House of Assembly: Vol66 - MONDAY 24 JANUARY 1977
The following Select Committees were appointed—
The following Bills were read a First Time—
Mr. Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—
One of the most significant admissions made in the State President’s speech on Friday, was that the year 1976 had been “a watershed year” for South Africa. I think it is time that people realize how great that watershed is and what its repercussions are. In all my years in Parliament this is the first time we have met for a debate like this when there is news that professional people are leaving South Africa in such large numbers. This is the first occasion, too, in my experience, that we have met here when so many of our young men are in real physical danger on our borders and their dependants and families are living in anxiety. It is the first time, too, that we have met here on an occasion such as this when so many of our citizens are homeless as a result of arson, violence and malicious damage to property, when others have lost their possessions or have been the innocent victims of the strife unleashed in the Black and Brown townships and, worst of all, when so many thousands of young people are being denied their education because they have been intimidated into boycotting schools or their schools have been burnt out, often by fellow pupils.
Since the early ’thirties there has never been a time when economic conditions were pressing so heavily on the housewife struggling to feed and clothe her family on an income which has seldom kept up with rises in living costs, on the pensioners, on the disabled, on the homeless and, above all, on the large numbers of unemployed, including, I believe, a million or more uncounted Blacks, who do not exist in Government statistics. I must add that I cannot remember a time in the last 40 years when businessmen, academics and professional financiers have been so united in their criticism of the Government’s management of the economy. There has also been another very significant development. Today people are critizing not only the Government, but also Parliament itself, this very machine which we try to make work today. They lay emphasis on Parliament’s inadequacy in present circumstances.
And they praise the Opposition!
For many years we have been warning the hon. the Prime Minister and his predecessors of apparent dangers of Government policies. However, they turned a deaf ear to us. Now the dangers of which we forewarned are upon us. Today I want to say to the Government and to South Africa that the old order, as we knew it, has gone for ever in South Africa. It was destroyed in the economic and racial shambles caused by this Government. It was suffocated in the smoke of Soweto and other Black and Brown townships, the origin of which the Government does not seem to understand. The time has come when traditional politics, traditional parties and traditional debate can no longer save South Africa. [Interjections.]
It was to meet this challenge that I issued my call for a new dispensation in our country to break the old log-jammed system. I was prepared then, as I am now, to sacrifice both myself and my party on the altar of the wider interests of South Africa, and the overwhelming majority of my party had the courage and confidence to back my initiative. [Interjections.] As was to be expected, the hon. the Prime Minister made a joke of my initiative. However, it was the hon. the Prime Minister who said that there was no crisis or, in any event, that he had seen worse. That statement was in striking contrast to his New Year message. That, as far as it went, was at least a realistic recognition of the grave new situation which we face in South Africa. And indeed, every thinking South African knows that we face a crisis of multiple dimensions and that we must think and plan and adapt as never before. I want to say that with the experience and insight I have gained into the affairs of South Africa under four Prime Ministers and after 28 years in this House, I have never known the country to be in a worse position than now.
There have been situations which have held out more immediate dangers and there have been situations which have called for more urgent action, but these could all be coped with with the powers that were available or in terms of the present system as we know it. Now we are facing something different. We are now facing something which has been long expected and long deferred, but which is now inevitably upon us, and that is a chain of events that requires not just ad hoc remedies, but a fundamental change in the basis of government in this country. Anyone who does not know that or realize it is sleeping through a revolution in South Africa. I do not believe that I am exaggerating. There is now occurring in this country a radical change in the attitudes, the acceptances, the patterns of political conduct of the majority of people in South Africa. Even those who acquiesce in certain aspects of Government policy say frankly and fearlessly that they do so for other motives and other objectives. These things are the basic elements of revolution— and I use the word in its precise sense. The issue now, Sir, is whether the revolution can be contained within orderly channels and guided to a peaceful destination or whether it will be violently resisted until whoever gains the upper hand will inherit only bitterness and destruction. History offers many examples of both kinds. Now it is time for us to make our own choice here in South Africa.
I want to say that if we who sit in this Parliament, have been slow to accept these realities and reluctant to make the decisive adaptations that are now overdue, a great deal of the fault must lie with our obsolete political divisions. You see, Sir, we have been locked into a system of organized sentiment which derives from far-off times, from the dead ashes of old rancours. It is a system in which the preferences and prejudices of less than one-fifth of the adult population are put in contest. It is a system—as we dramatically discovered last year and which I fear we will increasingly discover—that is utterly detached from the hopes and fears and the joys and hardships of the everyday lives of millions of our people in South Africa.
I know that we are accustomed to protest our goodwill, to preach our greater wisdom and to pretend that our system must prevail, but whether our system is, ultimately, just or unjust is no longer the issue today. The hard fact is that the system has given rise to forces which are closing in on us from all quarters, and closing in remorselessly.
Our economic difficulties are not only a part of the world economic recession. They have other causes and will have other consequences as well. Our racial unrest is not just the product of youthful turbulence and mindless agitation. It has deeper social, economic and political roots as well. The international dangers we face are not only due to Western irresolution in the face of Russian imperialism. They arise acutely from our domestic policies as well.
I am going to deal more specifically with some of these issues later. My object now is not to draw up a balance sheet of innocence or guilt, but to show that we do now indeed face that watershed of which the State President spoke on Friday. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a grim reality. It requires hard decisions; it requires the determination to discard many old familiar things that have become impediments to further progress, and the courage to accept new strange things that are essential to our survival.
Outworn sentiments, defective systems and inadequate institutions must be critically examined. Party political structures that imprison rather than liberate our thinking, must be ruthlessly discarded. For my part, I have no doubt that what must be done, must be done. My own party stands second to none in the political service it has rendered to South Africa, in office and out of office, for two-thirds of a century. It is true that it has had its ups and downs, great successes and grievous setbacks, but it has never faltered in its ultimate dedication to South Africa. Therefore, Sir, it was no easy decision to put aside the past and those associations to build a new party on a new base. I was never under any illusion about the risks it would entail and the losses it might involve.
Do you see a place for yourself in the new setup? [Interjections.]
I believe there might even be place for the hon. the Prime Minister in the new setup. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister is already realizing the difficulty of some of the problems with which he is faced. But let me go on.
It is a hard road to take, and we might well encounter further difficulties before we reach our destination, but I am determined to push ahead. I believe there are many people on that side of the House who will appreciate that what I am doing, is the right thing for South Africa. A point which the hon. gentlemen on that side of the House do not seem to understand is that South Africa and its peoples, their happiness and their prosperity, are far greater than sectional advantage and the fruits of power. A political party may well enjoy the fruits of power, but lose South Africa. Those on my side who support my endeavour have no illusions about the difficulties that lie ahead. They have made their choice between the comfortable illusions about the way in which party political life is still compartmentalized and the realities of the new revolution that is now upon us. There are those who failed to make that choice and who, I fear, will find that the seeming comfort of static politics will render them irrelevant in the South Africa of tomorrow. That is the situation which faces the Nationalist Party as well. There are those amongst them, some are sitting opposite me today, who know change is necessary and who would change, but are locked in by custom, sentiment and by political ambition. They are also at the watershed and this debate is the sharp crest of that watershed. I believe the fact that the State President should have described 1976 as “a watershed year” was no mere piece of rhetoric. There is no lack of evidence to support the use of such an idiom. The admission would, I am sure, not have been made if the changing pattern of our external and internal situation had not begun to create grave dangers and difficulties. It would hardly have been made if the Government had those dangers and difficulties under confident control. It could only be justified if there had been a visible breakdown in the Government’s ability to cope with these problems in terms of its existing policies and current administrative practice. There has indeed been a breakdown, and the analogy of the watershed is fully justified. There have been three major breakdowns in the administration of this Government. It has taken place in the field of economics, the field of internal affairs and in the field of international affairs. The point I wish to make is that these three fields are closely interdependent. A deterioration in race relations interrupts progress, destroys goodwill and encourages agitation and violence. It discourages overseas investment, it increases the threat of economic boycott, puts pressure on the balance of payments, diverts manpower to unproductive use and destroys business confidence. Furthermore, it threatens the availability of imported defence material, deprives South Africa of the support of the West, undermines its international status and breaks down its African policies.
A deterioration in international relations has many of the same effects, but it reinforces them and consolidates the pressure on our economy, on our internal security and, ultimately, on the external security as well. A deterioration in our economy weakens our ability to make good the inequalities in our society, to provide employment and improved standards for all our people and, in general, to create the infrastructure for peace in South Africa. It increases our indebtedness to foreign nations at a time when the hon. the Prime Minister is talking of the need to “go it alone”. It weakens our ability to pay rising defence costs without sacrifices in respect of social and other services, sacrifices on which our safety also depend. It weakens our international bargaining power and gives heart to our enemies. In these three fields it is very difficult to distinguish cause and effect, you cannot, in fact, separate cause and effect in these three fields. They are strongly reciprocal, they run parallel and in series. The pattern of interaction grows ever more complex and more dangerous, because weakness feeds on weakness. In the seven months since Parliament last met there has been a grim deterioration of the condition in South Africa, and I believe it is time now to bring this Government to account.
Before I go more fully into these three aspects I want to pose the question as to why it is that existing policies and their current implementation have been unable to meet and overcome these difficulties. What is there that is so obsolete about them, so inadequate and mistaken, that we suddenly find ourselves at a watershed? I believe there are several answers to that question. The first is that I believe that the Government still sees South Africa as a country of 4 million people. Drawing on the support of a built-in majority it makes laws for 26 million people while in the making of those laws the decisive factor is always the special outlook and interest of its own base of electoral support. A very simple and topical example is that if the dominant part of that sector, some 10% of the population, is not in favour of cinema shows on Sundays, then its will must be imposed on the other 90%. This well illustrates an attitude of mind and a concept of democratic Government that is alien to every free society.
The second answer is that the Government’s basic policies were born in the past and were designed for an era that has vanished. What adaptations there have been, have been largely cosmetic or opportunistic. Their purpose was not to make fundamental reforms, but simply to escape the more intolerable consequences of their own rigid laws. If you want an example, Sir, you cannot have a better one than the extraordinary contortions of the Government’s sports policy. The third answer is that the Government realizes that discrimination must go, but it lacks the courage to do what it knows must be done. We therefore have that curious duality of purpose, the cautious advances and the sudden retreats, the bold international promises and the domestic timidity. What strange fears, for example, can induce an Administrator to threaten private Catholic schools about the exercise of their religious convictions in regard to the admission of pupils?
There is a fourth answer and that is that the Government will not get loyalty to South Africa among people to whom it does not grant full citizenship. The majority of people in what the Government calls “White South Africa” is in that situation or believes itself to be in that situation. This weakness is being further confounded by the Government’s attitude to the citizenship of people who, though permanently domiciled and economically integrated in South Africa, have some formal or historic link with the Transkei. If considerations of civil rights do not weigh heavily with the Government, surely, at this time, they cannot ignore the serious defence and security implications of what they are doing. Can they really be indifferent, in the critical times we face, to the attitudes of people who live in our townships and work in our factories, but are treated as unwanted aliens?
The fifth answer to my question is that the Government refuses to accept that political rights can be shared on an equitable and responsible basis without racial domination by one group over others. If this is a feasible proposition at the Turnhalle, why is it not a feasible proposition here? [Interjections.] What is purported in South Africa to be joint consultation in a Cabinet council, is reported by the Coloured leaders to be little more than acquiescence in the overriding policies of the Prime Minister and his Ministers. The Black homeland leaders are publicly saying that they accept the opportunities the system offers, the better to be able to break it down. The leaders of the urban Blacks—the majority in White South Africa—have also been given no constitutional status at all. Can anyone believe that this is our political compass as we stand on the crest of the watershed?
I now come to a sixth answer, i.e. that this Government will simply not understand that it cannot defend the free enterprise system unless it opens its advantages to all races and gives them the opportunity to share in its benefits. In principle the Government defends the system and distrusts the growth of the Black socialist economies in our sub-continent. But how on earth can we convince our own Black people to help us defend South Africa against Black socialism when they are restricted in so many ways from taking part freely in our free enterprise system?
I now come to the seventh answer, i.e. that co-operation, in these and many other matters, can only be expected from those who have some real participation in decision-making. All reasonable people accept that it is the managers and not the office messengers who take the decisions. Consequently the Government cannot fail to understand that one cannot maintain a caste system—in the civil service, for example—whereby only one population group perpetually provides the managers, while the other provides only the messengers.
Yet these seven answers I have given indicate the very problems that lie at the root of our present difficulties. If this is indeed a watershed situation, as the Government appears to admit, surely the time to find clear and unambiguous answers is now.
These questions were implicit in what I asked the committee, presided over by ex-Judge Marais, to do when it explored a common base for a new opposition party and a real alternative Government. It drew on the services and advice of a wide range of leading businessmen, academics and politicians, and in reaching, by consensus, the responsible conclusions that it did, it rendered a most valuable service to South Africa. It provided guidelines on those very seven points I have indicated the Government had failed to answer.
It is against this broad background of rapidly changing events, and the Government’s general incapacity to deal with them, that I want to bring into sharper focus the three most important areas of weakness and danger.
Let us start with internal race relations. In June, 1976, the storm of unrest broke out in Soweto. It spread rapidly to many other parts of South Africa—not excluding focal points in the homelands—and still continues. There have been stonings, arson, lootings and killings. The police have had to intervene and numbers of people have been shot and have lost their lives in ways that are still being investigated by the Cillie Commission. It is impossible as yet to foresee the end or to take stock of the irreparable damage that resulted. The Cillie Commission has investigated the facts and the circumstances and, hopefully, it will also identify the fundamental causes so that we may learn better than we did after Sharpeville 16 years ago how to ensure that the future of South Africa will not be determined by violence.
I do not want to anticipate the findings of the Cillie Commission, but I do want to insist on one thing and that is that that report must come before Parliament this session—in a synopsis or chapter by chapter if necessary—so that we may at once get to the root of the matter and make the necessary changes. The existence of a commission in any event cannot prevent Parliament from discussing matters of public knowledge or evidence which has been put before that commission. This must be so, otherwise Parliament could not do its work, because commissions could simply be appointed on a number of matters and there would be nothing for us to discuss.
I think the first point that is evident already is that in respect of these disturbances the Government was taken wholly by surprise. Blinded by its own incessant propaganda, inadequately advised by its security and intelligence services, or unwilling or unable to carry out their recommendations, the Government was totally unable to grasp the realities of Black protest. How many times have we on this side of the House not warned the Government of the seething resentment of Soweto and of the rejection by urban Blacks of the laws and conditions which determine their lives? How many times have we not said that it is going to be in these Black townships and not in the rural homelands that the critical explosions would take place and problems would arise? The Government rejected all our warnings because it had no answer. Members on that side of the House persuaded each other that the dangers did not exist. To them nothing is real or visible if it cannot be resolved “within the framework of Government policy”, as they say. That phrase “within the framework of Government policy”, will yet be the epitaph of this Government. What is more, it will be the epitaph of South Africa unless it gets rid of this Government pretty quickly.
There has been a good deal of talk about the causes of the outbreaks of violence. It started with a protest against the medium of instruction in schools in Soweto. There are still some people who like to see that proximate cause as the only cause. There are others who blame everything on agitators—as though a peaceful and contented people could suddenly by manipulated at will by a clandestine network of agitators. The hon. the Minister of Police apparently holds this view, and claims that he now has the agitators under control. I want to say that, if he is right in blaming it all on agitators, then he personally is assuming a very large part of the blame for not anticipating and preventing the terrible damage that was done. Are we really to believe that his intelligence and security services were fast asleep? Quite clearly, the hon. the Minister is wrong and does himself and these services an injustice in taking that line. I know of no responsible Black leader who does not believe that the riots sprang from an accumulation of grievances and that the medium of instruction was not the real cause, but merely the last straw that broke the camel’s back.
I want to read what one of these Black men had to say a month ago, a Black man who is respected by the police and by the Government. He said—
That is a quotation from Mr. Percy Qubozo, editor of The World, to the Argus Group. Hon. members will know that he was picked up by the police for questioning, but was subsequently released. I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Police that in fairness to himself he should let the other hon. Ministers bear their share of responsibility for the Government’s inefficiency and neglect They are all to blame—the whole Cabinet is to blame—because the root causes of Black bitterness and unhappiness cannot be dealt with within the framework of this Government’s policy. They all subscribe to that policy and it is that policy which is the volcano on which we sit. I know that there are those who will not want to discuss this matter further until the commission’s report has been received.
So let us turn to another matter on which there is already a commission’s report. The Theron Commission dealt with the other critical area of our race relations, an area that cannot either be accommodated within the framework of Government policy. It concerns the destiny of a people who share the language and culture of the White population and whose only fundamental difference from the Whites is the colour of their skin. The Government stands internationally committed, by its own appointed spokesman at the United Nations, to remove all discrimination based on race or colour. This is in effect what the Theron Commission has recommended in respect of the Coloured people, namely that what the Government should do for the Coloured people should be done cautiously, responsibly and by evolutionary change. The commission’s report raised great hopes, for the Coloured people were not seen as an intractable aspect of our race relations. Apart from colour there was no real obstacle. So here was the great opportunity to prove the Government’s sincerity and good faith to the whole world. What happened, Mr. Speaker? The Government duly deliberated and found that many of the most significant recommendations of the Theron Commission were unacceptable and they turned them down. It has now deliberated further and Parliament is to receive what is hopefully described as a “final White Paper”. So far the Government has indicated that is has been prepared to implement only those recommendations that fit into the framework of Government policy. But as the Government has not got a defined policy for the Coloured people, and has never had a defined policy for the Coloured people, hon. members may well wonder what particular criterion the recommendations had to fit. In this case there could clearly be only one, namely skin colour—pure and simple. There is no homeland, no nationhood, no separate aspiration, no tribal or language identity that fits the framework of Government policy for other race groups. There is only skin pigment, and on that the “final White Paper”, if it is going to be final, had better be unequivocal.
Because of its own illusions, the outburst of violence in the Coloured townships of the Cape in August and September came once again as a painful shock to the Government. The protests were more bitter and more sustained, even than those of the urban Blacks, and penetrated into the heart of central Cape Town. Disorder continued for weeks and casualties and damage were heavy. Whatever the causes or whatever the immediate agents and instigators of violence, the fundamental attitude of the Coloured people needs little investigation. There are some differences between the Coloureds, but these are mainly about the method of protest and the degree of their reaction. If the Government underestimates their determination and the grave and continuing deterioration in White/Coloured relations, it will very soon discover its mistake and be in trouble again. It has lost more ground with the Coloured people in the past six months than has been gained by all the material progress in the past six years.
*Mr. Speaker, this, in brief, is what I want to say about the urban Blacks and the Coloured people. However, before leaving the subject of race relations, I should also like to deal with one aspect of the Government’s homeland policy.
Have you nothing to say about the Indians?
Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister may have news for me, but I was not aware that the Indian population had participated in any rioting or violence. Am I correct? [Interjections.]
*Mr. Speaker, the first tendency which emerged very clearly, was that the partial realization of that policy with the independence of the Transkei did not contribute in any way to reducing world-wide resentment of the Government’s relations politics.
As far as the non-recognition of the Transkei is concerned, I agree that the attitude of Western nations is merely based on political expediency rather than on acknowledged diplomatic principles of acceptance. It is regrettable that principles are so often dominated by prejudice in the present day international society. However, the fact remains that the expectations of the Government have been frustrated. There is no real evidence that the application of the Government’s policy of separate development will lead to a better international understanding, and to approval. The Government will simply have to accept that the continual deficiencies in the failures of its policy with regard to the Black people outside the homelands and with regard to the Coloureds and the Indians carry far more weight than the establishment of an independent Transkei.
In the State President’s opening address it has been mentioned that it is ironic that subversive activities caused so many riots and damage in the very year when the Government carried its policy through to its logical consequences. I find it tragic that the Government still believes that the independence of the Transkei also removed the grievances of other population groups. The second factor which has also to be taken into account here is the fact that the homeland policy can never contribute sufficiently to solving the problems of race relations in general.
As far as the Government’s relations policy is concerned, it must now simply be accepted:
- (i) that the events of the past seven months demonstrated the collapse of any policy the Government might have had with regard to the great majority of our non-White population—Coloureds, Indians and Blacks in White areas; and
- (ii) that its homeland policy can make an essential, but inadequate, contribution to the welfare of a minority of the Black population, and that it offers no adequate solution to the increasing majority of our Black and Brown people.
†Sir, if race relations can be affected by economic conditions, the economy in its turn can be, and is, affected by race relations. I want to begin my survey of the economic situation by referring to one crucial aspect of the economy, an aspect which is closely linked to the breakdown of the Government’s race relations policy. That is the looming disaster of mass unemployment in South Africa at the present time. In no respect is the interdependence between racial peace and the conduct of the economy more important than in this sphere.
The hon. the Prime Minister is well aware of those dangers. He has said before that it is one of the things which give him sleepless nights. Unemployment is part of a vicious circle, bound up with the Government’s race policy. Unemployment on top of last year’s riots will breed discontent and violence. Violence will deter investors, both local and foreign, while lack of investment will lead to higher unemployment. That is the vicious circle. It was therefore not surprising that last year was the year in which the alarm bells, warning of a political holocaust threatening the survival of the economy, rang loud and clear in the ears of South Africa’s businessmen. Boom years are complacent years, but when business is on the skids, as it is now, and there is no prospect of assistance from the Government in sight, even the businessman most reluctant to meddle in politics is forced to take up the reins lying slack in the hands of the Government.
The Secretary for Commerce, Mr. Steyn, commented at the Assocom congress in October last year that never in his 40 years of public service had the Government been so flooded with advice on how to run the country. This commentary is in my opinion a sharp reflection on the absence of forthright leadership and public confidence in the Government in this hour of crisis. [Interjections.]
There are four critical areas in the economy that demand leadership of the highest calibre and areas where leadership seems at the moment to be entirely lacking. Firstly, business cannot function efficiently or profitably or look forward to healthy growth so long as civil disturbance remains a threat amongst its work force. Secondly, social unrest will remain a threat so long as there is room for justifiable grievances amongst urban Blacks. It is from those urban Blacks that 60% to 80% of the total work force is drawn. Thirdly, investment is falling and unemployment is rising dramatically, while costs and prices continue on an upward spiral. I wonder if the hon. the Prime Minister realizes that today there are some 700 000 Blacks—their number is increasing at the rate of about 10 000 a month—who were in jobs, but are now walking the streets without the means to buy essential food, clothing or shelter …
Where do those figures come from? [Interjections.]
The hon. the Minister wants to know from where I get these figures. There was a survey done for Assocom and the Chamber of Industries, as the hon. gentleman knows. He also knows that the University of Stellenbosch’s estimates for unemployment and underemployment reveal a figure of 1 200 000, while the estimate of the University of Natal is 2 million. I am taking the lesser figure, the figure of 600 000 unemployed. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister cannot contradict me, because he does not keep the figures. That is the trouble. They keep figures about everything under the sun, including the length of ladies’ feet, but never do they have figures about Black unemployment. At the same time that this is happening there are thousands of Coloureds, Whites and Indians who are suffering a severe drop in their standards of living on unemployment pay. Those people lucky enough to be in employment are feeling the pinch more acutely than ever before in the memory of an entire generation. 375 000 young people, three-quarters of them Black, who will be looking for employment this year, are going to harvest a barren field. Does the Government realize that?
Finally, no improvement can be expected in South Africa’s balance of payments position—and hence in the level of domestic investment and employment, other than through a fortuitous and capricious rise in the price of gold—unless South Africa’s race policies elicit the confidence and respect of the outside world.
Whether one starts at point number one, i.e. the disruptive effects of internal unrest, or at point number four, i.e. the state of our balance of payments, the cure for our ills remains the same thing and that is a peaceful solution to our race problems. Here the inescapable conclusion is that both internally and externally South Africa is now more critically dependent on finding a rapid solution to our race problems because we are so much more vulnerable than we have ever been in our history to the consequences of internal unrest and the pressure of outside hostility.
I wonder, Sir, whether it is fully appreciated in this House that our total payments to the outside world for interest on loans, freight and so on, are now higher than our gold output. Is it appreciated that in August last year the Government had to ask the IMF for a loan of R75 million—money it could not raise elsewhere?
That is nonsense.
Is it fully appreciated that the hon. the Minister has trouble today in getting overseas loans at 15% and that South Africa is now more dependent on international trade than, for example, Canada, West Germany or the United Kingdom, and almost as dependent as Switzerland? Do people realize that our external trade, both incoming and outgoing, is restricted to five major countries and a limited number of products? Do they realize that the boycott screw, instead of easing off, has been significantly tightened by the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid? Venezuela, a recent acquisition in the list of countries buying goods from us, has, as a result of its pressure, broken all commercial relations with South Africa, and the committee is still hard at work in western Europe, in America and in Asia.
Do you know, Sir, that to ease unemployment and to provide new job opportunities, we require a growth rate of at least 5,5% annually? It has been stated categorically by the best economists in this country that that is totally out of the question at the present time unless there is a dramatic improvement in the rate of overseas investment and the inflow of foreign money into the country. We are not going to get that money unless we can guarantee a permanently peaceful solution to our race problems. It is not only the apartheid moralists that one has to deal with, but also with the hard-headed realist who is not going to put his money needlessly at risk.
But, Sir, I want to say that there can be no guarantee of permanent peace so long as we have a Prime Minister in power who is either too weak or too verkramp to put his foot on the neck of his Minister of Labour, who still persists in saying that the abolition of job reservation is an unacceptable labour policy and that no changes in the job reservation laws are contemplated. “The Government,” he says, “must look after the interests of the White workers.” Mr. Speaker, if there are no trained Blacks to fill the three million skilled jobs expected to materialize in a normally growing economy in the next two decades, the White worker will have no interests in South Africa to look after. Let me tell the hon. Minister that.
I come now to the field of international relations. If I were a prophet of doom, I could hardly add to the sombre picture painted by the Prime Minister in his New Year message. He sees South Africa as the object of every form of hostility, the victim of a vast international vendetta, ultimately committed to standing with its back to the wall, and fighting off a communist onslaught alone. Sir, I think he has reason for despondency, for his Government has brought South Africa to a sorry pass. His race relations policy has visibly collapsed and all the chickens of discrimination are now coming home to roost. His economic administration is in a mess; his Government has succeeded in the incredible task of turning one of the most richly endowed economies in the whole world into one of the most vulnerable of the Western nations financially. Internationally these things have had their consequences, and as a result the vultures have begun to gather. Here is one report from New York which reached South Africa just before Christmas—
Let us briefly review some of the major setbacks of the past year. In the first place, despite the role of Dr. Kissinger in partly defusing the SWA issue, the General Assembly gave Swapo observer status and approved “in principle” of military revolt against the South West Africa Administration. In the second place, the General Assembly declared the ANC and PAC authentic representatives of the people of South Africa. Meanwhile South Africa’s seat at the United Nations remains vacant. Can hon. members imagine Israel walking out and leaving its seat vacant at the United Nations? As distinct from these extravagances, for which the General Assembly has rightly been ridiculed by responsible world opinion, we must realistically face the fact the progress in SWA is still far too slow. There has been encouraging news of progress on the constitutional proposals at the Turnhalle. However, time is not on our side and it is essential that steady and viable progress be maintained.
Another development is the impending visit of the Russian President, Mr. Podgorny, to Zambia, Tanzania and Moçambique. The days of détente, with South Africa beginning to play its rightful part as the major power and peacemaker in the sub-continent, seem to have receded into history. It is tragic that our influence has been so diminished that it needs a Kissinger or a Richard—however helpful their intentions—to come here to settle the affairs of our sub-continent, but it would be even more tragic if they were replaced by Mr. Podgorny and his commissars. The hon. the Prime Minister has flourished in the limelight of his excursions into diplomacy. He took initiatives in Africa; he was a prominent figure on the Victoria Falls bridge; he and Mr. Kaunda mended their broken crockery; he had a series of local and overseas meetings with Dr. Kissinger, and he has been visited by Mr. Richard. All these exchanges are very interesting and enjoy great publicity. However, the tough question that needs to be asked, is whether they have led to any real improvement in the affairs of Southern Africa and, therefore, whether they have brought any relief to South Africa itself. Has our outward policy in Africa been maintained, or has it lost its momentum? Have our relations with our African neighbours improved, or have there been open signs of impatience and greater hostility? Have we been successful in gaining the support of the more moderate of the front-line Presidents and thus reducing the terrorist pressure on our borders? Has the independence of the Transkei been internationally acclaimed as the vindication of the Government’s policy of separate development, or has it been rejected even by those Western countries whose goodwill is essential to us?
These are the tests we must apply, and if the answers are generally negative, must we not conclude that the hon. the Prime Minister’s external diplomacy has suffered severe setbacks? I fear that we must. The hon. the Prime Minister’s New Year message needs no elaboration. Taken at face value, without any qualification or reservation by me, it is no less than a total admission that his foreign policy is in ruins and that South Africa has lost its ability to play any truly constructive role in the affairs of this sub-continent, of which its vastly superior natural resources should make it the natural leader. It gives me no pleasure to say this. I say it with reluctance, as my life is dedicated to the rightful interests and splendid potential of this country. My task now is to ask why this has happened and, before it is too late for tears, to try to pinpoint the remedy. It would seem to me that imprisoned as the hon. the Prime Minister is within the structure of his own policy, he has every reason to be despondent. I am, however, more optimistic. I take a more optimistic view because I can see, as the hon. the Prime Minister perhaps cannot see or cannot allow himself to see, that the greater part of all these difficulties stems from the Government’s own internal policies. I am informed by responsible sources in Western nations, as the hon. the Prime Minister is apparently not informed, that their increasing reluctance to support South Africa is entirely due to the fact that apartheid has become a total international liability. I am optimistic because, unlike the hon. the Prime Minister, I realize that we must get rid of apartheid and that inevitably we will get rid of apartheid. This Government and its subservient media are telling the country that there is no direct link between our deteriorating external relations and our internal domestic policies. They say that the West cannot appreciate the strategic importance of South Africa and their own essential dependence on its mineral wealth. They say that the West is unable to understand the racial complexity of South Africa and will be content nothing less than Black majority Government. The West, they say, is decadent, and therefore South Africa must be ready to stand alone in arms against the whole world. All this may be true of extremists and of countries that have no responsible or constructive role to play in the maintenance of global peace. It is certainly not true of responsible Western countries that do carry such responsibilities. It is clear that they are becoming more determined than ever to settle the conflicts of this sub-continent. They have very considerable strategic and economic interests in Africa, and they are deeply aware of the dangers of the spread of communistic influence. The Kissingers and the Richards do not come here because the West is indifferent. They realize that they cannot maintain their own interests if they are continued to be seen as the unconditional defenders of White domination against the aspirations of Black Africa.
It is not only the West that is strategically and economically dependent on South Africa; it is even more true that South Africa is dependent on the West. To pretend that one can go it alone in the modern world is sheer political, economic and military nonsense, and very dangerous nonsense at that. Outside intervention and political and economic pressure are intolerable to most South Africans. However, contrary to the Government’s contention that the West is too weak or too decadent to care, the fact is that the West cares a great deal and will steadily increase its political and economic pressures for change. These pressures will be directed, not at the extreme and unrealistic objectives the Government alleges, but quite simply at the removal of domination and discrimination of one race over others. If therefore we need the West on our side—as we must if we are to survive at all—we have a simple choice. It is not the choice the Government likes to put before us, namely dogged persistence with the policies that have already brought us to the brink of disaster, or the alternative of surrendering, in the words of the State President, to those “elements who believe that the attainment of meaningful political rights for all our peoples is only possible by totally destroying, if need be, through violence and bloodshed, the existing political, economic and social order”. That is not the choice. We do not need to make that fatal choice between two alternatives that will equally lead to the destruction of the civilized order in South Africa. If we can only find it within ourselves to discard the obsolete and accept the new, to put reality before sentiment and South Africa before sectional advantage, we can make another choice, a simpler choice. We can submit to the pressures, taking the rough with the smooth and accepting political changes on Western terms as a fair exchange for a growing new commitment to the peace and development of our sub-continent.
However, there is an even better option that that. That option involves making the changes ourselves without outside interference. However, we must be under no illusion that the essence of the matter—the focal point of hostility—is the whole structure that has been built up in the name of apartheid.
I have today examined some of the consequences of apartheid: its failure in the field of race relations and the growth of violent resistance, its destructive effect on the economic welfare of South Africa and its people, and its effect of alienating the Western World at a time when foreign intervention and bloody conflict are threatening the whole sub-continent. The great dream of the Nationalist Party has become the great destroyer of the peace and prosperity of South Africa. It is time to destroy the system of apartheid before it destroys us. I am optimistic because I believe it can be done, and that when it is done, hope, confidence and progress will return to South Africa in richer measure than ever before.
Can you give us the alternative under your policy?
To achieve this, present party divisions must be broken down … [Interjections.] Shall I say that again? Present party divisions must be broken down and moderate centrist opinion in all parties must be mobilized to consult with, negotiate with and seek agreement with moderate Black and Brown opinion while it still exists. The party divisions of the future must be between those who accept that change is necessary and will work to achieve it peacefully, and those who will not accept that change is necessary and will have it forced on them, perhaps by violence; between those who believe there can be an equitable and responsible sharing of power and responsibility within a federal or confederal framework, without one group dominating another, and those who do not; between those favouring the dismantling …
May I please put a question?
May I just finish my sentence?
Yes.
… between those favouring the dismantling of inequitable statutory and administrative discrimination on the grounds of colour and those too fearful and timid to tackle it. Your question?
Do the leaders of the other two parties share your views on this matter?
The hon. the Prime Minister has guessed correctly. This is, in fact, a paraphrase of certain of the 14 points recommended by ex-Judge Kowie Marais.
And are they shared by the other two parties?
While there may be differences in detail, as far as general principles are concerned they are certainly acceptable to Mr. Gerdener of the Democratic Party, to my party and, I believe, also to the PRP. [Interjections.] I am hoping for something else. I am hoping that they will become increasingly acceptable also to many members on that side of the House. [Interjections.] Many members on that side of the House will realize that the time for change has come and that they cannot indefinitely go on hogging all the power alone.
I now want to go on. There are yet certain other divisions between the parties. It shall be between those prepared to share the fruits of the free-enterprise system with all races and ready to afford equal economic opportunity to all and those who, while condemning Black socialism, wish selfishly to keep those fruits for themselves; between those who accept that in a plural society such as ours there must be neither forced separation nor forced integration, and that group identity must be protected where so desired, and those who do not; between those who believe all races must participate in decision-making at national level and those who still believe in domination.
It is precisely because this Government, as at present constituted, is not prepared to accept such a dispensation that I have moved my motion.
Mr. Speaker, if one reads through the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, one finds it very difficult to understand why he made it a motion of no confidence. Except for the fact that it was merely a ceremony which he had to perform, one honestly cannot believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, with his knowledge of public life, would lend himself to moving a motion of no confidence in the Government at this stage. [Interjections.] I am simply making this statement, but there is one thing I readily wish to concede. I perused the motion very thoroughly and concluded that there was an underlying idea present in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition, viz. the longing, if I may put it that way, and the desire that the Republic of South Africa should have a political system and should strive to achieve it with a strategy which must and will ensure a dispensation of hope and progress for the various population groups of the Republic. As far as that desire, that longing, that ideal is concerned, I do not think that anyone with an honest feeling for South Africa will differ with him on that score. No one on this side of the House, in fact no good South African, would differ with him on the desire that there should be a dispensation in terms of which there would be progress and development for all South Africa’s population groups. I readily concede that. In fact, every South African in this country who has a tradition which he wishes to preserve, who has a love for this country and who has interests here, cherishes the hope and the desire that every day will bring them closer to the realization of that ideal. That is why this Government has, in the slightly more than a quarter century it has been in office, done more to help South Africa along the road to this ideal than was the case in all of our previous history. This ideal, this desire to promote, serve and develop the interests of all population groups, has become such a great desire in South Africa today that we are not always aware of the degree of national unity we have already achieved in South Africa. The best proof of what progress we have already made along that road is in fact the riots to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred and brought as a charge against this Government. Those riots were in face a demonstration that the vast majority of South Africans, of whatever population group, did not wish to lend themselves to that kind of behaviour.
Therefore I want to state it immediately as a premise that I do not for a moment question the motives of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in striving to attain this ideal. I do not doubt his goodwill and his motive for striving to attain this ideal. However, there is a fundamental difference in outlook between the Leader of the Opposition and this side of the House, a difference which cannot be bridged by the kind of political antics we have experienced during the past few weeks. The National Party is most certainly not prepared to participate in such antics. This side of the House believes in the principle of multi-nationalism, in the principle of the identity of people who have traditions and ideals of their own.
Such as the Coloured people.
I did not interrupt the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he was speaking. Even if that hon. member does interrupt a person he will not be able to contribute anything to this debate in any case.
Answer my question.
This side of the House believes in the principle of multi-nationalism and also that people should have a right to their own identity. If he believes in that, he also believes in it as far as the White nation of this country is concerned. Then there is not only one kind of person who has rights in this country. The Whites in this country also have rights. That is what this side of the House believes. If I understand the hon. the Leader of the Opposition correctly, whatever words he may use, I cannot escape the conviction that he is longing for a return to those days when he proclaimed a unitary state, when he proclaimed virtually the same things the PRP is frankly proclaiming.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he was charging this Government with being responsible for certain events which took place here, hence the motion of no confidence. Would the hon. the Leader of the Opposition deny that if there was violence, if there was an uprising here, or attempts at a revolution, these were confined to a small minority of South Africa’s population? Of course! What country in the world does not have such a rebellious element today? Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mention to me a single country in the world in which it is not necessary to take powers and steps to counteract revolutionary elements? Then why single out South Africa and hold it up to be a country in which one has to contend with problems of this kind?
In his motion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaks, moreover, of a “crisis”—Sir, “crisis” is a very serious word. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is not confusing his concepts. A crisis is actually the culminating point of a very serious situation, and I know nothing of our country being at the culminating point of a very serious situation. What I do know about is the culminating point of a very serious situation in which his party finds itself.
Let me now give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a piece of evidence, evidence which does not come from this side of the House, but from the chairman of the South African Foundation, a man who is critical of this Government. He is frequently critical in his statements. He is Mr. Jan Marais, the president of the South African Foundation, a well-known businessman and a person who frequently has critical things to say about the Government, and he has the right to do so. I should just like to quote a few passages from his survey as president of the Foundation. I quote—
Then he goes on to say—
Have you read the Stellenbosch survey on that?
Oh, do not try to evade the issue now. I am quoting to you what the president of the South African Foundation said. [Interjections.] Those hon. members are fond of quoting him at us when it suits them—
Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition seizes upon the present financial problems with which South Africa is struggling and tries to use them as a basis for a motion of no confidence in the Government. Is he not aware of a general depression which has struck the entire world? Or does he come from somewhere on Mars? [Interjections.]
There is one question I want to put to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Suppose this hon. House were to pass his motion of no confidence today … Suppose this hon. House were so foolish as to do that … Then I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what the alternative would be.
I asked him about that, but he did not want to say.
After all, what he is asking is that this House should decide this week that this Government must go. Very well. We shall accept for a moment that we have now become so foolish as to do this. What happens then? Which one of the Opposition parties should then form the Government. [Interjections.] Which one should then form the Government?
The Mugabe faction over there. [Interjections.]
Towards the end of last year’s session I referred the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to an earlier speech of mine, a speech in which I had admonished him. On that occasion I told him that he should pull the Opposition together. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still remember that? We were speaking to one another here, and I told him that he should pull his party together, and that he should pull his party together in such a way that there could be unanimity on the fundamental things affecting the order and security in South Africa, so that a situation would not arise in which there was any need to fear that when a change of Government occurred, South Africa would be shaken to its foundations.
Now he is ripping them apart!
But what is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition doing now? Let us consider for a moment what he is doing. With all the respect that I have for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I want to say that I believe that there is something tragic in his life. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, there is something extremely tragic in the life of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. From Hermanus he sent a letter to his party members, probably the work he did during his vacation! He said to them: “Dear fellow party members” … And then he explained his problem. He mentioned that he had approached the hon. the Prime Minister, but that he had not wanted to listen to him. [Interjections.] He then reached a decision: “Save South Africa”.
Then he went to Helen!
He said that the hon. the Prime Minister had given him a political reply. Instead of the Prime Minister doing what he was doing, the Prime Minister turned the matter into a political issue.
But he is stupid! [Interjections.]
He went on to say—
But I want to ask him what is stopping the Opposition from helping the Government, with goodwill, to do those things which must be done. [Interjections.] What is stopping the Opposition from doing so is the following: Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition found himself in that honourable position he has made one attempt after another to come into office. But what happened? In 1953 this side of the House won 94 constituencies; in 1958, 103; in 1961, 105; in 1966, 126; and in 1970, 118. At the moment we have 123 seats. In the meantime the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is still trying to “save” South Africa, but he is losing ground while we are making progress. [Interjections.] Every time the policy of the UP was tampered with, there was a disintegration in that party. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition recall the first disintegration under his predecessor when the Bailey Bekkers and the Warings walked out? Does he remember that? Then the United Party moved to the left, with the result that the right-wing elements could not bear to remain in the party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition then took over the leadership. On what issue did the UP disintegrate next? They disintegrated over the promise of the White man to the Black man that land would be allocated to the Black man in terms of the 1936 Act.
But that is nonsense.
Of course that was the case. That was when the hon. member for Houghton and others broke away.
That was not the reason.
The hon. member for Houghton and her followers broke away from that party at Bloemfontein because the party adopted an ambiguous attitude to the 1936 Act. [Interjections.] The third disintegration followed upon the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition allowed his bosom friend and right-hand man to be undermined as leader in the Transvaal.
By Harry.
Yes. The result was that the person who had been held up by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to be one of the most wonderful people in his party is today a Cabinet Minister. [Interjections.] I come now to the fourth disintegration, his latest attempt. He established a new party, and now he has three. He puts me in mind of what Langenhoven said when he referred to the unicellular animal which multiplied by division! It seems to me as though the UP can only multiply by division!
There is something tragical in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The tragedy lies therein that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition lent out his ears to the wrong people, and now he is standing like a Samson of old, shorn of his political locks. He is bringing down the temple upon himself and what remains of his party, for the split in that party is not yet complete. I shall return to that later, but I can say that the next split is already threatening. However, I do not want to dwell at length on these things, I simply want to say that we should actually move a motion of thanks in the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today, if that were possible. I think the House owes him a motion of thanks. If it were possible in terms of the rules I should like to move it.
Let Myburgh do it! [Interjections.]
What I should like to move is a motion of sincere thanks for having, for more than a quarter of a century, been a living example of how a leader should not lead a party.
But, Sir, we come now to the 14 points. I am not going to deal with each of the 14 points, but shall refer only to a few. How must the stable National Party, which has the majority of the electorate behind it, accept those 14 points as a basis for saving South Africa if his own party is splitting over those points? Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition explain to me how he is able to solve this enigma? His own party is splitting on these 14 points and now he wants us to accept these 14 points in order to save South Africa. Surely that does not work, Sir. Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not perhaps befuddled, or dreaming? He wants to establish a political party, and he says that he and the PRP must co-operate within that one party. A by-election is being held at the moment, and their two candidates are at each other’s throats like cat and dog. They would rather speak to us than to each other. And then there is still the Johannesburg City Council as well. The PRP says it wants a “combined Opposition strategy”. The Leader of the Opposition replies in the newspaper: “No, it must be a ‘working arrangement’ ”! Have you ever seen such a thing in your life, Sir! One thing is clear, Mr. Speaker, and I want to congratulate the leader of the PRP on one thing. He knows I do not like his policy. In fact, he knows I detest his policy. Nevertheless I want to congratulate him on one thing, and that is his strategy. His strategy is turning the poor Leader of the Opposition into one of the greatest political tragedies in the history of South Africa.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is making a number of fundamental errors, and I want to enumerate them to him. In the first place he allowed himself to be shunted around by the Opposition Press. He allowed himself to be shunted around by the Opposition Press, but the Opposition Press has abandoned his party and chosen the PRP. To make himself heard, he now wants to get into the good books of the Press again. That is the whole reason. He does not see his way clear to fighting that Press. Surely that is true. And, Sir, that Press wants to go much further with South Africa than even the PRP wants to go.
I now want to put a few simple questions to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, questions to which he must reply so that we may have clarity on the 14 points. In point No. 5 there are certain guarantees which are advocated and in point No. 11 mention is made of certain prerequisites which have to be established for this new deal. In point No. 3 mention is made of “full citizenship”. Now I want to ask him: Is he aware that the hon. member for Houghton said that the culminating point of her party’s policy is a Black majority government? She will not deny it; she is honest enough to admit it. The hon. member for Houghton maintains that the culminating point of the policy of that party is Black majority government in South Africa. An hon. Senator in the Other Place maintains that he is in favour of Black majority government in South Africa. [Interjections.] Wait a minute now. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants a “working arrangement” with them. Let me now quote to the hon. Leader what was said from his own ranks towards the end of last year’s session. A frontbencher from his own party said the following (Hansard, Vol. 63, col. 10600)—
The hon. member went on to say (col. 10607)—
That is what the hon. member for Durban Point said. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to save South Africa, and I now want to know from him how he therefore sees his way clear to saving South Africa with the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Houghton in one and the same party. How does he wish to save South Africa with the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Yeoville in the same party? It seems to me as though he now has two “Harry’s”—a “Harry” and a “Japie”. The first mistake the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made was to allow the Opposition Press to shunt him around. The second mistake is that the Opposition ignores the world of double standards in which we are living. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition only referred to that in passing, but three-quarters of South Africa’s problems would not have existed if we had not been living in this world of double standards. In the third place the Leader of the Opposition is ignoring the significance of the threat against the Republic of South Africa. In the fourth place the Leader of the Opposition and his party are opposing the decisions of the electorate of South Africa, and they have already done so repeatedly.
I want to deal with the double standards of this world in which we are living by furnishing only five examples. In Western Europe there are 14 nations which are the result of a diversity of political, cultural and economic aspirations. That is Europe. But what Europe demands for itself may not be demanded in Southern Africa. In 1945 45 nations were members of the UNO. Today this number is 140. Is this not the principle of multi-nationalism, which exists even in that organization? If we proclaim multi-nationalism in South Africa, it is pernicious. There, however, multi-nationalism is tolerated. Of 49 States in Africa, of which some are of less significance than the Transkei, 20 are under military dictatorships and 16 under one-party dictatorships. The West is prepared to co-operate with the Soviet and Marxist States. Although they condemn these States, they are not forever asking them: “Before I co-operate with you, tell me what your domestic policy is.” South Africa alone is singled out because she is in favour of multi-nationalism. Surely we are dealing with extreme hypocrisy here, and three-quarters of our problems stem from this. The Republic of South Africa is being subjected to double standards, and I want to mention the worst of these to hon. members. I want to begin with the time when the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was in power, during the Second World War, when South Africa, under the leadership of that party and under the leadership of an international statesman of the calibre of Gen. Smuts, made an enormous contribution to the struggle of the western Free World. What thanks did she receive? After the war he met the Trusteeship Committed of the UNO and asked them to come to a fair arrangement with him on South West Africa. They refused and said: “No, in spite of all your sacrifices, in spite of your interest-free loan of £80 million to Britain, in spite of all the things which you have done and in spite of the fact that you are an international statesman of considerable stature, we tell you that you may not touch South West Africa.”
I want to mention a second example. In 1948 the Free World asked for an airlift to Berlin to be organized. At that time this Government was in power and supported the airlift. Through the instrumentality of this Government 4 000 tons of freight were delivered by means of 1 240 flights. After this came Korea, from 1950 to 1953. Eight hundred and twenty-six South Africans participated in this war, and 12 000 sorties were flown. The cost of this participation set South Africa back by more than R8 million. The thanks which the world has given South Africa for this, has been to institute an arms embargo against us! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not rise to his feet here to protest against this; oh no, he condemns this Government. He does not say that the world must cease to apply its double standards to South Africa. He does not say: “I rebel, good patriot that I am, against this manner of treating my country and its interests.” Oh no! This Government has to shoulder all the blame.
What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition doing? He is playing into the hands of our enemies. He said that the New Year message of the hon. the Prime Minister was that of a prophet of doom. However, the hon. the Prime Minister took these facts into account, which nobody can deny. The hon. the Prime Minister took them into account, took his country into his confidence and said: “Vertrouwt niet op prinsen.” He said that a people who want to live and continue to exist must derive the strength to do so from within themselves and from their faith, no matter how small a people they may be.
It was a real party rally.
No, not party rally. The trouble with that good friend of mine is that he is not even invited to a party rally. The Opposition ignores the threat to the Republic of South Africa. This is my second charge against them. The Leader of the Opposition must take the threat against this country into account; then he will start thinking about what his role in the political dispensation of this country should be. He must not make speeches here which our enemies are going to read and quote against us. [Interjections.] Oh yes! I should like to recommend that he reads the book Soviet Shadow Over Africa, a book which has just been published. I quote the following passage from this book—
It is also said, and this is very important… [Interjections.] Some people do not find this at all interesting because they are no longer interested in what happens to South Africa. All they are interested in, is whether they will regain their seats from the Progs at the next election. [Interjections.]
Order!
I quote further—
Is the Leader of the Opposition, with his new party, prepared to make policy changes which will make it possible for Russia to accept us? [Interjections.] No, of course not! How far does he therefore think he will have to go before the West will say: “We are satisfied with you?” Does he have any document on the basis of which he can explain this to us? Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition give us a single example of anything with which the West will be satisfied? No, he cannot because at present Moscow is dictating to the entire world, and the entire strategy against Southern Africa is determined from Moscow and not by a co-ordinated strategy in the Free World against South Africa—as was stated in the State President’s address. That is the snag. I know that the Opposition will not like this, but I want to ask this question: Who, at the outset, spread the story of “vote for the right to vote again” abroad? Who told the world there was a party in power that was going to do away with the franchise? Who, together with their Press, spread the story abroad that South Africa is a police state? Where did these accusations against us come from? Who spread the story that we are suppressing the Coloureds and Blacks in this country? Who in the Opposition benches spoke of “jackbooting”? Who used the electoral slogan “root out Afrikaner nationalism” to such an extent that even the hon. member for Bezuidenhout objected to it?
A third complaint against the Opposition is that it opposes the repeated decisions of the White voters. Not only does the Opposition fail to voice the feelings of the Whites, they do not voice the feelings of the Blacks and Coloureds either. I shall provide proof of this. It is because they do not voice the feelings of the Whites that they are sitting where they do. Nor do they voice the feelings of the Blacks—that is why the Black people continue to create their own States where they can develop their own freedom. They do not voice the feelings of the Coloureds either. Can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition give me any proof at all of the Coloureds, on whatever occasion, having said that they accept his policy? In that case what right does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have to introduce a motion of no confidence against the Government in this House and ask members to support an alternative—we do not know which of the three it is to be. I want to ask him why more than a quarter million people from beyond our borders seek employment in South Africa. Why did the Republic of South Africa have to spend R5 million on refugees from Angola who came to us for protection, if things are in such a bad way in South Africa. I want to ask: Where in Africa is so much money, millions of rands, being spent on the health, education, welfare and housing of Blacks as is being spent in this country? Nowhere in Africa; indeed, nowhere in the world is so much money being spent on people of another colour as is spent in the Republic of South Africa under this Government. Nevertheless the Leader of the Opposition says that the Government is not to be trusted.
Let us just dwell on the Coloureds for a moment. Since this Government came into power, R352 million has been spent on housing for the Coloureds in South Africa. They were taken from the slums; they were taken from the huts and shanties where the party on the opposite side left them. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for which housing scheme of any importance for the Coloureds in South Africa the UP Government of that time was ever responsible. While they were in power there were only mission stations and the slums. From 1963 to 1976 R606 million has been spent on the education of the Coloureds. The number of Coloured teachers in South Africa has increased from 11 000 to 23 500 between 1964 and 1976. Coloured university students have increased in number from 406 in 1960 to 2 892 in 1976. In spite of this the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we are causing frustration among these people. Is it not a fact that a respected and self-respecting middle class has arisen among the Coloureds, as never before in history? Just look at them along the roads! Look at the holiday resorts! Just look at the type of Coloured which is appearing in South Africa. They are better off than in any other place in Africa. They are being protected here. They are not being trampled underfoot as they are in other parts of Africa.
Now I should like to deal briefly with the political dispensation. The Government appointed the Theron Commission, not the Opposition. The Government is giving its attention to every aspect of that report and is working on a political dispensation for the Coloureds, and it will not be such a “concoction” as the 14 points of Kowie Marais. It will be a product on which this party will stand united and not be splintered and scattered to the four winds.
I want to repeat this afternoon that the desire that there should be a right to self-determination and identity for the population groups in this country, must be upheld. This party is not prepared to compromise on this matter.
The principle of equal, but not integrated, schools is of the utmost importance to us. However, I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the party with which he wants to unite, has already decided that they are on the way to integrated schools. Does he approve of this? Furthermore, this party stands for the maintenance of dual towns for White and Coloured, so that there will be proper residential areas for every community where they will be able to live their community life to the full. That party is opposed to this. Nevertheless he wants to unite with them.
The third point is that this party stands for the elimination of friction at the seaside resorts. On the other hand, that party stands for the opening up of all seaside resorts. Is he for or against this? He must give an answer to this question; he must not be up in the air.
In the fourth place, where facilities do not exist, where dual facilities cannot be created, this party has taken steps to give access to those facilities to people who need them. This is what we have done at the hotels, at the Nico Malan theatre and in other cases. This afternoon I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again that every time he presents an argument against this Government as if there is only one section of people in this country. However, I want to tell him that there is a nation of people living here who do not want to die. He ought to know this. He ought to be aware of this. He should not be ignorant of this, nor is he. The time has come for him to take note of the determination of the people of whom he too is one, a people who do not want to die, who do not want to go under, and who, before they are forced to their knees by flattery, would rather stand up and fight. This is what I want to tell him this afternoon. This is what the Prime Minister did, and the world must take note. The world is trying to bluff us in many ways. They want to see how far they can drive us. They know how far they can drive the Opposition, but we are not going to be driven to deviate from the things in which we believe. We believe in our own continued existence and in this we voice the convictions of the vast majority of English-speaking South Africans. That is why that party is losing its support. The hon. member for Durban Point knows in his heart that on these fundamental matters, about which I have spoken this afternoon, he belongs to this side of the House, or at least not on the Prog side. We are not looking for more constituencies; we are simply looking for more intelligent Opposition members.
If the hon. the Opposition wants to help this Government, as befits true South Africans, we can cause the homeland policy of South Africa to succeed, and can obtain foreign aid in order to help it succeed. If a better, more positive note on the aspirations of the Black peoples could be sounded, we would be able to convince the outside world as well that they must help to bring the matter to completion. The difference between us and the rest of Africa is this: In South Africa the Blacks are taught to govern themselves, to administer themselves, and how to work with their money. Elsewhere in Africa money is pumped in, without any supervision over the proper spending of that money. After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that this is true. If we are assisted by a responsible Opposition, we could uplift our Coloureds and provide them with far more than we are able to at the moment. However, we have an Opposition that we have to fight against; we have the prejudices of the outside world; prejudices which are fomented by the recklessness of our own Opposition and our Press.
Today I should like to quote something to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, something which he can take home and consider, and see whether he cannot for once say of South Africa what I am going to quote to him now.
He has a date with Helen. He will not be able to consider anything. [Interjections.]
I should like to quote to him what somebody said of South Africa—
This is speech was made by a very important person in America, Senator Curtis. He is one of the leaders in America, a man who made a plea for South Africa. Now I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today: When is he going to make a plea for South Africa? [Interjections.]
Mr. Speaker, if any proof is required that this side of the House is justified in moving a motion of no confidence in the Government, it has been furnished by the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Defence. He spoke for almost an hour, but in the course of that hour there was not a single positive indication of how the Government was going to approach the pressing problems of South Africa. The hon. the Minister raised small debating points which have been answered over and over again in this House. We shall not blame anyone for trying to derive some amusement from the position in which the opposition parties temporarily find themselves at the moment. However, this is by no means a unique situation in the political history of South Africa. Until shortly before 1948 the then opposition was also divided, and in many more factions and fractions than the present opposition. There was the Herenigde Nasionale Party, the Ossewabrandwag, the Afrikaner-party, the Gryshemde, who were officially known as the South African Fascists, and quite a number of other smaller groups, including Gen. Manie Maritz’s Boerenasie and a party called the Republikeinse Party. They were not only divided into at least five groups, but ideologically they ranged from democracy to the most radical forms of national socialism. Dr. Malan frequently admitted at the time how humiliating the position was to him and the opposition parties. Gradually, however, he succeeded in uniting everyone, Democrats, National Socialists and Fascists, in what is today the National Party, strong as it is at the moment. His success is due to the fact that he united people and disparate groups around a few clear objectives. One of those objectives was the policy of apartheid. This built up and strengthened the NP, but it gradually broke down and weakened South Africa to the position in which we find ourselves today— threatened by war from without and revolutionary confrontation from within!
I immediately want to say in passing that in speaking of the opposition, I obviously do not include the Cape group of six which calls itself the Independent UP, for one of the most important reasons why they would not go along with the new development in the opposition camp is that they consider White leadership to be a fundamental principle and could not find anything about it in the proposals of the Marais Committee. White leadership has never been a fundamental principle of the UP. Any person who makes White leadership into a fundamental principle—i.e., into a permanent one—and who wants to force it upon others is advocating nothing but White supremacy. This is something which the UP has always clearly opposed. The only connection in which the UP has ever spoken of White leadership was when we said that we believed that because the White man has exclusive authority at the moment, it is his responsibility to take the initiative in bringing about change as soon as possible in South Africa—change to a position in which there will be co-operation and joint control over matters of common interest between all the peoples of South Africa on a basis of equality. In any event, anyone who, in this day and age, still advocates any form of group supremacy in South Africa, no matter by what fine-sounding name he calls it, cannot be considered as belonging to the ranks of the opposition as against the Government. Such people should quite honestly take their seats in or near the Government benches, as the group of six under the leadership of the hon. member for Newton Park has quite rightly done—physically and symbolically near and to the right of the Government side. On a personal level I like them, and I hope we shall remain personal friends, but as far as politics are concerned, I just want to say to them for the last time: Thank you and good-bye! As regards the true opposition in South Africa, inside and outside Parliament, I do not doubt for a moment that it will achieve unity even during this session, not as a loose coalition of irreconcilable elements, but behind and around clear objectives. These objectives are, firstly, the total elimination of discriminatory apartheid, and, secondly, the creation of a new Republic in which all the peoples of South Africa will be able to close their ranks, a Republic which will be able, ideologically speaking, to play an active part in the Free World.
Allow me to add at once that I foresee that as soon as the new party has been formed, it will appeal to the Government of the day to arrange a constitutional conference for the Republic, on the pattern of the Turnhalle in South West Africa. If the Government refuses to do this, the new opposition will simply act as the alternative Government. It will call together all the various nations of our multi-national South Africa to create a new federal and confederal constitution for South Africa, moving away from the present Westminster model. I have every confidence that the attempt will enjoy the material support, not only of an important sector of the Afrikaans and the English business and industrial community, but also of the best constitutional experts in South Africa. We shall take very little notice of criticism expressed against the initiative which has been taken by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in order to bring about a new political dispensation. The political history of South Africa is full of political re-alignments and the NP itself has participated in several of them. In 1934, the NP in the Transvaal, in the Free State and in Natal was united in a new party with its greatest political enemy, the old South African Party. In the North it was re-established under the same name, though with a different policy. Before and after 1948 the NP underwent two further metamorphoses, and a change of name; and in 1958 Dr. Verwoerd, who was then the overall leader of the NP, envisaged a further radical re-alignment in South African politics. According to a report in Die Burger of 29 October 1968, he had said at a National Party congress in the Strand the day before—
Sir, we in the UP have never been UP supporters for the sake of the UP. And what is happening now, as far as the UP is concerned, is nothing more than this: The UP is being used as an instrument of essential political change and re-alignment and to bring about a new dispensation which will make it easier for people to get away from the obsolete political disputes and divisions which have characterized the NP/UP period for so many years.
†Mr. Speaker, let us look for a moment at the political developments in Southern Africa. What do we see? All-White party political plans and programmes are collapsing, one after the other. Take the case of Rhodesia. For 11 brave years Mr. Ian Smith and his Rhodesian Front Party stuck religiously to the policies of their party, which won them round after round of elections. And, Sir, as I understood it, a fundamental consideration was never to submit to the concept of Black majority rule, at least not in their lifetime. I have a high regard for the manner in which Mr. Smith is now facing the inevitable consequences of waiting until events had forced his hand and left him without much choice. Tragically, all his election victories have become hollow, his party programmes have become irrelevant and the march of events has compelled him to participate in negotiations for a totally different Rhodesia, completely contrary to the policies of the political party of which he is the leader.
Let us, however, come nearer home, to our own sphere of politics and to what will almost certainly become the new State of Namibia. The NP of South West Africa is an integral part of the NP of South Africa. They hold all four seats in the Other Place, all six seats in this House and all 18 seats in the Legislative Assembly in Windhoek. They have won every election in South West Africa, hands down, since 1950 and no party in any country could hope to look more safely entrenched than the NP of South West Africa. However, the time has shown that their election hurrahs of 1974 were their last hurrahs. Not a single one of their major policies have or will come true. Not even the hon. the Prime Minister’s categorical assurance to them, in the 1974 election, that their final destiny will be in the hands of the White Legislative Assembly in Windhoek, has any relevance today. Foreseeable events have simply compelled the NP of South West Africa, of which, I say again, the hon. the Prime Minister is the leader, to bury all their holy cows and to negotiate in the Turnhalle for a new Namibia which, as we already know, will differ radically from every one of their existing political plans and policies. I shall leave alone, for the time being, the so-called Odendaal plan and the millions of rands which this Government has wasted in their abortive efforts to incorporate South West Africa administratively. What was carted from Windhoek to Pretoria will now, at another cost to the taxpayer, have to be carted back to Windhoek from Pretoria, and we told them so all along. But the greatest tragedy of all is that the hon. the Prime Minister has been in the saddle and directly in charge of the South West Africa issue for more than 10 years now. It will stand as a permanent accusation and a reproach against him that he could have solved the South West Africa question even a few years ago in a climate of greater peace and with greater prospects of success than now, when a terrorist army, heavily backed by the Soviet Union and the forces of Marxist imperialism, is facing South West Africa from across the border. Instead of taking the initiative in time and leading change when there was peace, and so being able to control it, change is now being forced upon the Government and on South West Africa. In a climate of a serious military threat from abroad, the hon. the Prime Minister is sadly leading South Africa into the same dangerous predicament.
This will certainly dominate the discussions in the coming session, because it is foolish for a country to wait until events force it into a weak position. As far as this House is concerned, we would now like to know: How long is the group of six, representing South West Africa and sitting there in the benches of the NP, going to continue with the farce? They are in the process of accepting a Black President, a multi-racial Cabinet with a majority of Black Ministers, perhaps a Black Prime Minister and an integrated Parliament as some of the main features of their new constitution. How can any one of that group of six ever get up in this Parliament again and defend NP policy? What justification have they got for continuing to sit on that side of the House? By rights, they should have the courage to do what the UP group of six have done, viz. to put themselves up as an independent group, with this difference that they should go and park themselves on the left of the Government.
I differ with the political commentators who write that the NP Government is entrenched for ever. Coming events will beat them if the Opposition does not do so in time, but that fact places an overwhelming duty on the forces of constitutional opposition in South Africa. If we do not beat the Government in time and take the initiative for the creation of a new co-operative Republic, all of White South Africa may well be brought to its knees along with the Government. The hon. the Prime Minister admitted, only a few weeks ago, what we had repeatedly said in this House, namely that we had finally arrived at the logical outcome of the disastrous policy of apartheid, namely that we stood alone in the face of the greatest dangers that had ever confronted South Africa. Not only do we stand alone, but due to the polarization between race and colour which is not Black power, but their policy of apartheid, has brought about in South Africa, we also stand deeply divided. As far as common patriotism is concerned, we are the most divided country in the world with no prospect that the position will improve while the present Government is in power.
*Mr. Speaker, in the threatened position in which South Africa finds itself, we shall gain nothing by castigating the UN for applying double standards and for being guilty of other abuses.
But it is true.
Yes, it is true, but where in all of world politics would one find a greater double standard than apartheid? It may be as true as can be, but we live in an era in which nothing excites emotions so much as discrimination on the grounds of race and colour. We must face the fact that the UN and its executive arm, the Security Council, have become a dangerous and a merciless instrument against all who still withhold rights from people on grounds of colour. In this they have the full support of the great powers, including those of the free world. These are facts which we have to face. We may complain as much as we like that the Western world is weak and spineless and does not want to see the danger of the communist threat. This statement is only a half-truth at best. We may protest as much as we like that we are anti-communist, which indeed we are, and that in this respect we are on the side of the free world. However, it is not interpreted in this way, for in fact Hitler, too, was strongly anti-communist, not because he was in favour of freedom and democracy, but because he was a Nazi. For that reason he did not receive the support of the Western free world. Mussolini, too, was anti-communist. So was Portugal under Salazar and Caetano, as well as Spain under Franco. These states were among the most anti-communist states in the world, but they were anti-communist because they were in favour of some form of totalitarian government, and for this reason they were not acceptable to the Western world. As far as the free world is concerned, it is not enough to maintain that one is anti-communist, because what one is for is just as important as what one is against. Let us face this fact. As long as the Government is anti-communist because it advocates the policy of apartheid, there will be no support or sympathy for South Africa in the Western world. We all know that a deadly, global struggle is going on in the world, and if one analyses the essence of the struggle, one finds that it is a struggle between the principle of communism on the one hand and the principle of freedom on the other. Where do we stand in that struggle? Hon. members in these benches believe that the principle of freedom can emerge victorious and that the idea of freedom has many and powerful allies in the world, for most of the world’s great powers are on the side of the principle of freedom. However, if we want to survive the struggle in South Africa and to be considered an ally of the free world, we shall have to range ourselves openly and unambiguously on the side of the principle of freedom in our domestic politics as soon as possible. This means that we shall have to get rid, not only of the apartheid Government, if it persists in its policy, but of the whole negative policy of forced apartheid. We shall have to create an open society in South Africa. I want to say to the hon. the Minister who has spoken that it must be an open society, a society in which multi-nationalism is recognized and in which the White man’s right to survive and to preserve his identity is absolutely recognized. No one would be opposed to this, but no nation in South Africa has the right to do this at the expense of any other nation. Apartheid is in direct contradiction to the principle of freedom. It refuses to grant full citizenship—or any credible prospect of this within the Republic—to people who are not White. It restricts full citizenship to the White man because he is White. It excludes all the others. It claims for the White man the right unilaterally to classify and to group every South African and to regulate his whole life and all his rights on that basis. I just want to mention a single example of this. In Cape Town there is a girl called Roma Sabatini. She was recently classified as a White. Her father was an Italian and her mother a Coloured woman. She said the following to the Press—
†This means that within one South African family almost everyone’s social and political rights are different. How long is this political madness, this disruptive political manipulation of peoples’ lives on the basis of colour, going to be allowed to continue in our country—forced apartheid; the forced removal of people by the thousands from areas where they have lived for generations, people who have been “disqualified” because of their colour; job reservation, which is a cruel restriction denying a man the right to develop his talents according to his ability; movement control on the basis of race; different salaries for people who have the same qualifications and do the same work but differ in colour … The list of discriminatory measures which constitute the apparatus of apartheid is an endless one, and all those measures are unfair, degrading and inhuman. The whole policy stands in direct conflict with the normally accepted principles of human freedom. The results have become disastrous for South Africa. Not only are the borders of our country no longer safe, but the homes and the streets of our cities are no longer safe for our people, and we are only at the beginning of large-scale revolutionary conflict and confrontation in our country.
The real tragedy lies in the fact that by continuing with these policies, the Government has become the answer to the prayers of the Communist world. There is a direct relation between apartheid and the growth of violence and communism in South Africa, and between apartheid and the growth of international opposition against South Africa. Apartheid and liberty are distinctly opposing and irreconcilable policy positions. Let us now face the issue. South Africa is going to face a serious assault from many quarters. Guerrilla warfare has become the most important export product of certain countries, particularly to Southern Africa. I think that every South African—and I hope the Government is doing it too—should make a close study of why communist guerrilla warfare failed in Malaya, failed in the Philippines, but succeeded in Indo-China against the French, and thereafter in many countries including South Vietnam, Laos, the Portuguese territories and others I could mention. We should have a look at why it failed in some countries but succeeded in others.
One thing stands out. A national sense of grievance is the most potent revolutionary force in the world, and the success of Magsaysay, the leader in the Philippines, and of Abdul Rahman and Genl. Templer in Malaya, can be attributed directly to the correct diagnosis they made of the situation at a very early stage, and their grand and timely programmes of social and political reform. However, in Indo-China the French failed. In their case it was not a failure resulting from a lack of arms. Experts will tell you the French there did not fail as a result of a lack of arms, but as a result of a lack of strategy. They refused to enter the political and social war, and they looked upon the struggle as a military exercise. That is why they lost. What they failed to see, was that they were involved in a political and social war.
In our country, too, there are signs that the Government is developing, fatally for South Africa, a Maginot-line mentality. They are depending on the military side and forgetting that we too are involved in a political and social war. The war we are involved in in Southern Africa is in the first instance not a military exercise; I repeat, it is a social and political war. It is this sort of war we will have to win if we want to survive in South Africa.
I close by saying that this is the only question worth debating in Parliament this session—all other matters will be futile and irrelevant.
Mr. Speaker, we have just listened to a very interesting speech—in the preparation of which great pains were taken—by that hon. member who is in fact the undertaker of the UP, because in fact, as I shall show in the course of my speech, the whole idea that the UP has no role to play in South Africa and must be disbanded and must destroy itself, has its origin in the thinking of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.
As usual that is simply not true.
I shall prove it. Of course it must be so because the hon. member is making such a failure of his position in the Transvaal that he now has to cast around for a lifeboat and the only lifeboat he can find is the PRP which must give him access to the newspapers again, or rather, which must give his party access to the newspapers, because the hon. member has always had that access due to his refractoriness. He wants his party to regain access to the newspapers and he wants some purses in the Transvaal to be put at his disposal again.
The hon. the Minister really found a big lifeboat.
The only difference is that the election held when I was leader of the Transvaal was the only election in the post-war history of that party in which they regained a few seats. However, I do not want to speak about myself. I want to speak about the speech by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It was a remarkable speech. In his attempt to pose as a statesman he made one impossible statement after the other, statements which cannot stand up to the test of the true facts. We pointed out to him the ambivalence and the double standards of the UNO. In this connection, for example, he uttered not a word of protest. Not a single word was uttered in defence of South Africa in the unfortunate situation being created for us at the UNO. On the contrary; he immediately launched a bitter attack on his fellow-South Africans and tried to defend the UNO. That is what we had from him today. That is the standpoint he represents in the UP. That is why the UP is being destroyed.
The hon. member also made the statement that in Rhodesia Mr. Smith is trying to defend and maintain an all-White régime or dispensation. Those were his words.
An all-White party, I said.
After all, we know that this is not in accord with the facts. The policy implemented by Mr. Smith in Rhodesia is far closer to the policy of the PRP as it was until recently. It is also far closer to the policy contained in the 14 principles of ex-judge Kowie Marais. However, that did not help him. Any attempt by Rhodesia to bring about far-reaching changes will not be accepted by the UNO. They will not be accepted if they come from within Rhodesia because the UNO has already decided that the only changes they will accept will be changes in accordance with the ambitions of Mugabe, the outspoken Marxist. Any agreement between Black and White in Rhodesia itself is unacceptable. That, however, is the kind of argument we have to listen to from that hon. member.
He discussed South West Africa at length, as if the case of South West Africa is really on a par with that of South Africa. We have always recognized that to a degree South West Africa has an international status or connection. That has always been our standpoint. What is happening in South West Africa now is not being prescribed to it or forced upon it by the Government of the Republic. It is the decisions of the people of South West Africa themselves, prominent among them being the Nationalists of South Africa, which are being implemented there in an attempt to solve their problems. That the hon. member will not say. He will want to give out that that policy is determined by way of directives from Pretoria and directives from the head office of the NP. He ought to know better. He has to pose because he is now trying to become leader of the new party in South Africa. He had therefore to pretend to be a statesman, and in making that attempt the facts, realities or interests of South Africa did not weigh heavy with him. He states that we in South Africa must adopt a course which will make us acceptable to the Free World. “We must join the Free World.” Those were his words. “We must join forces with the struggle for freedom,” he said. Did he or his party register any protest when the Transkei became independent and the world refused to recognize the Transkei’s achievement in becoming independent, in accordance with a policy which he propounded even after he joined the UP? Which member opposite, from either the PRP or the UP, would say that he was willing to adopt a policy in South Africa which would really satisfy world opinion as embodied in the UNO and make this acceptable to them? They must spell out that policy for us. They must bear in mind that a policy which South Africa accepts and which means that the ANC and the PAC will not take over South Africa, will not be acceptable to those elements in the UNO that are causing problems for us today.
I have sympathy for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He led a party which has really failed—that he cannot deny—a party which has failed to such an extent that he, the leader of that party, the brainchild of Louis Botha, the spiritual heir to the founder of the old South African Party, today has to take the lead in proposing that that party should rather disband, because it might stand in the way of the attainment of an effective opposition in South Africa. This is a sad state of affairs. One is dumbfounded to think that anyone could have the audacity to come to this House and move a motion of confidence in what is perhaps the most united political party South Africa has ever known, the National Party, having just moved a motion of no confidence in his own party. Surely one cannot have confidence in a party which you say must disband in order to make way for another party! Then he has the audacity to come along with a motion of no confidence in the NP. He maintains that the policy of the NP is, in ruins. He is echoing certain English newspapers which say that the policy of the NP is in ruins. That is why we are to make way for something which does not exist yet, and that is an alternative Government in the Opposition benches, something he still wishes to create. He is asking the people to reject this Government and accept that figment of his imagination, something which does not yet exist.
He maintains that we must bring about changes. Of course! In politics, in which one deals with the lives of people, nothing is static. There is continual change, because one is dealing with a dynamic phenomenon, namely life and relationships between people. I have yet to come across a party as willing to bring about appropriate changes, changes which conform to the principles on which it is based, than the NP itself. [Interjections.] At the moment I have the privilege of being connected with the department of Indian Affairs, which deals with the relationships between peoples and communities in South Africa. I deal with community development, a department concerned with the rights of people. However, changes are continually being effected. One has only to call to mind the one important example which stunned hon. members opposite when it was announced. That was the abolition of provincial boundaries with regard to our Indian population. There have been far bigger things. Unfortunately I do not have the time now to mention all of them. The fact is that the changes are being brought about in conformity with the basic principles for which the people trust the NP. [Interjections.] Those basic principles have already been mentioned today by the hon. the Minister of Defence. The basic principle of the NP is the retention of the identity of all the peoples in South Africa.
If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants a policy which will place us in the Western world, where could he find a better principle for his policy than this very principle of self-determination of peoples? This is the foundation on which all Western countries with membership of the UNO base themselves. The UNO itself is an expression of the right of self-determination of peoples—this has been so for years. The policy of the NP is based on the same right of self-determination of the peoples that Providence has brought together in South Africa. It is being carried out. It was carried out in the case of the Transkei. It is shortly to be carried out again at the request of the people of Bophuthatswana.
What about the Coloureds?
It is high time that …
What right of self-determination do the Coloureds have?
Surely it is a policy with which we can join the ranks of the Western world, a policy based on the philosophy of the Western world. [Interjections.] However, the hon. Opposition wants to make it difficult for us. However, it is not impossible for us. We shall continue and we shall succeed. However, it makes it extremely difficult for us to make people understand that what we have in South Africa is a policy with which to implement the great and fundamental ethical philosophy of the Western world to the various peoples in South Africa. The hon. member believes in this policy. He will not deny it. He believes, too, in the policy of the self-determination of peoples in South Africa. At any rate, he did when I spoke to him last. Because he is experiencing difficulty in his political career, he will not hesitate to hurt South Africa for the sake of the phantasies he dreams up for the future.
Now, however, we are entitled to ask—it is a question I referred to a moment ago—what is the alternative that South Africa is being offered. What is the alternative? Who and what must they accept? Who must they recognize as the Government? What policy must they accept? What struck me was what an extremely, what a ridiculously small proportion of the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was devoted to propounding an alternative policy. He chased after something which was not yet his policy, and which consisted of a number of statements compiled by an ex-judge, a theoretician in politics—fine words some of them. This, then, must be the answer. However, any intelligent child in Std. VIII could compile a list of principles for a political party. It is when one has to test the practicability of those principles that they can really be evaluated. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has given us no indication as to what changes he would bring about and along what course he expects these changes to guide South Africa. He has not indicated in what respect he is now going to depart from the principles of the old UP for the sake of the new political party he wants to found. My hon. friends in the PRP have the courage of their convictions necessary to state clearly that they want to co-operate and that they want a united opposition, but that their principles are not for sale. Does he say the same? I ask this, because if he says so, then surely he has started with a still-born infant, an infant with no hope of survival. For the sake of such a dream and in the face of the greater skill of the leader of the PRP he is destroying his own party, his own heritage, the UP. That is the achievement of the hon. membér. Where does the idea come from that the UP must disappear and be done away with for the sake of a new opposition which will only be an enlarged PRP, because they at least are true to their principles?
That is what comes of adultery. [Interjections.]
I shall say what it comes of. A very interesting bit of history of which the House should be reminded, is that on 9 May 1976 two politicians each wrote a separate article in the same paper, analysing the outcome of the Durban North by-election. The one was the hon. member for Rondebosch and the other was the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I am only going to read three short paragraphs from both reports. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout wrote—
That is, to come out of the result of the by-election—
Hon. members will bear in mind that the UP came third in that by-election. This, then, is an analysis of the UP’s “resolution”—
Can you imagine a responsible man like him rejecting a moderate opposition in South Africa? What does one put in the place of a moderate opposition? Extremist opposition.
Or revolutionary opposition.
Yes, either revolutionary or extreme or exaggerated opposition. That is what he is seeking. Listen to this—
Later in the article he suggests the following to the hon. Leader of the Opposition—
However, he tells me that I am propounding untruths; nevertheless the fact remains that he started it, because there is the proof. No-one mentioned it in advance; he started it. He is the father of this idea to—with respect—save his own political skin. I do not know whether the hon. members for Rondebosch and Bezuidenhout wrote the articles together, but if not, it is an interesting coincidence that the hon. member for Rondebosch wrote the following—
The UP is not resolute, according to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, and now the hon. member for Rondebosch states that the UP is “ambiguous”. He goes on to say—
Take note of the following, too—
There you have it, Sir. This is the creation, the brainchild of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Rondebosch, and the hon. Leader of the Opposition allows himself to be influenced by these two men. Sir, I do not want to think so, but sometimes I get the feeling that perhaps the NP sent these two gentlemen there with the aim of precipitating the collapse of the UP and the PRP. It took several months for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to accept the suggestions of his new leaders. It was on the 18th of August, at the Cape congress of the UP, that he made his announcement, and I summarize it as it was summarized in The Star at the time—
He offers the UP, his heritage, his responsibility, as bait to catch the small fry in the PRP and the Democratic Party. He is prepared to forfeit the existence and survival of his party in order to obtain the help of the PRP. But what does he get, Sir?
They are only tadpoles!
Yes, only tadpoles, tobies and kurpers.
What are the prospects now? The leader of the PRP is outwitting the leader of the Opposition. He stands firm on his principles. He wants an agreement and he wants a new dispensation, but his principles are unalterable. His principles are not at hazard. All that can happen now is that the UP must repudiate its nature, its existence, its character and its traditions in order to secure a working arrangement with the PRP.
Why are you so worried about this?
Sir, allow me to reply immediately. I am worried because I believe that for the most part the UP has played a fine role in South African politics. If it were to be absorbed by the PRP then something worthwhile in the life of South Africa would be lost. Then the contrast between the impossible policy of those people and that of the level-headed South Africans would be glaring and ugly and dangerous for the future of South Africa. That is what worries me; now the hon. member for Yeoville knows.
When the hon. Leader of the Opposition took over the leadership of the United Party 17 years ago, he said that he would dedicate himself to the principles of the party and that he supported the great ideals of Louis Botha. He said that in order to realize those things we would find him a hard taskmaster. What, in view of the path he is treading now, in fact remains of the UP in the Parliament of South Africa? Just six lonely, rejected members. That is the achievement of the Leader of the Opposition. The UP’s parliamentary representation has been reduced to six members and he, Sir, is on the road to nowhere. He is on the road to his own annihilation. And then it is this hon. gentleman who comes to the Parliament of South Africa and himself, at his own injunction, moves a motion of no confidence in this Government and in the NP. Sir, it is unthinkable.
†Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Progressive Party.
“The Progressive Reform Party”. [Interjections.]
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have been reminded by the hon. member that they are also present because that is what I also find so interesting. I have this in mind at the moment as well as the point of view of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. His failure is attributable to the fact that he—and I was also guilty, but he remains so—tried for too long to reconcile people in the UP who were irreconcilable. It is for this reason that they suffered one split after another and that is why they had to take their leave last year from the so-called Reformists. And there they sit! Now that the failure of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is coming home to roost, now that he is desperate and sees no way out, he says that he will patch up his new failure by reverting to that same impossible situation in which he found himself previously, which was, in fact, the greatest failure of all. He is now once again going to bring together incompatible elements. “I am going back to square one” as my English-speaking friends would say.
I should like, however, to congratulate the PRP on the way in which they are playing their hands because they can only win. It is for this reason that they refuse to disband and to accept the offer of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The policy and tactics of the PRP at the moment are to ingest whatever they can of the UP and to digest all the nutrition that the UP can offer them. Their intention is then to get rid of the UP by excreting them as is the fate of all the dèbris of digestive processes in life. The same is going to happen to them and I want to warn them against it. The PRP does not want to disband, because how can they disband? If one has no body how can one swallow? If one has no body, how can one digest? No, the PRP wants to remain strong and intact so that they can reap whatever is ripe for harvest. They want to pick up a few bargains at the UP bankruptcy sale. They may well do so. I am thinking, for example, of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout whom they will be able to pick up in the “bargain basement” of the UP. I would just like to warn them that there is a good Afrikaans expression “Goedkoop is duurkoop”. The hon. Leader of the Opposition will remember that when Dr. Verwoerd came to us after the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had joined the UP, he said to us: I wish you luck with Japie, but remember, the party that has Japie in its caucus has lead in its stomach.
It is a tragedy that while South Africa is burning you are playing the clown. [Interjections.]
I cannot react to the interjection from the hon. member for Yeoville because I was unable to hear what he said. My time has almost expired and I do not want to waste it in arguing with him. The chief Opposition Party in South Africa is in the process of disbanding and declaring itself null and void. The hon. Prime Minister was quite right in saying that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is proposing, seconding and adopting a motion of no confidence in himself. While this is happening to the UP, the PRP is engaged in playing a political game with great ingenuity, a game in which they are outwitting the Leader of the Opposition. No real alternative is being offered; all that is being offered is a vast range of words. There is no body, no being! One can only ask oneself: What now, South Africa? The answer is very clear, namely that South Africa has a leading party with leaders and a supreme leader amongst whom confusion, mistrust and despair do not prevail. These people are pursuing a course which is based on unassailable moral principles. It is the right of every people to be itself, to preserve its own character and to be true to its own identity. The greater the confusion in the Opposition, the greater the confidence of the people in the NP and its leader, the hon. Prime Minister. I beg of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in future, whenever he gives a speech which he regards as a major speech, he should in the first instance be a South African. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been one in the past. I remember the days when the country was menaced by internal disorder and external threats. At that time he stood up in this House and gave the world the assurance that the UP stood by the integrity and unassailability of the South African ideal. Let him return to those days and let him tell his lieutenant, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, that one does not defend the UN by attacking one’s own people. Let the hon. member kindly forget about theoretical generalizations and let him tell us in practical terms what the implementation of the 14 points of the ex-judge, whose political experience, as far as I know, is very limited, means to the people of South Africa in areas which we will spell out for him in the course of this debate.
This motion of no confidence makes no impression because it comes from the leader of a dying political party. This motion of no confidence has no impact or effect because it clashes with the integrity and unassailability and the honest policy of a powerful political party and with a steadfast, reliable Government which is in power and will remain so.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has lost nothing of his dexterity with words and his ability to paint word pictures. Viewed against the background of the seriousness of the situation in South Africa today, that was a disgraceful speech by a petty politician who on this occasion was trying to be the court jester. I believe that the hon. the Minister should have been ashamed of himself. He made not a single contribution by way of thought or analysis to the serious problems of South Africa. I want to refer him to an article, “Die Praatjies vul geen Gaatjies” by the editor of Die Transvaler, Willem de Klerk. In this article he talks about the generalities in which National Party people speak. Perhaps particularly for the hon. the Minister he says—
The hon. the Minister also evaded a very pertinent point made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, dealing with South West Africa and the fact that they are going to have a multi-racial national assembly. In that multiracial national assembly the White community is going to be in the minority. I want to know, because I think the hon. the Minister of the Interior is likely to speak soon: Does he consider that situation which is going to develop in SWA a threat to the identity of the White people in SWA? Does he consider that this is going to be a threat to their presence and that they are going to be oppressed and dominated by the Black people who will be in the majority in that general assembly? Or does he accept that although you can have majorities and minorities within a political structure, you can also have bills of rights and other protective devices to ensure that the people are not oppressed?
Oh!
Hon. members can say: “Oh!” but let me ask the hon. member for Middelland: Is he going to agree to a system for SWA which is going to lead to the loss of the identity of the White man or the oppression of the White man, or does he have faith in the constitutional proposals which are going to be put before the Turnhalle? I want the hon. the Minister to answer that if none of the six members from SWA will do so.
We have got to realize that we meet at a time when the public of South Africa, the ordinary South African, is concerned about the future. No amount of laughter and no amount of derision can wish the fact away that South Africans are concerned about the future. They feel the cold winds of economic recession, rising prices and unemployment. They have experienced unrest as never before in their lifetimes in South Africa. They sense a tension building up within the society. They read of isolation, boycotts and international pressures. They are told of threats to South Africa and they are personally involved in increasing military mobilization. They hear the Minister of Defence say to them:
*They have been told this already.
†They hear the Prime Minister say “that in the event of a communist onslaught on South Africa, the Republic would have to face it alone.” Whatever we may think about ourselves in this House, this debate should reflect that the people of South Africa are concerned, not afraid, but concerned. They are concerned about the future and are asking where we are heading and what the future holds. They want to know from the Government what it is going to do to restore confidence and to get the economy going again. They want to know how we are going to be able to live in peace. I believe that these are the questions to which this Parliament is going to have to give answers to the people of South Africa in this and succeeding debates.
At the outset I want to say that we in these benches hold the Government responsible for the situation in which the country finds itself. We do so not because we ignore the elements and factors that might threaten South Africa, either from outside or from within. It is our view, however, that the failure of Government policies, the errors of judgment repeatedly being made by this Government and the inability of the Government to give a lead and develop a strategy to deal with the problems confronting South Africa, are undermining both our economy and our security and taking us all along the road to disaster. I know it would be popular to say that it is the Marxists and the communists and Russian imperialists who are the cause of all our problems. [Interjections.] I do not believe that we can ignore the risks posed to South Africa as a consequence of the advance which Marxism has made in South Africa or as a result of the expansionist strategy of the Russian imperialists. Marxism has gained ground in Southern Africa, especially since parties which embrace Marxism, have become Governments of States and especially since Russia has started becoming involved directly in the conflict situation here. The threat posed by Marxism or Russian imperialism, however, does not weaken our charge against the Government. In fact, it strengthens our charge against the Government because, as other members and I will show, by its policies and actions this Government is playing into the hands of the Marxists or Russians. I can think of no greater asset to the Kremlin, in its attempt to expand its influence in Africa, than the policy of apartheid in South Africa. I can think of no more effective seed-bed for the nurturing of revolutionary Marxism than the conditions which exist in the Black townships of South Africa as a consequence of Government policy.
Let us realize that Marxism, communism or Russian imperialism will not be defeated by negative and repressive measures alone. They will only be defeated when we can create a social, economic and political order which all South Africans believe it is worth defending. We will only be safe from these ideologies when we have won the hearts and the minds of all South Africans, Black and White, for a South Africa which provides them with more opportunities and more security than the communists and the Marxists can offer.
Let me look for a moment at the effect of Government policies, Government misjudgment and the failure of the Government to give a lead in the present situation. Bantu education has become the training ground for young Black militants in South Africa. The Government’s policy of separate Black universities is providing intellectual leadership for the Black Power movement. The Government’s policy of Bantu Administration boards—impersonal, bureaucratic and dependent for more than 50% of their revenue on the sale of liquor—is causing a breakdown in communication between the Administration and the Black people. Then there are also the pass laws, the migrant labour system and the failure of the Government to give effect, in a meaningful way, to the Pik Botha promise that we would do all in our power to move away from race discrimination. There is job reservation, the industrial colour bar, creating a dangerous gap between the haves and the have-nots, and the failure of the Government to accept the key recommendations of the Theron Commission. All these policies, working together, are building up a polarization between Black and White and a climate for confrontation between the Black communities and the Government authorities.
However, judgment is also involved. Ever since the Government’s most critical error of judgment until last year, the Government’s error of judgment in committing South African forces to the war in Angola, the Government’s judgment has been increasingly suspect. I have in mind the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education. I think of his insensitive remarks about the language medium on the very eve of the first wave of unrest on 16 June. On 16 June he was not aware of the position in the schools under the control of his department. I think of the way the Government misread the mood of the Coloured people. It was claimed: “Hierdie Kleurlinge sal altyd by ons staan.” What a shock they had in store for them. They misread the intensity of feeling that there was amongst the Blacks about the socio-economic conditions in the townships. What is more, they misread the intensity of feeling that existed not only in Africa but also in the West towards the events that took place in the townships last year. As evidence of this misassessment let me read briefly from a speech made in this House last year by the hon. the Minister of Labour. He said (Hansard 1976, cols. 9186-7)—
“How long will it last?” He went on—
By way of an interjection, the hon. member for Jeppe asked: “For how long?” The hon. the Minister replied—
When was that speech made by a gentleman who should have been attuned to the emotions and the feelings of the millions of Black people who work in the cities? On 14 June, two days before the start of the unrest, that hon. Minister was prophesying labour peace and no difficulties for the future in South Africa.
And speaking of errors of judgement, I believe that all the errors of judgement that have been made pale into insignificance, as far as the implications for South Africa are concerned, compared with the single fateful decision taken by the Government to meet head-on the confrontation that was building up in South Africa. By that I mean that they decided to deal with it by shooting and banning instead of attempting to deal with it by containing it and by negotiation. That decision to meet the confrontation head-on by shooting and by banning was, I believe, a fateful one for all of us in South Africa because it changed confrontation into conflict. It incurred the risk of converting a protest movement into a movement of revolution. It created an unprecedented solidarity amongst the Black communities of South Africa. It set in motion a chain reaction of violence and counter-violence which has had its impact throughout South Africa. It has reduced both the time and the options available to us for a peaceful settlement of the Black-White conflict situation in our country.
How would you have handled the situation? What would you have done?
I shall deal with that in a moment.
Apart from all this, at such a time the people of South Africa were looking to the Government for a lead. I think hon. members were aware of this because their telephones must have been ringing. People were asking: “Wat sê die Regering? Waar is die Eerste Minister? Watter leiding word daar gegee? Wat moet ons doen?” [Interjections.]
*Just read the Afrikaans newspapers: During that time of tension and violence, the people were looking for a lead.
†It is not my intention to deal with the hon. the Minister of Justice. He was the Horatio at the bridge. He made many contradictory statements; however, there is another hon. member in these benches who specially wants to deal with that hon. Minister. If one looks at the Afrikaans and English language Press of that time, one sees that there was a “Babelse verwarring”, as it is known, amongst the Ministers who were contradicting themselves. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Education was telling the Blacks they could own their own homes, he said the Blacks in the homelands would get preference if they came to the towns and then again he said the Blacks were only in the towns to sell their labour and for no other purpose. One can go on that way. So, for instance, the hon. member for Pretoria Central said:
The hon. member for Moorreesburg in turn suggested a multiracial commission to deal with the Black majorities living in non-Black South Africa. He recommended a canton system for Black people living in the White areas. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister said:
He should read what Mr. Piet Cilliè had to say. He should read what Die Burger had to say, viz. that if the people have no homelands, one has no option but to see that they are accommodated within the “bestel” of those people who share this territory.
Then there is the hon. the Minister of Information. I am pleased to see him here today because on 14 August last year he said he would stick his neck out and predict that the rioting and unrest would all be over by 31 August. Well, his neck is still there, but the rioting and unrest went on. He is also quoted as follows—
This is what he says, but the hon. member for Innesdal says it would be quite wrong if we were to suggest that this unrest was the work of agitators.
Only.
Yes only. Then we have Mr. Pik Botha who says—
Then we have the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke who said at Hartebeespoort—
I realize that the hon. the Prime Minister was busy with many other important matters relating to Mr. Smith and the international scene, but nevertheless the people were looking for a lead from the Prime Minister. For nearly three months there was a silence from the Prime Minister in relation to the internal situation.
May I ask the hon. member a question?
No, I have limited time at this stage. It was broken by his speech at the OFS Congress and his tenth anniversary speech at Pretoria on 13 September, when he reaffirmed his commitment to the policies that were failing all around him. That was the burden of his speech, namely to recommit himself to the policies that were busy failing in South Africa. Apart from that, it was a rebuke to businessmen for meddling in politics, a rejection of the concept of a National Convention, and perhaps the most damaging thing in the whole period was his spirited defence of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education for his racist and verkrampte interpretations of what he thought was National Party policy. People asked: “What has happened to the Prime Minister? Is this the same man who said, ‘Give us six months and see where South Africa stands? ’ Is this the same person who in 1969 kicked the first echelon of verkramptes out of his own party? Is this the Prime Minister whose ambassador said we would do everything in our power to move away from race discrimination? Was this the Prime Minister who before was reaching out adventurously to Africa?” People asked what had gone wrong. What has gone wrong? I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister, if I may, what did go wrong? Why was there no lead to the people of South Africa during that difficult time? I want to suggest that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government are stuck. He cannot move forward or backward in relation to his policy. He is a pragmatist, he is a political analyst and he knows that the problems of this country have reached the stage where they cannot be solved within the framework of National Party policy. He is afraid to change that framework. They cannot be solved within the framework of National Party policy. There is no more room for “aanpassings” within the framework of separate development. The hon. the Prime Minister knows this. He is the captive of the right wing. He is the captive of the verkramptes within the National Party. What possible explanation could there be for the hon. the Prime Minister’s defence of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s interpretation of National Party policies? This is the man who says there can be no “groot apartheid” without “klein apartheid”. This is the man who attacks the concept of mixed theatre casts. He is the man who says that the Nico Malan permit is but temporary and can always be repealed. He is the man who complains about facilities at Jan Smuts Airport. He is “kriewelrig” about international hotels, and is quoted as having said—
This is the man who says it is not Government policy to open facilities to the various racial communities. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Apart from the insensitivity of this, why did the hon. the Prime Minister support him on these issues? Is this National Party policy? I believe the hon. the Prime Minister must tell us before this debate ends whether it is National Party policy. This is not what he said before in Windhoek, or what he said when he spoke to Mr. William Buckley or what he said to the BBC in 1974, viz. that it has got nothing to do with apartheid, that the only reason for separation is to avoid friction and that if there is no friction we will remove the separation. Or is it the other way round, that we will separate unless there is no way of duplicating it? There is a fundamental difference in approach. Either you stand for separation, except when you are compelled to share because you cannot duplicate, or otherwise you believe that you should get rid of separation lest this is going to lead to friction.
There are other matters dealing with foreign affairs which will have to stand over. I believe, however, that the public of South Africa is looking to this House for a lead. I believe that the public wants a vision of the future in which they can believe.
Will you tell us about the new lead that you both are going to give us?
There is plenty of time for all that, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Prime Minister can speak for two hours on Friday afternoon. He must tell us of the vision of the future.
I shall tell you all about it.
The people of South Africa do not want to know about the policies to which he is committed. At this moment they want to know whether the Government has a strategy for achieving peace and whether it has a strategy for overcoming the difficulties in which we find ourselves. I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister: Tell us on Friday afternoon of your vision of the future, not of the distant future, but three to five years hence. People want to know three to five years hence how he sees the Coloured community, the Indian community, the Black community. I want to ask him whether he will see the White people more militarized or less militarized, with more freedom or with less freedom. I want to know whether we will have moved further away from the West or nearer to it.
What is your policy? [Interjections.]
Mr. Speaker, my policy as far as the hon. Minister’s Department is concerned is to eat more cheese and butter! [Interjections.] This is a debate of no confidence in the Government … [Interjections.] I am quite happy if the hon. the Prime Minister want to move a motion of no confidence in my party. We will stand up and defend my party from attacks from the other side.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very serious on this point. I think there is a problem about strategy. Events during the past three months have accelerated and South Africa has moved into a conflict situation. I want to speak to the hon. the Prime Minister in all seriousness about this. The unrest has been suppressed physically, and no doubt it will be repressed time and time again, because the Government has infinite resources of military and paramilitary power. To the extent, however, that we follow this path, I believe that the final struggle is going to be lost. Make no mistake about it, we are already on the slippery slope of military and paramilitary mobilization, of increasing self-perpetuation, of polarization and of confrontation. We are on the way to a siege economy, and we are becoming a siege society. If we continue on this course, the multiple threats confronting us and the trends of our responses will inevitably multiply and continue, and we will find ourselves—and the Government will find itself—not applying a strategy of its own, but being trapped into somebody else’s strategy, a strategy which will be designed to weaken and ultimately to destroy the South African society. This is the danger.
May I ask the hon. member a question?
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
When the hon. member talks about a strategy, I want to know which one I must adopt—his strategy or that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister must adopt the strategy that is going to move us away from conflict and towards peace. He must realize that we are heading towards a conflict situation. We are becoming more and more militarized.
Answer the question!
I put it to him in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker. We have to cut through this pattern that is developing. We want to move away from it, because we are rapidly reaching the point of no return. What is the strategy into which people are trying to force us—not the hon. the Prime Minister, but people who are wanting to damage South Africa? They want to commit South Africa to the greatest amount of military expenditure, internally and externally. They also want to force us to change our economy into a siege economy and to prevent the massive socioeconomic expenditure which is necessary to protect the urban population from becoming victims of a radical absolutist policy. I believe that is the danger.
The second strategy is to destroy the linking, cross-cutting, mediating institutions which operate in the society and the economy, between the Government and the Black people in order to establish a revolutionary proletariat. Measured in terms of this strategy we should make no mistake as to the damage caused us by the unrest in recent months. Defence and security expenditure is building up, and like a haemorrhage, is starting to sap the vitality of our economy and our society. Black education, the crucial mediating structure, has been seriously disrupted. Unemployment is rising sharply. The killing and wounding, especially of young Blacks, has wrought incalculable damage in terms of alienation and polarization. Bannings and arrests are sweeping away effective leadership, making negotiations more difficult.
It is clear that whether the Government wants to or not, it is not following its own strategy of hope, but it has been forced into, been trapped into, a strategy which is going to lead to our destruction. I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that the time has come for him to extricate himself from the strategy into which his and South Africa’s opponents are starting to trap him.
I have asked you a question but you refuse to reply.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister will realize that I have only 30 minutes in this debate. I want to say to him that I believe there are three things which he should do. First of all, if he wants to change the strategy, he must make good the promise made on his behalf and on South Africa’s behalf by Ambassador Pik Botha. I want to know from the hon. the Prime Minister what has happened to the Cabinet committee appointed in 1975 to look into the whole question of discriminatory legislation. Two years have passed, but what has happened to that committee in the meantime? I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has to move much faster than he has moved in the past.
Secondly, I believe that in the political field the hon. the Prime Minister should make certain structural changes to his own policy. The changes which I suggest do not go nearly as far as we in this party want to go, but our view is—I quote without paraphrasing from the report of the Marais Committee—
This is our philosophy, our non-racial philosophy, and I believe it is expressed very well in that clause of the Marais Committee’s report.
I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister three structural changes he should make in his own policy. They will not be adequate, but they will at least assist him to move away from conflict towards negotiation. The first is that the Coloured people should be given full citizenship. The hon. the Prime Minister should stop beating around the bush. The Government did not accept the recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission and since then agonizing things have happened to the Coloured community. I say that we should stop beating around the bush and we should give the Coloured people full citizenship with representation in this House. This is the least that can be done in order to try to remove the conflict situation between us and them.
On what basis should they be given representation in the House?
The hon. the Prime Minister must accept the principle.
On what basis?
Will the hon. the Prime Minister accept the principle of full citizenship for them? Then we can have them on an equal basis with Whites in this House.
In the second instance we should recognize the permanence of the urban Blacks. From the moment the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said that they could own their houses in perpetuity, a new situation existed. They are now no longer temporary sojourners, but people who are going to live permanently in the urban areas. What happens when a homeland wants to become independent? What will happen if Bophuthatswana says that they will not accept as citizens of Bophuthatswana those people whom the Government will describe as Tswanas living in the urban areas? Will the Government then say to Bophuthatswana that it cannot have independence unless those people are accepted as citizens of that homeland? Even if the Government’s policy works, it will be left with the residue of Black people living in the cities of South Africa, people who will have to be recognized as permanently living in South Africa. This is why we believe that a multi-racial commission should be appointed to consider the future of the urban Black South African on this basis.
Thirdly, we believe that the time has come for the Government to accept the need for a radical re-drawing of the boundaries of the homelands. A radical re-drawing of the boundaries is necessary to ensure that there is a more equitable apportionment of land, resources and the domestic product. We are not suggesting that White people must move out, but just as Black people live in what is called the White areas, contributing to the domestic product, to the taxations and to the general economic buoyancy, so there can be White people living in the homelands, assisting with the economic development of those areas. This will not be adequate, but it will make them more viable, more attractive and in due course provide a better base for negotiated settlement, whether it is on a federal, confederal or independent state level.
Finally, I and those of us on this side of the House firmly believe that we cannot and dare not face the future as a divided people. We cannot continue to face the outside enemy and still be divided from within South Africa. It is therefore necessary for us to find a means of seeing that Black and White and Brown South Africans have the common loyalty and desire to defend South Africa as a united South African people. For this reason I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that he should convene a Turnhalle-type of conference in South Africa. Think what happened in South West Africa over 16 months—a declaration of intent, a basic national unity amongst 11 ethnic groups! Let us in this country also bring together South Africans from the various ethnic groups on the basis of a “Turnhalle-beraad” and let us see if we can find a common unity of purpose.
To reiterate: The Government, we believe, through its policies, its errors of judgment, its failure to lead or develop a strategy for success, has taken the country along the road of conflict, and unless we get off this road of conflict we believe that this Government will lead the country, Black and Brown and White, Afrikaner and English, to destruction. We believe they will end up by destroying ever so much of what we love and what is beautiful and what is worthwhile in this country. The Prime Minister has the power and the means of changing course. He is in command of his party. He has the power to do this. I believe that for the sake of South Africa, he must get off the path of conflict and he must turn towards the path of negotiation and of peace. If he is not prepared to do that, I believe that the time has come for this Prime Minister—after all, he has been here for ten and a half years—to stand down and make room for someone else.
Mr. Speaker, while I was sitting and listening to the hon. member, all the arguments and all the questions that have been raised here over the years came to mind. From the nature of the case nobody will expect me to try to reply to the series of questions put by the hon. member. In fact, I do not think that any of us would try to do so. During the course of this debate and during the course of this session the hon. member will have his questions replied to repeatedly, questions he has already asked in the past and to which in any event he has already had replies.
Before dealing with the hon. member who has just sat down, I want to point out that this House has met under particular circumstances. One of those circumstances is that the UP is disintegrating. Allow me therefore to refer for a while to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
And pay a small tribute! [Interjections.]
The hon. Leader began his speech by saying that it had struck him that South Africa was losing people, and that we have actually assembled here under a cloud. When he said this, I made a swift calculation and I found that while everyone was busy assembling for the session, the hon. Leader himself has over the past few days lost one-sixth of his people. Therefore it is not this House that has met under a cloud, but the hon. Leader. I also want to point out that the hon. the Prime Minister said something very true on one occasion, namely, that in the days which are past and in the times in which we live we have had and we do have friends among people although we do not officially enjoy support in the world in which we live. That is a very real truth. In fact, throughout history we have not known the luxury of the support of nations but we have had the support of friends and we still have friends in the world today. That is a truth that we have also to remember in pursuance of the remarks that have been made by the hon. member who has just sat down as well as by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. Leader of the Opposition himself. Sir, there is also a second truth.
In the history of South Africa there has never to the best of my knowledge been a time when South Africa has not had the experience of outsiders sticking their noses into her domestic affairs; we have never been without the interference of people who have had nothing to do with out affairs. That is just as true. However, Sir, I think that there is also a third truth. I think the hon. Leader will agree with me when I say that over the long period during which his party has participated in politics in this House there has never been a time when the hon. Leader and his party have not opposed everything that this party has tried to do. I think the hon. member must try to lead the situation in which he now finds himself back to this fact. One cannot participate in the politics of a country simply by opposing everything that happens in the country and everything that a governing party tries to do. One cannot try to participate in the government of a country in such a negative way. Over the years the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party have had the responsibility of participating in the government of this country. It is not only we on this side of the House who have to govern the country; the hon. Leader and his party also have to assist in governing the country. The question that now arises is how they are doing their duty in this process. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party have made one historical mistake in this process which is to the detriment of all of them. They have set themselves against nationalism and all the products of nationalism. The hon. Leader and his party have made this historic mistake in that they have not made the correct decision in any single case along that road. As a result of this they became estranged and were therefore not part of this process. Therefore we find the case today that where we have had the establishment of a Black nationalism with its own country the hon. Leader and his party have wanted nothing to do with it right from the start. It is for this reason too that they cannot participate in it. The hon. Leader and his party have made this mistake over the years. When that party reviews its position in the House, it also has to look for that mistake.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition has strongly opposed the NP over the years and I want to tell him that on many occasions they were unfair. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party thought that the most important role that they had to play in this connection was to try to oppose the NP and the Government. It was because of this that all the great moments escaped them. For this reason I am unable to advise the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He has placed himself in a situation where he has to experience the humiliation that when this side of the House and the rest of South Africa look at him, we have to witness his hopeless efforts to put something together. Nobody wants to co-operate with him and the whole thing does not want to get moving.
Everything that the hon. member who has just sat down, mentioned, may be important at this time, but I want to tell him that there is something else that is important, namely the question of what role he and his party are going to play in the future of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister put a question to the hon. member but he pretended not to hear it. The hon. member would have been very sensible had he used his speech to give us an indication of what we can expect. I want to put a few questions to that hon. member and to the hon. member for Houghton. The questions that I want to put to them are not aimed at cornering them; neither ought the question to be new to them because they deal with statements that they make every day. I want to know this from the Leader of the PRP: If he comes into power, is it his intention to carry out his policy—what he has put in writing as well as what he has not put in writing but which he propounds here continually—consistently? The hon. member can just answer yes or no. [Interjections.] The hon. member intimates therefore that he will do so. Does the hon. member agree with the hon. member for Houghton when she contends that the majority in this country will govern a unitary state of that nature?
No, not a unitary state but in fact a federal state just as Namibia will be.
That is strange. The hon. member is now in favour of a federal state but all I want to know from the hon. member is whether he foresees a unitary community in South Africa or not and, if not, when he changed his opinion.
I foresee an open community.
I want now to quote to the hon. member a small portion of what the hon. member for Houghton had to say in reply to a question on Black majority government—
[Inaudible.]
I am not quarrelling with the hon. member in that regard. I just wanted the hon. member to tell me because then we will know that she also foresees it. Will the party of the hon. member for Sea Point guarantee political freedom and movement to everyone in South Africa under the new political dispensation?
Yes.
Oh, will the hon. member do so? Will I as a Nationalist—and therefore the NP—be able to obtain a guarantee from the hon. member that I will have freedom of political movement in South Africa when the hon. member’s party is in power?
What is political movement?
Freedom of political action in South Africa. The hon. member will guarantee it and I am satisfied that he will allow the NP to do so. However, I also want to ask the hon. member whether he will also permit a Marxist party to do so?
If they act unlawfully, it may not be done. [Interjections.]
If it acts lawfully, yes.
The hon. member for Houghton has said in this House that she will permit the Communist party to operate again and that she will also allow political freedom in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member this: If she will allow me political freedom will she also allow the Marxists to have it?
Any party can put its point of view.
I accept therefore that the hon. member has said that there will be political freedom and that political freedom will also be given to the Marxists. The view of the hon. member and her party is …
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister in what country the Communist Party is barred from putting its point of view to the electorate, but it does not win seats except in … [Interjections.]
Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied with the reply. The hon. member actually regards it as being obvious that the Communist Party in South Africa, as in the rest of the world will have the opportunity to put its case. [Interjections.] I have received the reply from the hon. member for Houghton. May I now, for the sake of good order and my personal satisfaction, ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he also agrees?
Any party which tries to change the existing order by means of violence does not have a right to exist in a democratic system.
No, I am asking the hon. member whether he agrees with the hon. member for Houghton.
You must not interpret the words of the hon. member incorrectly.
That is an open community within a federation. [Interjections.]
Order!
The hon. member has said that they will permit party political freedom, that they even foresee a majority government and that the Blacks can be in the majority. The hon. member also foresees freedom for Marxists under a dispensation of that nature. [Interjections.] When one hears these admissions repeatedly it really becomes important for this House to know what direction that party is taking. When we in South Africa talk about disaster ahead of us, I can tell hon. members that it is sitting there. Before I return to the hon. member I want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has also heard what has just been said; in fact, he must have known it in advance. I want therefore to ask him whether he forsees a happy alliance with the people of that party in a new party or in an amalgamation of parties.
[Inaudible.]
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I have always been good friends and he will not accuse me of discourtesy. All that I am asking him is this obvious question of whether he foresees a happy alliance. He need just say yes or no. I do not believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will answer me.
He does not have an alliance; he is still courting on the sly.
As I know hon. members on the other side I do not think the hon. Leader’s people will want to follow him and enter into such an alliance. To tell the truth, the hon. member for Durban Point is not that class of person. [Interjections.] I do not think that he fits in with that sort of thing and I do not think that he would want to go or would go [Interjections.] I have respect for that hon. member and I do not think he ought to do that. After all, he has not grown up in that way. The same thing holds good for the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I do not blame them but I simply cannot see how they can go and sit next to those members. I cannot see how they can do so.
I shall reply to that in due course.
The hon. member for Mooi River says that he is going to reply to my speech.
I shall ask you too.
There is not one of them who is prepared to tell us in this House whether he is willing to enter into that alliance or not.
Now you are making a very fine contribution towards solving South Africa’s problems.
Yes, I am very pleased that I am making a contribution and that the hon. member admits it. Many thanks for saying so. Now I should like the hon. member please to remain quiet because I want to continue with my speech. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can understand now why six of his people are sitting there. I do not think anybody can advise him in the situation in which he now finds himself. It is in fact a lost situation.
However, what he may perhaps be able to do is to get his fellows together and tell them that they have landed in a situation which at this stage does not look too good. He must explain to them that no matter how they may read the road ahead, they will not be able to do one thing. They have to choose in the interests of South Africa and he has to indicate that he does not think that they should choose to follow that road together with a party of disaster because then they are going to run into difficulties on that road.
Why do you not tell us how you are going to solve the unemployment problem?
We are going to have a long session and I am looking forward to crossing swords with that hon. member. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said in the debate today that he has hope. However, I cannot see that hope behind him. There is nothing there. Nevertheless he is able to have hope because here in front of him is sitting all the hope—the NP. The hope lies in the people of South Africa who are expressing their confidence in this party in increasing numbers. The hope lies here, not on the other side. I want the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to listen. All the questions that have been asked today by hon. speakers on the other side are questions that fit in in one form or the other with the overall pattern of South Africa’s development. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition may be sure of a few things. In the first instance he can be sure that as long as this Government and this party are in power law and order will be maintained in South Africa. He can be sure of that.
I come now to the members of the PRP. It is very easy to mention a large number of matters here and to try to fit them into a certain context and to say that it is the fault of the Government when certain things go wrong. However, when one looks at the developments outside South Africa, the dismal situation in Europe itself and in America, and when one sees how people have lost confidence and how an unavoidable set of circumstances is rushing towards the world in other words—the freedom that is given to people by weak governments to subvert countries and their people—and when one looks at the role played by liberalists under other pretences, one realizes that the assault upon South Africa is not to be divorced from the assault upon the rest of the world. If in this context hon. members do not think that they are an instrument of disaster, I shall have to say something about it. The hon. members of the PRP are in this Parliament and will, all the more in the future, prepare the way as far as the creation of opportunities for the subversion that is planned against our country in South Africa is concerned. [Interjections.] This will take place as a result of the liberties that they wish to give people and the attitude they create.
I want to add that the hon. members travel the length and breadth of South Africa. Up to the present they have associated themselves with certain elements and they have complained if something has happened to those elements. The hon. members asked questions in this House so that South Africa should gain the impression that there was one thing they did not like and that was a policeman. The hon. members give the impression that although they do not want to undermine law and order directly they become annoyed if the Government does anything to maintain law and order. [Interjections.] In the past they adopted a standpoint in direct contrast to the maintenance of law and order. They did so by means of the manner in which they attacked the Minister, the Government and officials, and interpreted every situation as though it were a crime to want to maintain law and order in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the role that they played. That is why we can very well understand that there is one group in the world that shouts “Hosanna!” to them and has put all its money on them. All the enemies of South Africa have put their money on the PRP of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the only party that is quoted; they are the only people who are telephoned and consulted. In the days that lie ahead, however, they need not be concerned in regard to what South Africa and the Government are going to do. In the days that lie ahead they must be concerned about the role that they are going to play, and this House ought to ascertain from them what role they are going to play in the future. They ought to ask fewer questions in regard to things that have already been spelt out by this side of the House. During this session we shall have the opportunity of discussing all these matters.
I want to conclude with the contention that that party has come to be a party of disaster and if, in the days that lie ahead, they continue with what they are doing at the moment, they will certainly remain the party of disaster in South Africa.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Labour has perhaps, more than anything else, symbolized this afternoon what is happening in and to this Government. The hon. the Minister is the Minister of Labour. My hon. Leader spoke of the approximately one million unemployed in South Africa who have not been taken into account in the statistics.
No, he did not say that.
He quoted figures. He said that the number ranged from 700 000 to 1,2 million. He quoted his sources and challenged the Government to give alternative figures. The hon. the Minister of Labour knows that White, Indian and Coloured unemployment is rising weekly. He knows that if we members telephone to seek help for the people who come to us in our constituencies complaining that they cannot find work, we are given the reply: “Meneer, ons probeer om te help maar ons het net nie die poste nie.” Whilst this is happening in South Africa, whilst Black unemployment, which is the one thing that is giving the hon. the Prime Minister sleepless nights, is growing by the day, what do we get? We get the hon. the Minister of Labour standing up and practising to become a quiz-master on TV and making jokes. I have no time for the quality of TV but I can tell you that his act was even worse than the programmes I have seen—I hope the hon. the Prime Minister has noted this …
Calm down, Vause; calm down.
No, Sir, I shall not, because this is my country and I share with the hon. the Prime Minister the fear of hungry Black stomachs, of Black people by the tens and hundreds of thousands who do not have work and therefore do not have food. With the hon. the Prime Minister I share that as one of the greatest fears I have for the future of our country. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that it will be a dangerous— more than dangerous, a catastrophic day for South Africa … [Interjections.] Yet the Minister of Labour does not say a single word about labour, employment or job reservation. The latter is currently one of the burning issues, one of the things we have said can be done away with since it is not necessary, it is not wanted and it is not applied and can therefore be abolished. Yet the hon. the Minister of Labour, who has said he will not abolish it, gets up and makes joke like a third-class circus performer.
The hon. the Minister of Community Development talked of the bargain basement. I happen to know that the hon. member for Yeoville threw him into the waste-paper basket and that he got swept out with the rubbish and was picked up for nothing. He was not even picked up in a bargain basement. Now look what that, which was found in the waste-paper basket after having been thrown out of the United Party by the hon. member for Yeoville, is costing the country! It is costing them big, long motor-cars, two houses and a lot of other benefits. He is the one to talk about the United Party! That hon. Minister once said that God had never cursed a country with a worse Government than the Government of which he is now a member.
What did the hon. Minister of Defence say? Nothing! Sir, I myself have spoken with dozens of leading Nationalists, businessmen, industrialists, academics and leaders in commerce who have said to me: “Vause, moenie ‘worry’ nie; John sal alles doen wat nodig is en nog meer; wag net tot 10 September.”
*Ten September was the big day for the “big speech”. It would surprise the hon. the Prime Minister to know who the people are who said: “Wag tot 10 September.” Ten September has come and gone, the first of January has come and gone. The first day of debate of the Session has come and gone and we are still waiting for John to do everything those people have asked for, and even more.
†I simply want to bring to the attention of those people and of the tens of thousands of like-minded South Africans that they are waiting in vain for this Government to do what has to be done. This matter is far more important than the jokes and petty point-scoring we have had to listen to which has been the frightening approach of the Government to this debate. The thought that a Government at this time can act like these three Ministers have done makes me want to go and cry a little for my country. Tomorrow I wish to deal with what they did not say. I therefore move-—
Agreed to.
Mr. Speaker, I move—
Agreed to.
The House adjourned at