PERSPECTIVE ON SOUTH AFRICA : The Battle Is Not Yet Over : Until key exceptions are corrected in De Klerk’s reforms, it is too soon to celebrate the end of apartheid.

President F. W. de Klerk’s address to open this year’s session of the South African Parliament has moved the struggle against apartheid into a new phase.

For many people outside South Africa, the most startling and obnoxious manifestation of apartheid has been the formal entrenchment of racial segregation in the country’s laws: features such as separate living areas and schools reserved for children of one race only.

With one major exception, De Klerk’s speech on Feb. 1 has brought within sight the end of legally enforced racism in major areas of social and public life. The exception is in the area of education: The overwhelming majority of schools will remain segregated by law and De Klerk still refuses to place all schooling in South Africa under one, integrated education ministry.

Despite that exception, I have commended De Klerk for his reforms. However, at its core, apartheid is not simply the segregation of facilities and suburbs. It is the denial of political power to people on the basis of their race. This will be ended only when black South Africans have the vote, and this central thrust of our struggle against apartheid continues.

Much of the international community fails to realize the importance of this distinction when assessing how far the South African government has gone toward abolishing apartheid. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the response of Western governments to De Klerk’s proposed changes to the Population Registration Act.

This act is the law that requires every South African to be classified by race. It is a vicious law that has involved the authorities in deciding what race people are on the basis of the shapes of their noses or on the curliness of their hair. It has split families and led to suicides. It is one of the pillars of apartheid and its repeal is a fundamental requirement for the lifting of sanctions, including those imposed by the United States.

Until Feb. 1, the South African government’s position was that the law could not go until a new constitution had been negotiated. It said the current constitution was racially based, the law classified everyone according to race, and summary repeal would render the present constitution and government inoperable. Opening Parliament, De Klerk unexpectedly announced a change. He said investigation showed it was possible to “repeal” the act, “provided that this is accompanied by the adoption of transitional measures toward the acceptance of a new constitution.”

A key reason for our demand for the repeal of the Population Registration Act is because it enables the exercise of political power to be limited on the basis of race. Yet the government clearly intends replacing the law with measures having substantially the same effect in that crucial area: Pending the conclusion of negotiations on a new constitution, government will be on the basis of the current constitution. The implications are that white South Africans will have the right to veto the terms of a new constitution. This is totally unacceptable.

If we are going to have a constitution that commands the loyalty and acceptance of the vast majority of South Africans, then it must be drawn up by a body that is truly representative of all the people of our country. That is why many of us are calling for the negotiation of a new constitution by a constituent assembly elected on the basis of one person, one veto, on a common voters’ roll. The Namibian constitution was drawn up very quickly and with overwhelming consensus in this way. Elections to such a body would also help to eliminate political violence in South Africa. One of the causes of the current fighting is a struggle for turf by different political organizations whose claims of support have never been tested by a democratic vote.

We are angered at the way in which Western governments have sided with the South African government on the issue of the Population Registration Act. Their response to De Klerk’s decision was one of elation. The act is to be replaced, it is said, and a condition of the lifting of sanctions has been met. We have heard no expressions of caution, no calls for elaboration of the nature of De Klerk’s “transitional measures.” In fact, a South African government source has claimed to local newspapers that its stratagem was planned in collusion with the U.S. and British governments.

De Klerk’s address had other shortcomings. For example, he did not deal with the very serious questions raised by the government’s use of police and army death squads and the existence of a “third force” stoking violence in black communities.

He also failed to address another requirement for the lifting of U.S. sanctions: the freeing of all political prisoners. I am as eager as anyone to have sanctions lifted. Apartheid has created tremendous backlogs in housing, health, education and many other areas, and we need a strong, vibrant economy and a high growth rate to help us eliminate its effects. The intended abolition of the Group Areas Act and the Land Act, which limit land ownership and occupation on the basis of race, will mean very little unless black South Africans can afford to buy land.

But before I can call for sanctions to be lifted:

--Schools have to be opened to all races without qualification, under one education ministry.

--All political prisoners must be freed and exiles allowed home under a general amnesty.

--The Population Registration Act has to be abolished without qualification.

--A mechanism needs to be established for negotiating a new constitution that is representative of the people of South Africa and does not allow groups defined by race or ethnicity to veto decisions that are democratically reached.

The South African government wants to be both a player in constitutional negotiations and a referee with final power to make decisions. De Klerk is a bold and courageous reformer, but his government needs to be told that the only way to negotiate a democratic constitution is by democratic means.