Africa : S. Africa White Liberals in Identity Crisis : Their anti-apartheid principles are being taken over by De Klerk’s ruling party. They are divided over what their role should be.

The leather-bound records of Parliament give testament to the unimpeachable liberal credentials of Harry Schwarz: He has fought the government for years, fiercely bucking the apartheid system and the ruling National Party’s political machine.

So it should have come as quite a surprise when the government asked Schwarz, 66, to be its ambassador to the United States, the point man in Washington, and did not even insist that he change political parties.

But the appointment really was no surprise at all. It was only the latest sign that the tradition of white liberal opposition in South Africa, long personified by the internationally admired Helen Suzman, is fading away.

The anti-apartheid Democratic Party, whose ancestors have battled National Party policies for three decades, is in disarray because so many of the things it demanded over the years are happening. Its principles are steadily being expropriated by President Frederik W. de Klerk’s new-look National Party.

“The Democratic Party was such a good, hard-working little crowd of people. Now I don’t know what it is, I really don’t,” says Suzman, 73, who retired from Parliament last year after her Progressive Federal Party was renamed the Democratic Party.

“The Nationalists took over everything we have believed in all these years,” she added.

The Democrats campaigned in 1989 on a platform of legalizing the African National Congress (ANC), freeing political prisoners, dumping apartheid laws and giving blacks the vote. Now that is the policy of the National Party.

“For 30 years, it’s been so simple--we’ve been opposed to apartheid,” said Peter Soal, a Democratic Party member of Parliament from Johannesburg. “But our role is not so clear now.”

Liberal whites have always held a small but vocal role in Parliament. The Democrats increased their representation in the 166-seat Parliament from 17 in 1987 to 33 in 1989, boosted by whites who doubted that De Klerk was serious about reform. But few doubt De Klerk’s sincerity now, and Democratic Party strategists admit they’d probably win no more than 12 to 15 seats if an election were held today.

The party reached a low point a few weeks ago when Wynand Malan, until recently a co-leader of the party, resigned from Parliament.

Worried that another tough battle would split the reform vote and give the right-wing Conservative Party a boost, the Democrats simply didn’t field a candidate. The National Party coasted to victory while white liberals urged their supporters to “Vote Nat.”

Now, the Democratic Party is split among those who want to get closer to the government, those who want to get closer to Nelson Mandela’s ANC and the majority who believe the party has a role as a watchdog and mediator.

The party, for example, says it will support De Klerk next year if he fulfills his promise to scrap the Group Areas Act, which mandates racially segregated neighborhoods, and the Land Acts, which have prevented black ownership of land. But it will continue to pressure the government to remove another pillar of apartheid, the Population Registration Act, which classifies every South African by race.

Soal and other Democrats believe there is still a role for “liberal values,” which in South Africa includes pro-business sentiment. They support a system with free and fair elections and guaranteed human rights. But they also believe in a system with an absolute minimum of government interference.

That is now the new line being adopted by the government.

Schwarz doesn’t see any need to switch to the National Party when he moves to Washington.

“I have not in any way changed my politics,” Schwarz said in an interview. “They’ve changed theirs.”