Gerrit Viljoen : Planning the New South Africa for Blacks--and Whites

Soon after his election last year, President Frederik W. de Klerk went looking for someone to carry out the most important task of his administration--negotiating a new constitution with the government’s black opponents.

At the time, De Klerk’s promise of a “new South Africa” was highly suspect. He needed a person capable of luring black leaders to the table and, once there, coming up with an agreement that would be accepted by the white minority as well as the black majority.

For that nearly impossible job, De Klerk chose Gerrit Viljoen, a genial, white-haired intellectual.

In some ways, the 64-year-old Viljoen (fill-HEWN) was an unusual choice to become the minister of constitutional development and the government’s chief negotiator. Although a member of former President Pieter W. Botha’s Cabinet, Viljoen was neither a veteran politician nor a constitutional expert. In fact, he had spent most of his adult life in centers of higher education--as a professor of classics at the University of Pretoria and later as president of Rand Afrikaans University in Johannesburg.

His academic record was formidable--two master’s degrees in the classics, including one from Cambridge; a law degree, and a Ph.D. For his doctoral thesis he chose a study of Pindar, a politically conservative poet in the Greek aristocracy of the 5th Century B.C.

Viljoen was a late-comer to elective politics, winning a seat in Parliament for the first time in 1981, at age 55. But he had been an intellectual force in the ruling National Party for nearly three decades and during the 1970s had served six years as chairman of the Broederbond (Brotherhood), the secret Afrikaner think tank that many consider the architect of the current reform plan.

Viljoen, who is married to a biochemist and has seven children, performs his delicate domestic diplomacy from a suite of offices, decorated in African paintings and sculpture, in suburban Pretoria. It is a couple of miles from the Union Buildings, the hilltop seat of government. But it is only a few blocks from the classrooms where, in the days when it was for whites only, he had been a professor of classics and his father before him had taught Greek.

The solemn, stocky Cabinet minister speaks earnestly of the road of reform in South Africa, sounding confident that his government will be able to persuade 27 million blacks of its sincerity.

Question: For 14 months, you and your colleagues have been trying to sell the idea of equal rights for blacks to your anxious white electorate. Has it been a tough sell?

Answer: It is a difficult job, not in the sense of getting people to accept the inevitability . . . of full black political emancipation and integration in the political process. But the biggest problem is (whites’) concern about the maintenance of law and order and of what one could call acceptable norms and standards of public life . . . .

The contrast between the largely unsophisticated (black) masses--forming part of the Third World--and the smaller group of more sophisticated minorities--especially the whites, the Asians and, to large extent, the Colored (mixed-race) people--has a disconcerting and a worrying effect.

We have to prove three things in the political process. One is the inevitability of this change. Second is the impracticability of alternatives--especially the proven failure of what we tried out ourselves, namely grand apartheid . . . . And thirdly, we must be able to prove to the people that we are able to handle this transition without sacrificing basic stability.

Q: What are the chances of success?

A: It will be very difficult to sell this solution . . . if the element within the ANC (African National Congress) that seems to have not yet accepted the road of peaceful negotiation gets the upper hand, both in terms of continued armed activities and in terms of “mass mobilization” or “nonviolent action,” which has a dangerous and destabilizing effect . . . .

But . . . my positive prognosis is largely based on the clear fact that leaders on both sides have come to realize . . . that the violent solution . . . is not workable or acceptable (and) that we must find a negotiated solution.

I think both Mr. (Nelson) Mandela and his supporters within the ANC . . . accept this necessity . . . .

Q: South Africa’s future seems to depend, to a large extent, on Mandela and the ANC. Does it worry you that the ANC has had some problems pulling itself together as a non-revolutionary political force?

A: I think it’s clear that the ANC has had difficulty putting its act together. (There are) different currents . . . of thought (in the ANC) about the methods of bringing about a new South Africa, but there’s also the difficulty of . . . putting across its message and getting its followers to accept that message.

. . . But we have an understanding of their problems and, within limits, have been trying to be reasonable.

Q: The ANC has demanded that only a constituent assembly, chosen in a national non-racial election, would have the political legitimacy to draw up a constitution that will be acceptable to all South Africans. Why does the government oppose that?

A: Our main objections to the constituent assembly is that it puts the goal posts in the place of the starting line. It assumes a one-man, one-vote simple majority election. That is one of the options that different parties would be negotiating for. We would . . . argue for a balance between universal franchise and protection of minority rights; and this would be virtually eliminated by the constituent assembly approach . . . .

Secondly, we also believe that a constituent assembly would make very rigid the positions of the different parties . . . and would therefore adversely affect the flexibility you need for a process of give and take.

. . . The call for a constituent assembly has an important element--which we acknowledge--that there must be some democratic legitimization of the process. We propose that this be done after the process by a referendum on the new constitution . . . .

Q: The government also has promised to consult whites in a separate referendum at the end of the negotiation process. Why is that necessary?

A: The president has committed himself to the white electorate that since he didn’t have a cut-and-dried constitutional proposal before them at the last election, he would consult them . . . before implementing a new constitution.

He has also accepted that any other groups of the population--and, for that matter, the population as a whole--is entitled to have a referendum . . . . I think then the (new constitution) would stand in the strongest possible position for successful implementation.

Q: Many blacks are suspicious of the government’s desire to protect minority groups in the new constitution. They say that is a thinly veiled attempt to maintain white privilege and veto power.

A: I think that is a reasonable suspicion, but it’s a wrong suspicion. It’s based on the historical heritage. Racially defined groups have been the basis on which discriminatory legislation . . . has been built in the apartheid system. So one understands this suspicion.

However, we have made it quite clear that the definition of minority groups applying for protection should be non-racial and based on the principle of freedom of association . . . .

Q: Why wouldn’t a bill of rights, if properly enforced by an independent judiciary, adequately protect whites?

A: . . . A bill of rights, as we’ve studied it so far, mainly deals with the rights and freedoms of individuals . . . . But we believe there are certain political rights--particularly rights affecting the basic democratic system, rights affecting the basic minimum requirements for an acceptable economic system and even certain basic values--that should form part of a new constitution.

. . . Our main thrust . . . is not to protect special privileges for a given minority but to protect . . . democracy, an economic system and basic values, which we believe should be written into the constitution.

. . . The concept of protecting minority rights will be enhanced and made acceptable by ensuring that the definition of minority is non-racial and . . . secondly, that the type of right to be protected should not be privileges prejudicial to others but should be basic fundamental rights of interest to all citizens . . . .

Q: Including political rights?

A: Yes. For instance, in America you have a multiparty democracy with regular elections, secret ballots and a division among the three main components of the state . . . . We believe this would be a form of protection (for minority groups).

And we would like to have some (guarantee) in the constitution that the economic system does not become completely socialist or Marxist and, on the other hand, that the social responsibility of the private sector and the state not be denied or neglected.

We would like to have a balance between a market-oriented economic system ensuring maximum growth (and) a clear commitment toward a remedy of the present inequalities and gaps and backlogs. That would be the demand of the ANC and we think that’s a reasonable demand.

Q: Can the economic inequalities of 40 years be redressed by a political system with so much built-in protection for whites?

A: The main problem is the economy and the ability of the country to bake a big enough cake to increase the slices for those who have had too-small slices. We don’t need to increase it for those who’ve had pretty good slices. We might even decrease it to some extent. But if you decrease it so far that it’s no longer worthwhile to live in South Africa, you would have either a massive resistance or, and I think this is less likely, a massive emigration.

The (white) minority in South Africa . . . is not a small 70,000 as it was in Namibia or 200,000 as in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). It is 5 1/2 million people . . . .

I think blacks also realize that they won’t be in a position, simply because of numbers, to overrun the reasonable expectations of the white people. We have to strike a note of reasonableness--improving the socioeconomic quality of life of the underprivileged but not spoiling it for those who have been privileged to such an extent that it becomes unacceptable.

Q: Are whites beginning to accept that there’ll be some reduction in their standard of living?

A: I think especially in education it is generally accepted that the imbalance in funding for the different population groups cannot be adjusted by using the present norm of funding white education. We simply cannot afford it . . . and it would be similar in providing housing and health services.

If people want to maintain their present standards, they will have to pay for it out of their pocket. The state couldn’t use its resources for maintaining that kind of special privilege . . . for whites.

Q: So that’s less money whites will have in their pockets when apartheid is gone?

A: Sure. But (white) South Africans . . . have been enjoying, compared with most countries in the world, a very high standard of living . . . . I think we could well survive with downward adjustments . . . .

Q: So far the Pan-Africanist Congress and Azanian People’s Organization, on the left, and the Conservative Party, on the right, have declined to join the negotiation process. Can a new constitution be written without the extremes of right and left represented at the table?

A: It can. But I would prefer to have them involved. This train cannot wait indefinitely to start its journey. But if we pull out of the station, we must make sure there are some . . . relief units to bring up the guys who might change their mind and would like to get on later.

We start with such a big gap of misunderstanding and mistrust between the main actors. And it’s only in the process of preliminary talks and getting to understand each other’s viewpoints that a mutual trust and mutual respect is built up.

Q: What is the next step?

A: The two important ones . . . are to get some clarity about the basic principles on which the constitution should be structured and to get agreement on how the negotiating forum should be put together.

Q: Will there be an interim government during the negotiation process?

A: It is argued by the ANC that while the negotiating process is going on, the day-to-day government will have an influence on the overall climate, and therefore if the government is in control, it would be unfair. We say we are a sovereign state, (with) a legal, legitimate government at this stage.

But we accept that those outside the system who reject this system--even to the point of not wanting to (negotiate)--should have channels of communication by which they can put forward their views on executive or legislative decisions . . . .

Q: When do you anticipate the beginning of formal negotiations?

A: I hope we could start with the real thing next year.

Q: How serious is the threat from the right to that negotiating process?

A: I don’t think there is a serious threat of a military coup or something like that. But there are a large number . . . of small, militant right-wing organizations, often consisting of only a score or so members. These people are often emotional, unpredictable individuals who could, under the influence of the kind of rhetoric that one hears from extreme right-wing leaders, commit highly irresponsible acts that could be a spark in the haystack.

Q: Will the dismantling of apartheid frighten whites from the negotiating table?

A: Our conscious policy was that the dismantling of apartheid . . . must be done as quickly as possible so that people can almost become accustomed to the fact that these laws have been repealed without the heavens falling down upon us.

And that’s why we’ve tried to do as many of these things that are unpopular and unpleasant, but which the thinking voter realizes are inevitable, to do as much of that at an early stage so people can adjust.

Q: In world history, few governments have negotiated themselves out of power. Will there be a role for the National Party--which has been in power for 42 years--in the new South Africa?

A: I think we have a double role. One is to represent the interests of the (white) minority, to which our present members belong . . . . But we could go beyond that, forming coalitions with other political parties, building up a strong movement or front or ultimately even a party that need not be second or third best but could get majority support from the population as a whole.

NEXT WEEK: Nelson Mandela.