Next Step : South Africa’s Constitutional Cry: Be Original : The country is shopping for a model of democracy as it prepares to give blacks a political voice. No matter what form the document takes, it will be unique.

Ensconced in a tiny cubicle of a South African think tank, Barry de Villiers draws inspiration these days from the travails of America’s Founding Fathers and the muggy summer of 1787.

“There were a number of times when it looked as if things would fall apart,” the South African constitutional expert said recently, nodding toward an anecdotal book about the Philadelphia convention that he keeps on his desk.

“At one point, one of the leaders--an old, grayish gentleman--said: ‘Either this convention is going to break down or we will have to pray to see if we can keep it together,’ ” De Villiers noted.

The delegates prayed and eventually emerged with what is today the world’s oldest written constitution.

Like the American colonies in 1787, South Africa in 1990 is preparing to write a new constitution. That document will, for the first time in the country’s history, give blacks a vote in national government and formally bind this ethnically and politically diverse population under one democratic banner.

Whatever South Africa’s constitution looks like in the end, it will be one of a kind, the experts say.

“We can study other countries, but after that we have to develop something new,” said De Villiers, who heads the 6-month-old Center for Constitutional Analysis at the Human Sciences Research Council in Pretoria. “That’s the most important lesson from the American experiment: Be original.”

The government predicts that full-blown constitutional negotiations could begin early next year, and an urgent hunt for governmental models has begun in board rooms, drawing rooms, think tanks, college classrooms, law offices and political party meetings across the country.

Hundreds of reports, pamphlets and books on possible constitutions have been produced. Dozens of constitutions, from Belgium’s and Switzerland’s to Fiji’s and Canada’s, are jammed onto computer disks for analysis. And some academics even are studying the chaotic behind-the-scenes process by which the United States and other countries drew up and ratified their constitutions.

The primary goal of this cottage industry is to find a system that will extend full voting rights to 27 million blacks, correct the economic imbalances created by 42 years of apartheid and also safeguard the civil rights of 5 million whites.

President Frederik W. de Klerk has promised the white electorate a separate referendum on any new constitution. But it also must be acceptable to blacks, who will make up the largest voting bloc when it comes up for nationwide ratification.

“This is going to be a bumpy road, definitely. It would be naive to expect otherwise,” said Margie Keeton, a member of the “Scenario Planning Team” at the giant business conglomerate, Anglo-American Corp.

Up to now, the government has been trying to persuade black and white opposition groups simply to accept its invitation to negotiate.

Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress, which most analysts believe has the widest support among blacks, has tentatively agreed to participate, as have other black leaders, including Inkatha Freedom Party chief Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi.

Two left-wing black groups, the Pan-Africanist Congress and the Azanian People’s Organization, and the right-wing white Conservative Party continue to hold out, and De Klerk said he will go ahead without them, if necessary.

But before even the preamble can be written, South Africa’s competing political forces must agree on a negotiating forum.

The ANC wants a multiracial election to select an assembly to write the constitution. It also wants an interim government installed to watch over the country. The government has flatly refused both ANC demands but says it would be willing to grant black leaders a direct role in government during the negotiations.

Most analysts believe those differences can be overcome, though, and that constitutional negotiations are imminent.

In the meantime, South Africa is bulging with suggested political alternatives that would do everything from breaking the country into pieces to creating a socialist state:

* The Conservative Party favors the status quo--keeping South Africa and its major cities under white control and allowing blacks to govern only in the nominally independent “homelands.”

* The Oranje-Werkers Unie (Orange Workers Union) wants to carve a large, irregularly shaped chunk out of the fertile and mineral-rich center of the country where whites already outnumber blacks, leaving the rest of South Africa to black majority rule.

* Seventy-five families who support Carel Boshoff’s Afrikaner Volkswag (People’s Guardian), a cultural movement, have already moved into what he envisions as a white homeland on rugged territory in the northern Cape Province.

* The Boer State Party wants to turn the clock back and reinstitute the boundaries of the white Boer republics that existed in the late 1800s, leaving a white nation covering about half the existing country and incorporating Johannesburg, Pretoria and the 2.5-million population township of Soweto.

* The Pan-Africanist Congress and the Azanian People’s Organization reject power-sharing in favor of a socialist government, installed by a one-person, one-vote election, that would lift up the oppressed black masses and redistribute land from whites to blacks.

In between those extremes, however, are the ideas being considered by the most important players in the negotiating forum--the ruling National Party of President De Klerk, the multiracial ANC and the Zulu-based Inkatha party.

None of those parties has offered a constitutional blueprint, but each says it wants a unified South African state with multiple political parties, an independent judiciary and a bill of rights. Despite broad areas of agreement, though, the gulf between their visions of the future remains large.

The thinking of the National Party is evident in a detailed constitutional proposal drawn up recently by the Broederbond (Brotherhood), a secret Afrikaner think tank whose members include De Klerk and key members of his Cabinet. It offers an elaborate plan to give blacks full political participation while also protecting whites and other minorities.

Under that proposal, the country would be divided into 10 regions and governed by a two-chamber Parliament.

The 300-seat House of Representatives would be elected by all voters--black and white--on a common roll, with seats divided proportionally according to the number of votes collected by each political party. Decisions would require a simple majority.

The Senate would give 100 seats to senators chosen in regional elections and 10 seats each to officially registered “groups” that share a common language, culture or religion. Senate decisions would require a two-thirds majority.

Deadlocks between the two houses would be broken by an Advisory Council, nominated by the Senate, and a quarter-plus-one members of that council could veto any matter in dispute.

The Broederbond proposal includes a bill of rights, a ceremonial head of state and a Cabinet made up of representatives from the House, each region and each registered “group.” The Cabinet would initiate legislation and make decisions by consensus.

For a government that until last year was trying to force blacks into ethnic homelands and take away their citizenship, the Broederbond proposal represents a radical change in thinking.

But it doesn’t go nearly far enough for the ANC. ANC leaders argue that the Broederbond model would, in effect, maintain white veto power over important legislation, such as attempts to redistribute the country’s wealth and redress inequities in education and land ownership.

“It’s totally unworkable,” said Albie Sachs, a white lawyer on the ANC’s 20-member constitutional committee. “The government still has a long way to go to reach an acceptable democratic position. They don’t want power-sharing; they want power division. It’s hard for them to let go.”

The ANC has not yet offered a constitutional model of its own, but its leaders favor a multi-party democracy with strong central control and a bill of rights, a rarity in Africa. The ANC contends that whites and other cultural, religious and language groups would be adequately protected by the bill of rights, enforced by an independent judiciary.

Buthelezi’s Inkatha, like its bitter rival the ANC, supports a black majority-rule government. But Inkatha says it’s prepared to compromise to make sure that minorities, which could include its own supporters, are not dominated by an ANC-controlled government.

While the differences between the ANC and the government remain large, both sides--along with business leaders and academics watching from the sidelines--are quietly and urgently exploring ways of bridging the gap.

“The first step is to try to open people’s minds and get them out of their straitjackets,” said De Villiers, of the Center for Constitutional Analysis. “And since February (when the ANC was legalized), all the parties have been searching for clues. Not one has a rigid idea.”

Several organizations, including the President’s Council advisory group in Parliament and the independent Law Commission, have been drawing up proposals for a new constitution and a bill of rights.

De Villiers’ center, funded by Parliament, opened in May to dissect and computerize more than 30 of the world’s constitutions and help all sides in the South African debate search for ways around the most contentious issues dividing them. Its 34 researchers, in colleges and law offices, are categorizing constitutions to compare bills of rights, systems of checks and balances and minority protection clauses, among other things.

“For the moment, it’s almost impossible to discuss group rights in South Africa, even though the principle has been used in many constitutions around the world,” De Villiers said. “There’s a very deeply ingrained suspicion (among blacks) about ‘group protection.’ ”

The suspicion among whites, on the other hand, is that their civil rights will be trampled. That’s why many are seeking some form of veto power in the new constitution. De Klerk must carefully consider their fears or risk losing more white support for any new constitution.

However, “At the end of the day, if the government wants to entrench white privilege, it won’t be able to get a new constitution,” De Villiers warns.

There is plenty of room for maneuvering, though, analysts say.

The ANC and others have been looking closely at the Swedish constitution, which gives cultural groups the right to go to court to test legislation that would infringe on their rights. South Africa could take the Swedish model a step further by allowing cultural groups, which would most likely be racially homogenous, to review and make recommendations on laws before they are passed.

Another suggestion has been a system of cantons, similar to those of Switzerland, that would create several hundred largely autonomous districts with a weak central government.

So far, both the ANC and the government agree that they can only resolve their constitutional differences by talking.

“We start with such a big gap of distrust between the main actors,” said Gerrit Viljoen, the government minister of constitutional development. “It’s only in the process of preliminary talks and negotiations that we can overcome that.”

Sachs, of the ANC, says he wants a constitution under which “all South Africans feel comfortable. We want to reduce conflict, and the crucial thing is for people to start talking to each other.”

A Proposed Bill of Rights The Broederbond (Brotherhood), the secret Afrikaner society that has heavily influenced the South African government’s reform program, proposes to guarantee the following rights: 1. Life (although death penalty may be imposed in case of murder and high treason).

2. Human dignity and equality before the law.

3. A good name and reputation.

4. Spiritual and physical integrity.

5. Freedom from slavery.

6. Privacy.

7. Freedom of speech.

8. To freely carry out scientific research and to practice art if it doesn’t infringe on accepted social norms.

9. Freedom of choice in education and training.

10. Integrity of the family, freedom of marriage.

11. To move freely within South Africa

12. Guarantees against arbitrary refusal of a passport, exile, and prevention of emigration.

13. To engage freely in economic intercourse.

14. Private property.

15. To associate freely.

16. To freely form political parties.

17. To assemble peacefully, to hold demonstrations and present petitions.

18. Universal suffrage for those over the age of 18.

19. Free use of native language and free practice of culture and religion for all.

20. The use of one’s mother tongue in courts of law.

21. Personal freedom and safety.

22. A maximum period of detention without charge of 48 hours.

23. A fair and public trial, to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty and to appeal a court’s decision.

24. Guarantees against torture, assault, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

25. To seek a court ruling in civil disputes.

26. Due process in administrative proceedings.

The courts would be empowered to interpret the Bill of Rights, and they could only be amended or suspended by a three-quarters majority of all members of each house of Parliament or by a majority of all registered voters in a referendum.