[ Home ] [ Speeches & statements ]

The CHAIRPERSON: A hearty word of welcome to you all to this annual briefing by Deputy President de Klerk. As is customary, the Deputy President will open the discussions with a brief overview, whereafter there will be time for questions.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DE KLERK: Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. This I believe brings this week of briefing to an end and I have been asked to act also as the closing speaker. Having read Tim Cohen in Business Day this morning, I will try not to keep you too long because he says that you would all like to get the beach as soon as possible.

We appreciate, as a Government, and I also as the Leader of my party, your attendance throughout the week and we sincerely hope that this annual effort is really of use to you. I would suggest that, should you have any comments as to the structure and the methods which we apply in presenting this week, that you give that through to the correct authorities who are organising all this, in order to enable the Government to bring about some improvements to the system.

During the past week one of the main themes in the debate around the important speech made by President Mandela, centred on the question of nation building, new patriotism, bringing South Africans together behind common goals. It is not a new theme, but it is a very important theme. It was a theme which was already evident when it was my privilege to open Parliament in 1991. I then said, in South Africa the task of nation building is formidable because of the diversity of our population. We lack the natural cohesion of a single culture or language that frequently forms the corner stone of nations. Consequently we shall have to rely heavily on the other cornerstone, that of common values and ideals.
I then identified four main principles around which common goals and values could evolve.
(a) Peace - all South Africans want to be assured that they and their families and property will be save.

(b) Prosperity - all South Africans want to share in a sound and growing economy that will generate employment opportunities and better living conditions for everybody and allow everybody to reap the fruits of their labour.

(c) Progress - there is a brought consensus on the need for effective educational, health and welfare services as well as adequate housing and recreational facilities.

(d) Participation - all South Africans want meaningful participation in democratic institutions; wish to feel that they are part of decision making and that no one is dominated or suppressed, or oppressed.

It is indeed remarkable how much progress we have made in building consensus in respect of these issues in only five years. The Government of National Unity has adopted and consistently implemented responsible economic policies in accordance with principles applied by successful economies and countries throughout the world. South Africa has begun to reap the benefits of these policies. Inflation is below 10%, it is not impressive - in European and American terms, but for a country which has been in double digits for decades, it is a remarkable improvement. We are holding the line on the budget deficit. We expect a growth rate of almost 4% this year. We have had a relatively good inflow of foreign capital since the 11th of May 1994.

Also constitutionally our system is performing reasonably well. The Government of National Unity and the governments of provincial unity are working reasonably well. Good and pragmatic working relationships have been established. Within Cabinet debate usually takes place along non-party lines and there is a genuine commitment to achieving consensus. In this manner we have succeeded in reaching basic accommodation on a number of potentially divisive issues, including legislation on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, important aspects in respect of land reform, education, labour matters and alike. On none of these subjects did the National Party succeed in achieving all its goals, but there is no doubt that the final product in each case was far better than the original proposal.

We are also making progress in thrashing out our new Constitution. We have reached substantial agreement on many of the main provisions, although there are still a number of matters that need to be resolved before the deadline on the 9th of May. These include certain aspects of the proposed charter of fundamental rights, including provisions relating to the ownership of property and some facets relating to the freedom of speech.

Furthermore, it includes the powers and functions of provinces, and mechanisms to ensure the continuation of some form of power sharing or inclusivity at executive level. South Africa has also succeeded during this period in fully rejoining the international community. From having been one of the least popular countries in the world ten years ago, we have now become one of the world's most popular states and we will be doing everything in our power to retain our position on the international agenda as a country which needs attention, support and with which the countries of the world would like to interact and expand their investments and their trade with us.

Within SADEC we have begun to lay the foundations, together with our neighbours, for sound and realistic regional co-operation. Obviously we have our differences with the ANC as the majority party in the Government of National Unity. Some of these differences are fundamental, others relate to the way in which common goals could best be achieved. All of us are concerned about the following outstanding problems and challenges:

(a) KwaZulu Natal - continued political conflict there.

(b) Crime - the unacceptable high levels of crime.

(c) Unemployment - which is our single biggest economic problem and challenge.

(d) Poverty and ineffective RDP delivery - we must upgrade our capacity and we must make better progress in our fight against poverty.

We are concerned about how the effort to deal with the past in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will really develop. There is great concern about minority rights and the protection of cultural and other minorities, and there is concern about, not the necessity of, but the implications of affirmative action and how it is managed.

About these matters we have different ideas on how we can reach the best solutions. I shall continue to do everything within my power inside and outside the Government of National Unity to promote workable solutions to these and the other problems that we face. In general, you can expect the National Party to place strong emphasis on a number of approaches towards these problems.

Firstly, you will find emphasis from us on the implementation of free market-related policies of the kind that have succeeded so well in creating and distributing wealth in so many other parts of the world. We will emphasise the necessity of combating poverty by means of cost effective and caring policies that will lead to empowerment and not to entitlement. We will put emphasis on the rights, concerns and security of cultural minorities as the preconditions for inter communal harmony and as the essential building blocks of the new South African nation. We will demand and act as watchdogs with regard to scrupulous adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law.

We will emphasise the necessity for the avoidance of the concentration of too much power in the hands of Central Government through the effective division of power between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary and also through the meaningful devolution of power to strong and autonomous provinces and local authorities. We will also emphasise the necessity for the dispersion of power throughout the institutions of civil society and the right of such institutions to do their own thing in their own way.

All this have nothing to do with the preservation of minority privilege, it has everything to do with a plan, with a recipe which can ensure the peace, the prosperity, the progress and the participation that I referred to in the beginning of my remarks.

In conclusion, I believe that one of the most basic challenges currently facing South Africa is as a next most important phase of our transition to ensure that we establish firmly a functioning multi-party democracy in the real sense of the word. At the moment there is a very real danger of too much power being concentrated in the hands of a single, self perpetuating and mainly ethnically based majority party. South African cannot afford such a political pattern to become permanent. We need a dynamic and vibrant political system in which the voters are presented with credible alternatives, where they can vote according to their values, rather than according to their ethnic affiliation.

A great responsibility accordingly rests on the present opposition parties to strengthen themselves, to improve their performance, to improve their co-operation and to make themselves more attractive to voters from all communities. In particular, they must work together on matters of common concern; they must identify and propagate a system of common values that will appeal to the great majority of all South Africans and they must broaden their support base, particularly in the majority Black community.

It was precisely such an initiative that I announced on the 2nd of February 1996 for my party. An initiative aimed at bringing together South Africans in vast numbers, irrespective of race, colour or breed in a dynamic, moderate, value based and non racial political movement, which supersedes old and stereotyped divisions. I believe it is achievable and I believe we need a grand debate about this issue. We are not talking just about present opposition parties enter into alliances, that will not broaden the support base, it might even narrow the support base of the component parties to such an alliance. I am not talking about making being anti-ANC the cohesive power of any political movement. The emphasis is on propounding values which I believe many people spread out across many parties share with each other.

To really steer our politics towards the typical mainstream pattern that you find in successful multi-party democracies, where what you believe, determines the cohesion of a party and where for the voter, what he or she believes in, determines the choice of the party that you support.

It is a tremendous challenge, because in many parts of the world, ethnicity continue to dominate the democratic process. I believe that in South Africa, with our particular history and with the state of development in our country, it is possible to break that pattern. I and my party will dedicate ourselves and our energy in the weeks and months and years to come to make that breakthrough.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

QUESTION BEING ASKED: Radio 702. In strengthening multi-party democracy, is one of the options you are considering withdrawing from the Government of National Unity before the full period is up by 1999?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DE KLERK: I have said on many an occasion that it was our policy that there should be a government of national unity for an extended period. The ANC was against it, it was one of the big concessions which they made in the negotiation process. It remains our policy and as long as we can do so with honour, as long as the commitment remains which I have testified to really find consensus, and as long as we believe that we serve the best interests of South Africa, not of our party, but of all South Africans, we will complete our contract in that regard. We believe that in some form or another that which is good in the Government of National Unity must also become part of the new Constitution and future constitutional processes.

When we said, take that particular paragraph out of the draft constitution, we did not relinquish the concept or the philosophy of a form of power sharing, but what we did say, and I have been saying it for quite a long time now, somehow or another it was not regarded as newsworthy when I said it publicly, that we in the National Party are not married to the Government of National Unity as it is. It is a very rigid structure as it now is, which, to some extent in its present composition and structure, inhibits good opposition, inhibits to a certain extent a vibrant multi-party democracy.

It is for these reasons that we say, let's forget about taking exactly the system which we now have into the future and we will be putting alternatives on the table in bilateral discussions and in multi-lateral negotiations. We are working very hard at developing them. I would like to stay away from giving details, we cannot negotiate on these issues through the media.

QUESTION BEING ASKED: Sunday Independent. Are you not a little disappointed with the reaction with you minority party allies with regard to your idea of political movement? The response from them this week has been a little lukewarm, to put it mildly?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DE KLERK: I did not expect them to jump in the air or to applaud me very loudly. I thank that in between what you describe as a somewhat lukewarm reaction, if you read between the lines, there was in most of the cases, not rejection. There was in some cases careful support for the idea. Obviously there were qualifications because parties would not like to see the National Party sort of taking a lead in this, which might be interpreted as a dominant role.

Let me emphasise, we do not want to play a dominant role. We way in our vision we want to play a leading role. But we do not want to be the sole leaders of this. If had preliminary discussions before I made the announcement with a number of leaders of other opposition parties so that they would not read of it for the first time in the Press. We will be pursuing bilateral discussions in the weeks and months to come.

QUESTION BEING ASKED: Could you elaborate a bit on your meaningful devolution of power to provinces. What is the bottom line for the National Party? Do you think your bottom line would be enough to get the IFP to come back to the Constitutional Assembly?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DE KLERK: I sincerely believe that it is possible to work out a balance division of authority, functions and powers between the Central Government and the provinces. I think that we have gone a long way already in the present dispensation. I believe that if some of the grey areas in the present wording of the relevant clauses of the Constitution could be removed and greater clarity be given as to the real autonomy of the provinces, and if the grey areas, especially when it comes to overrides, can be reduced, and it is possible to do so, that yes, the IFP will come aboard on a system which essentially is a Federal system but which might not be exactly what they want.

Negotiation is about give and take. What we must ensure is that the meaningful powers that the provinces should have, and already the list of functions accorded to them now are meaningful. It is in step with typically what you find in successful federations such as Germany, America and Australia. It is not out of line. The autonomy of the provinces with regard to those issues should be strengthened. The inroads and the prescription which can come from Central Government must be very clearly defined, so that that autonomy will be able to really stand on its own and so that we do not have a charade where we are really only dealing with decentralisation of functions under control of big brother, but with real devolution of functions which become the inherent autonomous functions of the provinces.

QUESTION BEING ASKED: But this is precisely the point. This is what the ANC does not want, that the in-roads that the Central Government can now make, will be closed up in future?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DE KLERK: That is exactly what the negotiations is about. That is why I listed this as one of the outstanding items. I am not saying that we have reached consensus as yet, I am just saying for us it is a priority. There is a broad consensus amongst opposition parties on this specific priority, whereas on for instance, the issue of a formal power sharing in the executive, not all the opposition parties are of the same mind. In respect of the issue of autonomy of provinces and meaningful powers, there is a broad consensus which, unless there is accommodation, through give and take, can lead on this fundamental issue, to a deadlock.

The same applies to some of the aspects under debate in respect of the Bill of Rights. What is not important is that all parties, the ANC, the National Party, the IFP which must come in, the DP and others, should now really go out of their way to find compromises which can prevent deadlock mechanisms being brought into the picture. What we need in this country is not a Constitution which has the support of 60% of the population, with 40% being fundamentally dissatisfied with it. That Constitution will then not really become the hope and the basis of stability of all South Africans. We need a Constitution which has the overwhelming support of the overwhelming percentage of our nation. That we must negotiate. It cannot be forced through.

QUESTION BEING ASKED: Sam Venter, Associated Press Television. On another note, Mr de Klerk, the news today that this baby Michaela Hunter that was kidnapped two years ago from a maternity home has been found. If you could react to that? And also put in context for our viewers all over the world the problem of babies and children being kidnapped in this country and never been seen again, which has been going on for more than a decade, and no one seems to know what to do about it?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DE KLERK: One rejoices with the family. It is wonderful news. Being a father and a grandfather myself, one can imagine how terrible it must be for the parents to have your small baby almost at birth abducted as has happened in this case as well. We cried with them when they lost their baby and we rejoice with them that they have the baby back.

There is a specific focus also in South Africa at the moment on crimes against children and against the youth. It is absolutely necessary, I think that preventative measures should be upgraded. We need in hospitals to make sure that there is never a crisis and a mix-up around identity of babies. We should make sure that, whereas this is becoming a social problem with a fairly high profile, that preventative measures are taken to prevent this type of abduction.

QUESTION BEING ASKED: Sunday Times. The departure of Leon Wessels and the Deputy Minister this week, Tobie Meyer, what kind of impact do you think that will have on your efforts to shift the party into a slightly different perspective, given that they both come from the section of the party that would probably have led that process?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DE KLERK: Their departure have nothing to do with the new vision. It has been made abundantly clear by them, over and over again, that they are very enthusiastic about the new vision. I have issued a statement yesterday of which I will let you have a copy, once again dealing with this aspect.

So let me just deal here with the second part of your question, namely, what impact will it have. Well, obviously it is a loss to the National Party that we will loose the direct continued inputs of these two valued members of our party. But they will be replaced by people who have been democratically elected within the National Party, who also are competent. We will continue to have their support from wherever they might find themselves after retirement. Yes, it is a loss. It is always a pity to loose a good man. But the show goes on. I do not think it will have any negative impact whatsoever. Their retirement does not have a political or philosophical basis. It is based on personal preferences with regard to career and family life.

QUESTION BEING ASKED: Reuters. Archbishop Tutu told us here on Wednesday that he was going to create a possibility for parties or organisations to speak to the full Truth and Reconciliation Commission rather than one of its panels about the framework in which things happen. Do you think you would utilise that, and if so, to what end?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DE KLERK: I am glad to hear that he has already gone that far. My colleague, Deputy President Mbeki and I went to see Archbishop Tutu and his Vice Chairman. We suggested more or less exactly that. We suggested that a starting point for the Commission should be to ask of the major role players of a conflict of the past, to make submissions, to put their case; to put before the Commission a perspective as to what happened; why did it happen; what motivated the policies which were followed; what were the policy frameworks which were applied during those years of conflict. On that basis, the lines can be drawn and it would then, to my mind, enable the Commission to then really decide how to steer their further and more detailed investigations.

If they were to follow a legalistic route, and if the investigation were to develop like, for instance, the investigations of Judge Goldstone, then they will start dealing with individuals coming to the fore and say, I have these documents; I have that; and they will try to unravel a picture by picking at a loose thread. I think they must start with the holistic views of the various role players and from that, move on to the detailed investigations which they then decide to do within the framework of the timed constraints that they have.

I have been working, not just I as an individual, but in my capacity as former Head of State and Government in conjunction also with the senior advisors of that time. We are working on a fairly detailed submission. A draft which is fairly near completion, is on my table at the moment.

No, it is not available yet. When I delete the word 'draft', it will become available.

QUESTION BEING ASKED: Can you support the demand of the Freedom Front about self-determination and maintaining Afrikaans culture and language in special areas like certain schools, for instance?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DE KLERK: It has always been our policy that mother tongue education, on educational principles, makes absolute sense. An English-speaking child can best learn mathematics in English, rather than to be burdened to have a language backlog while dealing with a difficult subject. The same applies to all our 11 languages, therefore also to Afrikaans. Education also in your mother tongue, apart from the educational advantage of that, because language with it, culture. Language carries with it the outlook on life; carries with it history; carries with it emotion. Our Constitution says that that is what South Africans are entitled to. It is not a question of what we say. It is the Constitution of this country that that is an inherent right for those who want it, where ever it is practical. I do not support the concept of a Volkstaat, I do not think it can work. I think it is an effort to go back to a policy which has already dismally failed, namely to divide South Africa into nation states somehow or another.

But we have put, as a party, specific proposals on the table with regard to how we can create a feeling of security, how can we create room for our various cultural groupings. This has nothing to do with colour. Afrikaans speakers are not just Afrikaners. The Brown South Africans, the majority of them are Afrikaans speakers, they are part of the same language. Likewise, Zulu speakers you will in many political divisions. But Zulu is important to all Zulus.

So we say we need in our culturally diverse country, we need some mechanism, something like cultural councils formed on a voluntary basis by those who would like to do so. We should give some functions and teeth to those cultural councils so that they can act as guardians; so that they can have inputs with regard to education in culturally-based and language-based schools; so that they can promote the cultural and language and ethos of a particular cultural group which, in many instances, can be defined as nations.

So we support the 34th principle. But only we support it; the ANC supports it too. Because the 34th principle in our Constitution is an agreed upon principle. That principle says there will and must be room for cultural self-determination. Once again, there is a false debate going on that as if demands are made for rights which have not been granted as yet. Fact is, the new Constitution when it is certified by the Constitutional Court, will have to provide for cultural self-determination, otherwise it will be deficient and the Constitutional Court will say, sorry, it does not comply with the principles.

QUESTION BEING ASKED: But if I only can expand. There are for instance university teachings, technical, in Afrikaans. Could you imagine a Zulu, Xhosa technical university?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DE KLERK: If there is a demand for that and where it is practicable and affordable, yes, there is a university which the main language is English but much Zulu is spoken there. That is the University of Zululand. In some of our universities, many of our indigenous 11 languages have a fairly high profile. Historically, Afrikaans universities were born. Some of them are a century old. I believe that those universities and technicons should extend their services and should render services also in other languages if there is a demand.

But their inherent right to say, but fundamentally we remain an Afrikaans or English or whatever university, is safeguarded in the Constitution. Their autonomy to take that decision is safeguarded in the Constitution, and their academic freedom to teach what they want to at such universities, is safeguarded in the Constitution. All that we say is, do not undermine the Constitution, abide by it.

QUESTION BEING ASKED: Natal Mercury. Dwelling on Constitutional matters, it looks as if Inkatha is making the matter of international mediation a non-negotiable principle that they will not go back into the process and will not accept the Constitution if it is passed without them. It looks as if we are heading for a crisis similar to four years ago. Are the signatories to the agreement taking this seriously, or do they think that Inkatha does not have the clout that they had four years ago?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DE KLERK: I would refer you to address that question to each of the signatories. In the two capacities that I signed as the then Head of the Government and the Leader of the National Party, yes, and constantly in all private and public discussions about this issue, I have made it clear that the National Party is partied to an agreement. We are prepared to honour that agreement and that as far as we are concerned, there is only on prerequisite, and that is because the agreement is vague and not very clear on the exact terms of reference, we need as a first step to negotiate the exact terms of reference with regard to mediation.

If, through negotiation, another solution is found, because agreement is reached about the very type of thing that mediation was envisaged for, then the need for mediation might fall away. There is a another way, namely to, without mediation, reach agreement on the very issues which, in terms of the agreement broadly, should be the basis for mediation. Then the need will fall away. I regard myself as bound to that agreement and I have always been willing and able to implement that agreement.

What I think is required now is political initiative and very specifically, political initiative by the leadership, and I am not referring to individuals - by the leadership of the two parties whose supporters are killing each other every day. 25% of all South Africans live in the province of KwaZulu Natal. There is no way in which it can just be regarded as a provincial problem. It makes a tremendous negative contribution towards the whole crime situation in South Africa. It ties up the hands, time and energy of thousands of people if that political violence intention can be removed. We will be much more effective in our fight against general and ordinary criminality and crime in South Africa.

So for many reasons I think it has become a matter of extreme urgency that initiatives, one way or the other, whether it is focused on getting mediation off the ground or whether it is focused on reaching agreement which will make mediation unnecessary, that such initiatives be taken now. We are trying to play a constant constructive role in this regard.

The CHAIRPERSON: One last question then?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DE KLERK: Fine, thank you very much. Enjoy the beach.

<EOD>
??