One person, one vote in a unitary South Africa." For decades, that one phrase has encapsulated the goals of the antiapartheid cause. Now that South Africa has a white president, F. W. de Klerk, who says he, too, believes in political equality, one person, one vote may finally be at hand. But first blacks and whites must hammer out profound differences over how to achieve it in practice. Last week de Klerk presented a proposed constitution that would give black South Africans the right to vote-up to a point. The African National Congress quickly denounced de Klerk’s blueprint. The plan, said ANC president Nelson Mandela, was “a cynical exercise designed under fancy constitutional language to dupe South Africans.”
Blacks object to features of the plan designed to protect the rights of the white minority. An executive council, made up of members from the three largest parties in Parliament’s lower house, would replace the president. The National Party could generally count on finishing third or even second in a general election-giving whites an effective veto. The constitution would require the cabinet to include ministers from minority parties. And whites would be likely to obtain a disproportionate share of the seats in an upper house of Parliament. De Klerk has designed these rules to assuage white fears of an outright black takeover. “Black domination is as unacceptable as white domination,” de Klerk told delegates to a party congress. To the ANC, de Klerk is trying to cheat blacks of their rightful power. Although the ANC’s popularity has sagged of late, recent polls suggest 60 percent of black urban voters in an open election would back ANC candidates. Yet an ANC president would find his hands tied by obligatory coalition government.
In defense of the proposals, de Klerk’s advisers often invoke Germany and Switzerland as successful European examples of multiparty government. But political leaders in those countries enter into multiparty coalitions of their own free will, not because the constitution says they must. “The underlying principle of checks and balances at various levels of government will be accepted [by the ANC],” says political consultant Harald Pakendorf. “But [de Klerk] is saying that if you get 60 percent of the vote you’ll still have to form a coalition with two smaller parties. It takes a little bit of the point away from voting.”
Even if the government relents on “power-sharing,” another difficult area remains: decentralization. De Klerk seeks a federal model that will assign more powers to regional and local government bodies, whereas the ANC prefers a strong central government endowed with sufficient powers to enforce a new postapartheid order. De Klerk’s plan would give each of nine new legislative districts broad power, including the authority to levy taxes. Cities, towns and neighborhoods would have councils empowered to set their own “norms and standards,” a hedge that might allow white communities to keep out blacks. In addition, the blueprint proposes that half of the members of each town be elected by property owners or tenants who pay taxes. That 19th-century notion clearly favors whites over blacks, who own less property and often are forced to live in shacks.
Pretoria is expected to insist on this “devolution of powers” to local and regional authorities. The government will emphasize the rights of all South Africans to speak their own language and practice their own faith. ANC officials accept those principles in recognition of South Africa’s tribally and culturally diverse society-there are 10 major languages-but they are wary that a reduction of the national government’s powers could be used to entrench de facto apartheid. Thus, for example, a white town council could deny blacks access to the local elementary school because they do not speak Afrikaans fluently enough. “Decentralization [could] be used to create enclaves of white privilege,” warns ANC constitutional expert Albie Sachs.
Nobody expects the negotiations to be concluded soon. For one thing, the only real deadline for agreeing on a new constitution is 1994, when de Klerk is required to call a national election. Still, for all their differences, the two sides have consensus on several basics. Both the government and the ANC support a two-house legislature, an independent judiciary and a bill of rights. The government is poised to scrap the notorious black “homelands”; the ANC appears unlikely to insist on nationalizing key industries like mining. The mere fact that South Africa’s power players are prepared to settle their differences on one person, one vote around a table is itself a welcome change.
