform will continue to involve upholding and preserving those principles, norms and values that are so saliently expressed in the preamble to the present Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. I believe that to an important component of the South African community those principles, norms and values are even more non-negotiable than the preservation of ethnic identity. Therefore, those who are not prepared to take part or capable of taking part in negotiations on a future constitutional dispensation, effectively exclude themselves from the negotiating table.

†What is required is a constitutional order which is founded and structured in such a way that it defends itself against its enemies. A good example is to be found in the Grundgesetz of the Federal Republic of Germany. As in the case of the Federal Republic of Germany, the possibility of destroying certain basic principles, norms and values has to be taken away from those who are enemies of those very principles, norms and values. Tolerance in this regard cannot be without limits, because if the basic principles, norms and values of a society are to be durable, there can be no absolute rights for the enemies of those principles, norms and values to threaten their very existence.

*The success or failure of the proposed council will ultimately depend on and be determined by the extent and the quality of the participation in the process. I am convinced that, despite discouraging statements and disappointing attitudes that have been adopted and will be adopted in this regard, realism will eventually triumph over emotion and rhetoric. I believe that the inherent patriotism of our people will convince them that the future freedom, security, peace and prosperity of the Republic of South Africa and all its people will ultimately be determined by whether and how this proposed instrument is used.

I want to conclude by making an appeal to all hon members of this Parliament. Let us give the proposed council a chance. Let us give the proposed council a chance so that, whatever happens, when our children and grandchildren one day ask us what we did to secure the freedom, security, peace and prosperity of the Republic of South Africa and all its people, we shall be able to say before God and our own conscience: “I did everything I could.”

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the Bill. I do so, not because I believe that the Bill before us is the alpha and omega, but because I believe that this is a beginning. From here we can design the future South Africa.

I want to give the hon member for Ermelo the assurance that there is a place for the Afrikaner in the future of this country. However, there must also be a place for all other South Africans in the future of South Africa. We cannot, we dare not repeat the mistakes of the past—certainly not the mistakes of 1908 when the British negotiated only with the Afrikaner for a constitution for this country. The end result was 80 years of oppression, 80 years of denigration, 80 years we would love to forget. Let us learn from the mistakes of the past. Let us build the future South Africa on the ashes of that which was bad in the past.

*Today I think back to where I was exactly eight years ago. No doubt, if anybody told me then, “Miley, one day you will stand up in Parliament and discuss South Africa’s future”, I would have died laughing.

†Eight years ago, to the day, I was a guest of the hon the Minister of Law and Order at Modderbee and also at John Vorster Square. I see he is not here at the moment, but he was here earlier. However, as in the case of the hon the Leader of the LP, this did not make me a bitter person. It only improved my foresight. It only served to strengthen my belief that we must change this country. Instead of detaining people, we should share the responsibility with all people of South Africa to build a future South Africa of which we can be justifiably proud. My colleague, the hon member for Mossel Bay, stated this very clearly when he said that we should at least have the courage to do so now. If we fail to do it, it will be at the peril of all the children of South Africa.

I have waited a long time for this day. I finally believe that we are beginning to move. I finally believe that we can again set in motion this whole process of reform. We cannot stand by and watch change. We must be instrumental in creating that change. One can try all sorts of tricks. Here I am referring to the point of order that was raised earlier.

*One cannot bedevil the process of change in this country or stand in its way.

†One can delay it until tomorrow or next week, but one should bear in mind that South Africa will never be the same again. South Africa can never be a country for the Afrikaner or a White South Africa again. South Africa belongs to all its people.

I repeat this phrase continuously, because I have become fond of it: South Africa will never be the same again. We cannot wish away the great majority of our people and it is unfortunate in the eyes of some people that the great majority of our people are Black. However, they are South Africans, like we are. [Interjections.]

I wish to state that Blacks are in this Parliament. [Interjections.] However, because some Blacks who represent a greater majority of South Africans are not here, we promised our people in 1984 that it would be a priority with us to see to it that all South Africans would have the right to sit in this Chamber and negotiate the future of South Africa. There is no way that politics will be dominated by a single section of the population in this country any longer. We have arrived at the scene of negotiation. The future of South Africa depends on the tempo at which the negotiation is entered into. The domination of the past is something we have pushed to the side.

*The South Africa of the future, which we are building, should provide a place of honour for every South African in order to enable him to realise his full potential. [Interjections.]

†The greater majority of hon members of Parliament are tired of the fact that we as South Africans must be regarded in toto as unacceptable to the rest of the world. We cannot accept that we are part of a community which is regarded as the polecats of this world. [Interjections.]

*That is why we came here. That is why we support this legislation.

†We are in agreement that the only road to follow is the road of negotiation. The alternative to a negotiated change is violence, and in a violent situation there are only losers—losers on both sides. [Interjections.] There are no winners in a violent situation.

That reminds me of something. I wish to encourage those Black people who believe, as I do, that the future South Africa must be negotiated, to come here. [Interjections.] Other members of my party and I have experienced that rejection by some people—not by the majority of people— but those people made more noise than the greater majority of people. I am proud to say that the decision of this party taken at Eshowe in 1983 has been proven correct here today. [Interjections.] We said on that occasion that the 1983 model was not the final one. However, we also believe that one cannot change that model if one is not here to participate in the bringing about of that change.

*I say to my Black brothers out there: Come, walk the road with me. [Interjections.] Let us build this road together.

†I say to them: Do not be afraid, because time is on your side. I wish to say today that the greater majority of people are on your side.

We said that the tricameral system was not the alpha and the omega. There were some people who were sceptical about it. We also said then that we would bring Black people here. If the legislation before us does not bring Black people to Parliament, then I certainly do not understand the two official languages of this country.

*To me it clearly says that Black people will be able to walk with me in this place of sanctity, and write South Africa’s future. [Interjections.]

†We must stop talking about people.

*The future is: We talk to people.

†We shall have to learn to speak to people. One cannot write a constitution for South Africa … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, few people present in this Chamber today could have failed to be impressed by the warmth, spirit and earthy South Africaness of the hon member who has just spoken. Whether hon members agree or disagree with the hon member for Toekomsrus, I am sure they will all say he is a man they would like to have on their side. It is against that background that I want to deal with this Bill and share with the hon member the emotional excitement of the occasion. I will be excited, not when we set up an advisory committee, but when the first Black South African, in his own right as a member of this Parliament, stands where I am standing today. To me that will be the really exciting period in the history of South Africa.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning referred correctly to the fact that this Bill was the result of consensus among the majority parties in the three Houses represented in Parliament. That is correct, but I do not believe this Bill is necessarily the product of consensus among Coloured, Indian, White and Black people. I make bold to say that had Black people been represented on the joint committee, we would have had a very different Bill from the one which has been presented to this House today. While some people believe that we are taking an important step, we should also keep in mind the fact of how it is seen by those people who may not be represented in this House or on the joint committees. It is an important occasion, especially for the NP. However, does the NP itself in fact agree that Black people should be represented in the Parliament of South Africa? To date the NP has refused to answer this question.

I do not want to detract from the status of the council proposed in this Bill. However, to get the perspective right, one should realize that the proposed council is not a legislative body or an executive body but an advisory body. The extent of its power—in the formal sense—is to make recommendations to the present Government. It is akin in that sense to the old President’s Council, as well as to the Native Representative Council of the 30’s and 40’s which, to all intents and purposes, went out of existence through sheer frustration in 1946 and was finally abolished by the NP in 1951. I am not saying this to detract from the processes which may be set in motion, but we should understand the limited powers which this particular council will have.

I believe—and I speak for my party and probably too for the majority of hon members of this House—that the existing racially structured Constitution has certain fundamental and grave defects. The present Constitution is unrepresentative. It is also divisive because it is based on separate racial structures. And it embodies an important element of minority domination. That is the reality of the present Constitution. There is an urgent need to create a new constitution that will eliminate the defects from the present one and which will steer South Africa away from a course of exclusiveness, racism and domination. The objective must be to achieve, for the first time ever in the history of South Africa, a government based on the consent of the governed, because in the long run that is the only sound basis for peace and stability in our society.

In fact, for a constitution to succeed, it must provide for a suitable framework within which laws can be made and through which processes can take place. It must also be accepted and respected by the nation as a whole; in other words, it must have political legitimacy. In order to have that, I have no doubt that in the climate of South Africa it must be the product of negotiation by the leaders of all sections and all groupings in our nation. To us in the PFP negotiation of this kind is of fundamental importance.

For that negotiation to be meaningful, it must have the widest possible basis of participation. If the instrument for negotiation is inadequate or unrepresentative, the whole process of negotiation will be placed in jeopardy. The instrument for negotiation in the first instance will have to overcome the mistrust which has been etched deep in the body of our nation. This is why the agenda for that instrument must be demonstrably an open one. This is why the instrument for negotiation must in no way be locked into the existing racial constitutional structures. This is why it is essential that everything possible is done to create a political climate conducive to negotiation and conciliation.

The PFP believes in negotiation. We believe in genuine negotiation on a shared constitution. It is in this respect that this party differs fundamentally with the racist attitude of the CP represented in this House. We have always stated our belief that the appropriate forum for negotiation is a national convention consisting of the leaders of all sections and all groupings of our nation. We will continue to have this view, and we will continue to work for the calling one day of such a national convention.

However, in spite of our commitment to a national convention we acknowledge that a case can be made out for having some form of statutory constitutional council as an interim advisory measure. The hon the Minister will remember that the hon member for Sandton and I were two of the signatories to a Minority Report of the Constitutional Commission of 1980. We said in that report:

We said that for that reason we could not support the President’s Council. We advocated a Black, White, Indian and Coloured constitutional council, but the Government of the day rejected our proposal and tried to establish an abortive Black council which wasted seven years of constitutional development in South Africa.

The issue is not whether there should be a shared constitution, it is not whether there should be negotiation, it is not whether there should be a constitutional council, but whether the constitutional council, its functions and its composition, and the way it is structured in terms of the Bill before us, is an appropriate body to initiate the crucially important process of negotiation on a new constitution. I will be very frank. We in the PFP, as members of the legislature, have looked at this seriously, and we have serious doubts as to whether the body as constituted in this legislation is the appropriate body. These doubts have been reinforced by the overwhelming weight of the views of Black South Africans who are not represented in Parliament and who are not represented on the joint committee which considered this Bill.

We have evaluated the evidence given by significant Black leaders to the joint committee. I wonder how many hon members have evaluated that evidence. We have examined the statements by Black leaders about this proposed council. We have attempted to ascertain the views of people, who did not come forward to give evidence, through consultation with members of the Black community. Because we are in the process of constitution-making, we also had to take into account those people who, often for the wrong reasons, are so dismissive of this council that they did not even deign to give evidence.

However, who of us in this Chamber can ignore the attitude of, say, Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi? Who of us can say that it is irrelevant when he says that this is fundamentally and fatally flawed by its racist cornerstones? Who of us can ignore the attitude expressed time and time again by Mr Enos Mabuza? Who of us can ignore the views expressed by the new Chief Minister of Lebowa, Mr Ramodike, who said, when the hon the State President announced a great indaba: “Ek hoop dat die groot indaba wat President Botha as ’n moontlikheid genoem het, nie net die Nasionale Raad met ’n ander naam sal wees nie, aangesien die aspirasies van Suid-Afrika op ’n ander manier bevredig moet word”? These are people one cannot ignore. One cannot ignore Nafcoc or Umsa or the many people who have expressed, not an objection to the concept of a council, but very serious reservations and therefore a rejection of the council as presented to this House.

We have come to the conclusion that the council as proposed before us in this Bill is fatally flawed. In its present form we believe it will not be capable of initiating the process of negotiation in a way that will ensure the political legitimacy of the resultant constitution. I have no doubt that at times it will give the illusion of success, but I regret that in reality it will be prolonging the agony of political polarisation and conflict.

There are three basic defects relating to this council. I have to spell them out on this occasion. The first has to do with the function of the council envisaged by the Bill. It has two separate functions. One is to prepare a new constitutional dispensation and advise thereon and the other is to give Black South Africans an interim voice, whatever that may mean, in the processes of government. The second function, the giving of the voice, is to advise the government of the day on current legislative and executive matters. This means serving in an advisory capacity to the present tricameral system.

The first function has to do with a new constitution, looking away from the tricameral towards something else. The second function has to do with being an integral part of the raciallystructured existing tricameral system. The first function opens up the possibility of the council enjoying political legitimacy because it is designed to help South Africans to escape from the stigma of the racially constituted present Constitution. That is the merit of the council as a constitution-making body. However, as an adviser to the hon the State President’s Government, it is an integral part of the current political process, and in that sense it will not enable South Africans to escape from the stigma of being part of a racially-constructed constitutional system.

By all means, let us have a constitutional council to explore ways and means of escaping from the racially-structured tricameral system, but let us not have a constitutional council which at the same time serves as an adjunct to the system. This is the dilemma which Black leaders have. On the one hand it is an instrument to help people to escape from racial structures and on the other hand it is an advisory body to the very racial structures from which they wish to escape.

The second defect is the composition of the council itself. On the basis that it has to negotiate, it should be broadly based. On the basis that the product of its negotiation should be politically legitimate, it has to try to represent all the sectors of the South African public. However, consider the composition of the council as proposed in this Bill. Every member is a functionary within the existing racial structures or else he relies for his office on functionaries within the existing racial structures. Nobody can get there other than by that route. The only people who can participate are participants via the existing racial structures of the Constitution.

Millions of Black citizens outside of the homelands, who in terms of the original draft Bill were to have been elected by popular vote, are now going to lose the opportunity of being elected by popular vote and are now to be chosen by an electoral college consisting of members of Black local authorities, Black local government bodies and Black rural councils. This limitation of representation is one thing, but we also have to consider the millions of people who are not represented. The people who are excluded. All oppositions and all minorities, even within the existing system, are excluded. All those people who, because of their dispute with or their attitude towards the racism inherent in the existing structures, and who are not participating, are also not represented. Those South Africans, who for a variety of reasons have become so disillusioned with Government policies and performance that they have ceased to take an interest in constitutional government, I believe, have to be brought back into the system and into the negotiating process.

By no stretch of the imagination can the council, as it is proposed before Parliament today, be said to be truly representative of the people of South Africa as a whole. Therein lies a fundamental defect. What is more, one cannot even escape the conclusion as to whether this Government even wants to abolish the racial structures of South Africa. Is this council being brought into being to demolish the racial structures, or must we, as the hon the State President said, govern ourselves into a new constitution? Is it the commitment of this Parliament to try to move away from these structures or is to try to make those racial structures work?

The third defect does not have to do with the Bill per se. It has to do with the overall political climate within which the negotiation must take place. Here one cannot simply ignore the appeal from moderate, non-racist Black leaders. These are the very people we would like to bring into the negotiating process. They look at the construction of this council and ask how they can be assured that they will not be locked into racial constitutional structures. Secondly, they ask whether they will be precluded from scrapping the tricameral system. I hope that in his reply the hon the Minister will give us the assurance that that is one of the possibilities in terms of this Bill. Time and time again they also refer to the issue of the release of Mr Mandela. That is not something that we can gloss over. It is a material factor for very many Black South Africans as a condition for their negotiating on a new constitution in South Africa. That is a reality, whether we like it or not. They ask for the unbanning of organisations and the lifting of restrictions. That is also a reality. I quote Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi:

There may be hon members present who do not like that statement, but that is a reality with which we have to contend.

Instead of allowing political mobilisation to take place on 24 February of this year this Government, in fact, placed greater restrictions on political mobilisation. It banned more organisations and restricted more political leaders. This has been the response. I say that we can construct all the constitutional councils in the world, but unless this Government, which controls the executive of State, creates a climate in which at least moderate, non-racist Black leaders feel comfort able in coming to the negotiating table, we will be wasting our time this afternoon.

I ask, therefore: Where do we go from here? I want to put it very earnestly to the hon the Minister that I believe the Government, even at this stage, should take this Bill back to the joint committee of Parliament. [Interjections.] I will tell hon members why.

I want to urge my colleagues in that joint committee that instead of dealing with Black South Africans at arm’s length and instead of relying on written submissions, we must sit down together on a man-to-man basis with the Buthelezi’s.

We shall do so.

The hon member says we will do so. It is in fact too late. In relation to the composition of this council we say that if we want people to participate we will have to reach out to them. [Interjections.] I believe one has to reach out not only to those people, but also to the millions of South Africans who have become disillusioned with negotiation because of the history that has preceded it.

I believe we should be on our guard. The other day the hon the Minister said the following in the House of Assembly:

That is good, tough talk but I do not believe that that should reflect the mood of persons who wants to bring about political reconciliation in South Africa. We have to proceed but there is something more to it than that.

We believe that if the Bill before us had in the first instance been a product of negotiation not only among the three Houses, but had also included in that process genuine, serious negotiation with Blacks, it would have been very different.

The PFP in any event will be placing certain amendments on the Order Paper which will require a joint committee to re-examine certain features of the Bill. One of these amendments is going to focus on the function of the council and its role in relation to constitution-making to ensure that in relation to this function the council is in no way locked into the racially-structured existing tricameral system. If it is perceived to be like that, people will not participate in it.

You want to prescribe to it.

We say we want to negotiate with Blacks. The hon the Minister says we want to prescribe. The very opposite is true because we say: Lets’ sit down and talk. The antithesis of that is what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says—that the Government will carry on in its way and that those people who want to join them can do so while the rest can stay out.

We are also going to move an amendment to return to the provision in the original Bill that Blacks are going to come in. There is an opportunity for them to serve on the council without coming through the existing racial structures. The intention of the original Bill was that they could come in by popular vote. The original Bill made provision for Black South Africans outside of the homelands to be elected by popular vote. We shall move amendments to argue that that should still be. We must at least allow those Black South Africans who have no homeland structures or regional structures to come to this House with the authority of the people behind them.

The Government may respond by saying that this will delay matters. This may be so for a short while but a delay of a few days, weeks or even months is nothing like the delay of 40 years that this country has had to endure under a NP government. It has taken 40 years and I believe it is important that we should get it right.

The concept of a representative body that can prepare and plan a new constitution is something that my party and I have called for. We have looked at the content of this Bill and the constitution of this particular council. We have listened to the voices of Black South Africans and we have come to the conclusion that in its present form this Bill is fatally flawed. Therefore I urge the Government to think again. Whatever we may say across the floor of this House, South Africa cannot afford to have the process of negotiation starting off on the wrong foot because if that happens we will have wasted another decade or more.

Mr Speaker, I want to join the hon member for Toekomsrus and so many other hon members in saying today, on this wonderful occasion in our country’s history, that it is an honour and a privilege to be part of this historic moment.

†I am just so sorry that the hon members of the PFP once again missed a good opportunity to be part and parcel of the making of history for the new South Africa. [Interjections.]

*I should also like to say that it is a pity that our political opponents in the CP have also missed this wonderful opportunity to help build a new constitution for South Africa. I do not think history is written through speeches or made by way of emotions; history is what happens. We as members of this Government, together with all the hon members of this House, are proud that we can make something happen.

When we were given the proposals of the then Government of Mr Vorster in the Synod Hall in 1977, one would not have thought that today, scarcely 11 years later, we would be able to sit together in this Chamber under these circumstances. I think every one of us is praying that within a few years from now we may all have practical experience of the new South Africa in the constitutional field. [Interjections.] Then we shall be able to tell our children that we built and worked towards a new South Africa.

It was said here today that we had been talking about one another for many years and that it was now a pleasure to be able to talk to one another, not only about a measure like the one before the House at present, but also about what we have in common with one another. Once we have said everything there is to say about our differences, the following words still remain etched in bold letters above South Africa in relation to each and every one of us—our voters, our children: We are all South Africans.

†If we can help this country of ours to get to a point in practical politics where each and every South African can really say from his heart that we are all South Africans, South Africa and its peoples will have won, and from that day onwards we will never lose again. With this measure we openly say to the electorate that we as the NP accept a specific road with regard to Black political representation, and in my view this instrument is the instrument that can really take us to that point.

*If one is on the road to nowhere, it does not make any difference whatsoever which road one takes. If one does not know where one is going, the road is of no consequence, but if one is on one’s way somewhere, the road is vitally important. This measure represents the road to a constitutional future in which we shall proudly be able to tell our children that we helped build a new South Africa. We are leaving our prejudices behind and moving forward with our ideals, and I want to tell my hon friends in the House of Representatives here today, as one Afrikaansspeaking person to his Afrikaans-speaking colleagues, that I am proud to be able to share this moment with them, as well as with our Englishspeaking fellow-countrymen. We are leaving our prejudices behind. We are moving forward with our ideals, and we on this side of the House, the White children of Africa, who have been shaped by the history of the country, are telling the Blacks of South Africa that once we have completed this process, all of them all of us will be able to say that we belong to this country and that this country belongs to us.

Hear, hear!

That is the crux, the essence, of what this new council will be dealing with. Sir, we have to bring about a balance in South Africa. Let me tell the hon leader of the PFP that a person who cannot make a move, and a people and a nation that cannot make a move, will definitely lose its balance; no one can maintain his equilibrium if he is unable to make a move.

We are bidding farewell to old-fashioned apartheid and embracing the modern concept of coexistence, and we are saying this in front of all the people in our country, and saying it with pride. There is only one ultimate reality in South Africa in human terms, and that is perpetual change. Once we have finished with these matters, this dynamic society of ours will live and let live as never before.

We must not kill grand new ideas like this proposed new council with silly political debates. It was pleasant for me to be able to experience the fact today that the majority of the people know that the path is a path of change and that the path to peace, as envisaged by this measure, is in the interests of everyone. It is an honour and a wonderful privilege to be a part of it.

Many people say that we should not feel guilty about the past. Of course not, Sir. Most hon members in this House did not personally play a part in introducing the basic so-called apartheid measures. They were not yet in Parliament when those measures were introduced. Nevertheless, there is no shame in saying that one is sorry about what happened in the past. Many wrong things happen in the history of every country, every people and every nation. Simply permit me to say here today that it is also truly Christian—it is in accordance with the Christian ethic—to say on occasion that one regrets something that happened yesterday. [Interjections.]

We must not lag behind on the road ahead. Even more importantly—this is the essence—we must not lead the way by going backwards. [Interjections.] That is why the ruling party is saying in 1988 that we do not intend to lead the way by going backwards. Together with our fellow citizens we should like to lead the way along the road ahead. We are looking for new allies for old ideals. We do not want our fellow countrymen to be the allies of Moscow. We do not want the Black citizens of South Africa to be the allies of a communist ideology. We must all, together, be the allies of the finest and best ideals of all of us combined. The loftiest and grandest of all the ideals we could strive for—and it takes time to choose between the following two—are peace and freedom. These two things! Many people say that one must first instal freedom in South Africa before there can be peace. We in this House say that these two things must be implemented together.

The measure before the House today is therefore a measure which seeks to launch South Africa on the road to peace, but which at the same time seeks to make us all partners in a liberation struggle that is raging in our midst at the revolutionary level. We say openly—and neither are we afraid to say it—that when Blacks talk about a so-called “total liberation struggle”, and leave violence and communism alone, we can understand it. We can understand it because we have walked the path in search of freedom. The man who wants to curtail freedom and thinks he will achieve peace does not understand the nature of human society. [Interjections.] The man who thinks he can curtail freedom and achieve peace does not understand South Africa’s people. He does not understand South Africa’s White, Brown and Black people across all boundaries.

We on this side of the House say that by way of this measure, and what will follow it, as a starting point, we are removing power from those with a White skin and giving people new strength. Ultimately it is the strength within a person that will give substance to one’s desire for freedom and peace and that will enable one to build the future. We are not afraid to say that. We want power to lie in man himself—in the nature of man’s soul. We can talk about power as much as we like. Power does not lie in political offices. Not at all! Power is by no means vested in political individuals. Ultimately power lies only in the hearts and minds of the people. That is where power lies. [Interjections.] Furthermore, that is where we want to have the power. We want to have the power in the hearts and minds of our people in South Africa.

We as the governing party have a specific structure which we want to implement. We are living with the realities of South Africa. [Interjections.] [Time expired.)

Mr Speaker, this occasion is a milestone in parliamentary history, in that it marks the first time that a Bill has been debated jointly by all three Houses of Parliament.

Secondly, the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill is a significant advance on constitutional issues in that it attempts to give Blacks an interim say in government and in constitutional negotiation. It is the first time in South Africa’s history that the planning and preparation of a new constitutional dispensation has provided for the participation of all South African citizens. It is also the first time that attempts have been made to respect human dignity, recognising that all citizens are entitled to rights and liberties. The Bill also recognises the urgent need to develop sound relations among all South African citizens.

These are significant points of departure in the constitutional history of South Africa. I am personally pleased to be associated with the occasion as I believe strongly in the principle of change through the parliamentary process.

When my party advocated participation as a consequence of the implementation of the 1983 Constitution, it was clearly understood that this Constitution was merely the beginning of a process of negotiation and compromise intended eventually to produce a constitution that would meet the aspirations of all South Africans. The Bill before us represents an advance in the process of constitution making, as it attempts to fill the void caused by the absence of a vast segment of South African society at the highest level of decision making in our country. If South Africa purports to subscribe to the values of democracy, it must be seen to be doing so and its Constitution must reflect such values.

Looking back, it can be argued that the 1910 Constitution, as well as its successor, the 1961 Constitution, failed as an instrument to secure racial and ethnic harmony. The demands of Blacks could not be met, and their rights were steadily eroded. The Constitution was unsatisfactory as a framework for regulating conflict as it failed to make provision for a bill of rights.

Furthermore, the Constitution reflected the British or Westminster tradition, with its emphasis on the sovereignty of Parliament and the untrammelled power of the executive. The concept of winner take all was clearly unsuited to the multicultural character of the South African population. The unqualified majoritarianism which we have had in parliamentary politics can result in domination by the numerically preponderant group over the others.

Apartheid was conceived as an instrument for political and constitutional self-preservation. The political fear of the White minority vis-à-vis the Black majority continued. Political power was seen as the key to all power and as important to independence and socio-cultural survival. The fears of one group and the hopes of another polarised South African society, and the society of today is saddled with the problem of resolving issues deep-seated in history and also embedded in the emotions of man.

One does not require the gift of prophecy to note that the sheer demographics of the South African situation and the economic imperatives of the country require fundamental changes in the nature of political control in South Africa. In 1980 the total population was nearly 29 million of which 72,4% were Black, 15,7% White, 9,1% Coloured and 2,8% Indian. The Black population will have doubled by the year 2009, the Indian population by 2017, the Coloured population by 2024 and the White population as late as 2059.

The trend can be seen clearly. The Whites, who now constitute nearly 16% of the total population, will constitute less than 10% by the year 2038. In the post-war period all colonial countries attained their freedom and many states in Africa also became independent. The freedom of the Black population therefore has to be addressed constitutionally in South Africa.

In this respect full credit must be given to the hon the State President, who had the courage and foresight to break the political logjam in South Africa by implementing the 1983 Constitution and thereafter by his efforts to find answers precisely to the question of Black representation in Government, which lawmakers have systematically sidestepped.

The Afrikaner community does not need protective or discriminatory laws as these would reflect a status of inferiority. In introducing the 1983 Constitution, the hon the State President also risked the unity of the Afrikaner community, and has shifted from an introverted attitude to an extroverted one in the long-term interests not only of the White community but of all South Africans.

The Bill is therefore a further step in the evolution of a constitution. Trying to make a final judgement on the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill under the conditions of the political dynamics in the country is as pointless as attempting to reconstruct a film from a single snapshot. The Bill is an important event. It must be regarded as one event in the long process of constitutional change in South Africa.

Groups to the left and to the right of Government have certain misgivings about the Bill. The conservative White group fear that it will eventually lead to Black domination over the White group.

Some conservatives advocate a return to the classic Verwoerdian era of strict racial segregation in all aspects of life, while others are pinning their hopes on the creation of a separate Afrikaner state. My concern is that our political dream must be based on reality. No one is suggesting the abdication of power or the subjugation of one’s culture. The fear of the White is the preservation of his language and culture. I do not subscribe to the “melting pot” theory that all cultures must give way to a common culture in South Africa. I subscribe to the melting pot of ideas. The culture pattern and social organisation of a nation determine its way of life.

Each group has its own distinct culture, each rich in its own way. Now or in the future no constitution can interfere with a culture which belongs intrinsically to its people. If a group is denied its culture, it is the destruction of its identity and cannot be tolerated. The cultural heritage of a group cannot be menaced by political ideology, but must be protected, and the freedom to practise any aspect of one’s culture, must be enshrined in the Constitution. Each group exists within the framework of a culture pattern, yet each one expresses it in a particular way according to its own composition, disposition, character and circumstances, so that in every case it assumes a particular stamp and national content.

South Africa has its own socio-cultural order which it wishes to sustain. Each group has the inalienable right to protect its traditional way of life and is justified in safeguarding its heritage. One cannot, however, use culture as a means to assimilate, or to compel the segregation of groups. The Afrikaner has believed that apartheid was the only way to protect his national identity and culture against threats of racial integration.

The culture of the Indian groups has survived and flourished without protective legislation. The richness of culture is in itself an inherent preservative factor. The diversity of culture in South Africa can only promote the richness and quality of life and promote a sense of tolerance, mutual respect and understanding among groups. Contact will promote harmony; separation will encourage discord and distrust.

The fear that the White man’s culture will be undermined in a new dispensation, is unfounded. My plea to the conservative group is that it should devote itself to seeking a just and peaceful solution for South Africa’s socio-economic and political problems. Dissension will only aggravate the issue and create more disharmony and delay in finding a solution through negotiation. We should not fear to negotiate neither should we negotiate out of fear.

I appeal for the unity of all the people of South Africa. This Bill is not about the past but about the future of the country, the future of our children. Let the constitution of the future be written not in the blood of any group but by the brains of our people.

Negotiating is not about capitulating to pressures, or about imposing a single point of view. It is about finding compromises and consensus on diverse issues through the process of give and take. No one point of view can dominate, and the fears and hopes of all have to be accommodated. The fears of the Whites have to be turned into hope and the hopes of Blacks have to be turned into reality. All sides have to scale down their demands in a negotiation exercise. There is enough goodwill and common sense left in the leaders of society to reconcile and recognise this simple fact.

If leaders refuse to negotiate on the basis of fundamental democratic values and a free market economy, then they must be at variance with the ultimate goals of society. It would suggest that they wish to replace one system of government by another. The issue we face is not about the system of government, but about the sharing of power and the responsibilities and the development of a constitutional model to accommodate the aspirations of all groups in South Africa.

The extra-parliamentary leftwing group hopes to snatch power through force—physical force. It is the force of reason that must prevail. South Africa is not on the brink of collapse. South Africa’s solution is not either a Black victory or a White victory. Therefore it is counterproductive to pursue an elusive or illusive “victory” as the costs are far too excessive for the community to bear. The inescapable inter-dependency among all sectors of South African society makes accommodation among all sectors of South African society both necessary and unavoidable. Perceptions of all groups have to undergo dramatic changes, and this can only happen over time and under conditions of economic and social reform. We need an open search by all groups for genuine compromise and the accommodation of various points of view.

The Bill provides at least the beginning of such opportunities. We need to have a new beginning to build a basis for a stable future. The present state of acrimony, doubts, fears and apprehension must give way to mutual trust, respect and optimism. To accept the reality of the South African situation and to take active and constructive steps to implement change, is not capitulation but a sensible and reasonable estimate of the future that can and must come about.

The struggle for power in South Africa is not for the sake of a monopoly of power, but it is a mechanism for the economic, social and moral well-being of all its people. Unfortunately, many groups in South Africa and outside have opted for the “self-destruct mode” and a shortsighted programme to cripple the economy of the country. A shattered economy would affect the vast majority of South Africa’s population and lower and depress their lifestyle as well as shatter their morale.

There is still the thorny issue of leadership in South Africa insofar as there are many interest and pressure groups who are regarded as the spokesman for their respective groups. Political leadership, however, has a different connotation. I want to suggest that only those with a constituency, and who have been elected through the process of an electoral system, can be considered as leaders. An entirely nominated council was deemed to have lacked the support of the community; only by voting can authentic leadership be produced.

No one is pretending that the Bill is the perfect answer to our constitutional problems. A start has to be made out of the deep cleavages of South African society, and rather than exacerbating the differences and the imperfections, let us use the Bill as constructively and skilfully as possible to reach our desired goals. Boycott is merely a strategy, and to elevate it to a status of principle is merely to shackle oneself in the race to freedom. Participation in the system is not necessarily acquiescence with the system, and for the sake of political expediency must not be seen as such. Inadequate reforms have failed to get negotiations going, and the failure to negotiate has resulted in an impasse. One gets trapped in the vicious circle of political rhetoric. It is time to end kneejerk boycotting. It is time for a more pragmatic approach in Black attitudes.

The dilemma of political detainees, however, still remains unresolved. Under such conditions the credibility of Black leadership who participate in an election process on the proposed council becomes blemished and quite understandably so. In my view, the objectives of the council must be facilitated by the political process rather than be thwarted by it. The council will have the widest recognition and support for its findings and recommendations if the participatory base is extended to all those who wish to subscribe to its purpose. In this regard, therefore, I believe the release of Nelson Mandela, notwithstanding the Government’s standpoint on the matter, is an essential prerequisite for participation in the debate on the Constitution. A significant exercise cannot, and should not be scuttled by our own myopia or the events of history. It is not time to apportion blame because the Blacks have resorted to violence. Violence, however, cannot be condoned now or in the future.

Feelings on all sides are intense and sometime bitter, but it must be remembered that bitterness only destroys the person who harbours such feelings. The future is far too important to be hampered by short-term ethnocentric or party political points of view. All groups in South Africa have the right to equal opportunities, all groups have a right to a future in this country, all groups must work together to complement each other’s abilities and talents. Capital and labour must work together for the good of each other.

To come back to the point I wish to stress; ways and means must be sought to overcome the stalemate concerning the release of political detainees. The reform process having been initiated with boldness by the hon the State President, must advance further under conditions of peace and stability. I am sure that the hon the State President himself would wish this, and that it must clearly be his objective and his dream for South Africa. Let us break the psychological barrier, let us make it possible for those who wish to participate to be given the opportunity to do so.

Our task as leaders of this country is not to secure short-term gains but to address ourselves to the future of the country and the future of society in this country.

I urge the hon the State President not to be hindered by the parochialism of conservative attitudes or the revolutionary slogans of the radical element and to do what is best for the country, while at the same time protecting the interests of every citizen and group as is intended by the Bill. Power sharing through compromise is the future force with the greatest chance of success. The task is to build the future where there is hope, peace, love, happiness, justice and equality of opportunities.

The 1983 Constitution marks a new era in South African history. Responsible deliberation, negotiation and compromise must characterise the coming era in the history of this country. Responsible leaders must now address the future of the country. Demands on all sides have to be tempered by insight and realism. The political cleavages and the amorphous public mood with respect to constitutional change provide essential clues about the political system and the capacity of leaders to respond to the inevitable changes that lie ahead. Let us share the hope of sharing the future in peace, love and harmony. Let the constitution be written for South Africa by South Africans in South Africa. In my view the Promotion of Constitutional Development Bill symbolises a gradual but significant evolution in relations between state and society. Our “evolving morality” must be embodied in legislation and executive action.

Although these proposals are bold measures of integrity and honesty, they must still be regarded merely as initial offers to start the process of negotiation. They can only be construed as a step towards reform. It is for taking this step, no matter how small or faltering, that the hon the State President deserves credit.

Obstinacy on the part of those who hold power and those who seek power, can only result in a deadlock and a stalemate. Ultimately this will be detrimental to all the people of this country. These proposals are merely initial steps offered in the sincere hope that negotiations can now take place. They therefore deserve the full support of those who seek a peaceful solution to the conflict.

The proposals themselves are not complete answers, and I do not think they are intended to be such, or else the Government would appear too prescriptive in imposing its will on the people. What is important, though, is that the next step towards a constitutional model has been taken. The door is now open for negotiation. Propaganda is made that those who participate in the negotiation process are co-opted into the system and are subservient to the authority of the hon the State President. This is a spurious argument. Only the weak who have little to offer, who lack confidence in their point of view and who are likely to succumb to pressures will spurn the negotiation process. Negotiation calls for a strong and articulate leadership. If they have confidence in themselves, they will not fear negotiation.

Mr Speaker, two central concepts, which have been used throughout this debate today, are the concepts of participation and reconciliation. I think that is a very good summary of precisely what this measure seeks to implement in South Africa. Reference was made today to various historical highlights, particularly in relation to the process of constitutional development in South Africa. We on this side, of the House do not doubt that this particular measure will ultimately be recorded as a highlight in the annals of history.

Permit me to refer once again to a number of highlights. The National Convention of 1908 ultimately led to Union. The Tomlinson Commission served as a basis for the own geographical areas of jurisdiction of many of our Black ethnic communities. In my humble opinion, the advent of the Republic was ultimately responsible for the reconciliation of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. The Erika Theron Commission was the forerunner to the tricameral system in which we find ourselves. It was also responsible for the reconciliation between Whites, Coloureds and Indians.

This week this Parliament is also creating an historic forum for discussion with Black communities, regarding participation in the decisionmaking process up to the highest level. It is interesting to note that one of the few negative reactions to this legislation came from the hon leader of the PFP.

†“Let us sit down and talk”, he said. He sat down and talked to Dr Worrall, but he could not even come to an agreement with him, so who on earth does he want to talk to? [Interjections.]

*It is important to note that all these processes of reconciliation and constitutional development in this country have followed the path of responsible evolution. These processes have all been arduous. Reconciliation between Afrikaansspeaking and English-speaking people in South Africa took more than 53 years—from 1908 to 1961. Reconciliation between Whites, Coloureds and Asians took a full ten years, from 1973 onwards, before it was implemented in the present Constitution. This new instrument, which is now being created for this specific purpose, will also determine its own timetable.

Those who are going to participate in this arduous new process must be warned that it will demand patience. It will demand persuasion. It will elicit criticism. It will engender opposition, but ultimately, just like all the previous instruments on the path of constitutional reform, this forum will ultimately pay off for South Africa.

Naturally our people will run risks, and experience fear and concern. However, we on this side of the House received a mandate from the White electorate on 6 May 1987 to proceed with a programme of power-sharing with Blacks in this country which we share with them.

That is why we say, create mechanisms for discussion, accommodate the legitimate aspirations of the Blacks, work on possible formulas in terms of which joint decision-making on matters of common concern may come into its own. We must remember that our slogan during that election was: “Reform, yes; but surrender, no.” What I am trying to say, then, is reconcile at this level as well, but maintain orderly government in South Africa, do not forfeit our civilised norms and protect the Christian values which mean so much to us.

The question on everyone’s lips is: If we pass this legislation in this House today, who is going to participate? I want to say that anyone who asks a question like that, is asking a negative question. I want to say that we should rather ask the converse. Let us rather ask who is going to convince us, sitting in this House as the representatives of various political parties, to take part in this political process which we are making possible for South Africa. One almost feels inclined to plead, particularly with the English-language Press and the left-wing politicians, to stop labelling potential participants in this process, and to stop talking about “the collaborators of apartheid” whenever they refer to people who are sticking their necks out to participate in these processes. They must stop talking about “puppets of the Government”.

The one example which I should like to point out this afternoon, is a matter of particular concern to me. I am referring to the negative reaction from Chief Minister Mangosutu Buthelezi. I want to repeat something today which I once said personally to Chief Minister Buthelezi, namely that the leader of the NP, the leader of the largest White community in South Africa, has stuck his neck out in the interests of South Africa in developing the tricameral system of which we are a part. He stuck his neck out, ran risks and split his own party. There sits the CP. That is the result of the hon the State President’s sacrifice in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.]

That is why I want to repeat here today what I said then. In the interests of South Africa, I want to make an appeal on behalf of this side of the House to Chief Ministers Buthelezi, Nstanwisi, Ramodike, Mabuza, Mopedi, Mahlangu and all the other organised Black communities outside the national states that they should also be prepared to stick their necks out for South Africa and to run the risk of losing support among certain groups of their people. Let us rather search for solutions on the road ahead and make a joint effort to seek agreement and to work out our differences. Here is an opportunity for moderate, responsible, well-meaning South Africans to strike a blow against chaos and anarchy. This is a measure which has resulted from consensus politics. It creates an opportunity for further consensus in South Africa, and everyone who has a contribution to make may make use of the platform which this measure creates.

I want to tell the CP, the PFP and others who do not wish to take part in this process at this stage that this is their opportunity to use their powers of persuasion in that council by stating their views on what measures they would like to have applied in South Africa. They must persuade that council that what they propose for South Africa is the right road. If they do not do that, they are shying away from their own convictions. [Interjections.]

One finds it a pity that so many negative connotations are being attached to an honourable attempt. The following negative, snide remarks come from the left: “This is the perpetuation of apartheid”; “This is the perpetuation of minority rule”, we hear. They say: “This is a racist cornerstone”; “It is too little, too late”. From the right one hears the simplistic remarks which one hears from them every day: “It is integrated government”; “It is the selling out of the White man”. [Interjections.]

We simply must work with the facts. We must look at the composition of South Africa, at our variety, our diverse composition, our various components of government. Ultimately, however, we must be joined together in one South Africa in the interests of all her people. My plea—I want to echo what the hon the State President said once again in this House yesterday—is that if people do not wish to co-operate, they should not hamper us in the process of constitutional development. [Interjections.] Someone else put it very crudely when he said they should not steal the stones and carry them off whilst we are in the process of building.

Mr Speaker, the only point on which I can agree with the hon member for Turffontein is that today is an historic occasion. The Bill before us, which was previously called the National Council Bill, is in fact being introduced here without a name, because the council to be established will itself have to decide on a name. The hon the State President did mention that it might eventually be called the Great Indaba.

For us as representatives of the Afrikaner people and others who associate themselves with our ideals and aspirations, today is a bad day. Everything our ancestors struggled for is about to be destroyed by those descendants of the Protestants and Huguenots who consider themselves to be the representatives of the majority of Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] The NP considers itself to be the true representative of the Afrikaner nation, but it has become week-kneed and is trampling the highest ideals of a nation— freedom and self-determination—underfoot. The Bill before us is the best possible proof of this.

When it became known that a joint debate was going to be held on this subject, it was suggested in some quarters that that would put a damper on the vehemence with which we would oppose this measure. However, I should like to make it clear that precisely the opposite is true. We in the CP are not ashamed of admitting, in the presence of a variety of peoples in this House—in fact, we are not ashamed of admitting this in front of the whole world—that we are proud of our nationhood and that we are going to use every ounce of strength and power we have to promote the well-being of the people we were called to represent here. [Interjections.] If this is regarded as racism inside and outside this House, we say, no, it is national pride that has been evolving from this African soil for more than three centuries now and is gaining momentum in this festive year of 1988.

Today we have before us a Bill whose objectives are stated in the long title, inter alia the interim granting of a say in the processes of government to Black South African citizens. This means that a new concept is being formulated of a South African nation consisting of Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks, which must produce a new constitutional dispensation in which, according to the NP, the rights of the minority groups must effectively be protected against domination by a majority group.

This is simply not possible. Can hon members think of a single example in Africa of the rights of minority groups being effectively entrenched? It does not exist. That was not worth the paper it was written on. Let me remind hon members that they all represent minorities and that we are all facing majority domination. This is a fact. It is an irrefutable fact. We in the CP refuse to vote for this. [Interjections. ] We believe that if we were to go to the polls on this issue tomorrow, the overwhelming majority of our people would support our point of view.

There is no doubt about that. We saw what happened in the last three by-elections. The NP is on its way out. The very same circumstances that brought the NP to power in 1948, are now, after 40 years, causing its downfall.

The whole concept of a unitary state is going to create a forum for a power struggle between peoples to gain control of the governing power. Surely this much is clear. How could it be otherwise? The idea of one nation is a purely clinical idea; it is scientifically impossible. The word “nation” was derived from the Greek word “etnos”. This places the emphasis on ethnicity, the own history, the own way of life, the own morals, traditions and habits of a people. Therefore, to summarily write-off the whole concept of a nation as a constitutional grouping, and a people as a cultural grouping, is not acceptable to the Afrikaner people. These terms are interchangeable in Afrikaans poems and songs.

The people we represent here has, throughout its history, resisted any form of foreign domination. Several republics were established that had to give shape to the people’s ideal of freedom. Hon members can read the history. When this freedom was threatened by a world power, it was defended to the bitter end by force of arms. Men, women and children gave their lives for freedom and justice. This is recorded in history for all to read. At the time of the signing of the Peace Treaty of Vereeniging, the visionary leaders of our nation warned against the passing of a law such as this. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member for Pietersburg a fair chance to make his speech. The Chair cannot allow this constant stream of interjections. The hon member may proceed.

Generals Smuts and Hertzog proposed an amendment to that peace treaty in their own handwriting. They changed it to read as follows:

This was, in other words, set as a clear condition, which was accepted by the British negotiators at the time. For the next 80 years or more there was no question of franchise for Blacks in any constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.] Not in Act No 110 of 1983 either. All these years the NP held the view that Blacks would exercise voting rights in their own national states, even those living outside those states.

As recently as March 1982 the hon the Minister of National Education said the following in the House of Assembly:

Then he addressed the hon the Leader of the CP and said:

As recently as 11 July 1984 the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is in charge of this legislation, expressed the same sentiments clearly and unambiguously. Then came the change!

Then we changed! That is true!

Then came the change. The hon the State President said the NP’s congresses changed that policy. At the opening of the Cape congress he said:

That is right. Then came the change.

Then we won the election! [Interjections.]

Then the election came along, and this policy of the NP was given a low profile. [Interjections.] No, then the NP emphasized own schools, own residential areas and self-determination. Let me tell to the NP today that the overwhelming majority of the White voters were unaware of what the Government was up to.

Only after the election and the motion of censure of 22 May did the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning admit to this in response to a question by the late Dr Connie Mulder. Dr Mulder asked whether there would be Blacks in the Cabinet, and the reply was (Hansard: Assembly, 22 May 1987, col 370):

Now comes the great political indaba in terms of the Bill before us, which will lead to recommendations and eventually decisions, because this will not be limited to recommendations, but will include decisions. By this time we are familiar with the Government’s strategy, its so-called reform by stealth strategy. I say these decisions will have far-reaching and fateful results for every people in this Southland.

When one looks at the composition of this council in clause 4, it follows from clause 14 that the only people who will be voting for the establishment of the National Council will be the Black people. Apparently the White voters unwittingly designated their representatives on 6 May.

I want to ask the hon the Minister how minority rights are going to be protected. He must give us the answer, in the course of this debate, to the question of how the minority rights are going to be protected. If he is unable do this, the prophecy that the political prophet from Potchefstroom, Prof Hennie Coetzee, recently made in Sasolburg will come true, because he said the national flag will have to be changed, as well as the national holidays and the national anthem. I want to ask the NP whether this is the ultimate goal. [Interjections.]

This is not the first time that our people has had to deal with those who have become despondent and have given in. We know them. They are sitting here this afternoon. We in the CP will continue with the struggle of our forefathers. That is why we shall be voting against this Bill that is threatening the survival of our nation. Of one thing we are certain, and that is that our fellowcitizens out there are fighting this battle with us. Business interrupted.