Speech of the President of South
Africa, Thabo Mbeki, at the Opening Session of the National Conference on Racism,
Johannesburg, 30 August 2000Chairperson,
Distinguished delegates:
On behalf of our Government, I am happy to welcome you all to this important Conference
and to wish you success in your deliberations.
I would also like to thank Dr Barney Pityana and the rest
of the Human Rights Commission, most sincerely, for the work they have done, first of all
to ensure that this Conference is held and that it becomes the success it surely will be.
The public discussion that has taken place in our country
in the last few months on the issue of racism, demonstrates the point unequivocally that
in this area, we are faced with one of the most contentious issues on our national agenda.
Its discussion does not lead to the national feel-good
atmosphere we all experience whenever our national sports teams score a victory over a
foreign competitor or when other benign events occur that help us to forget the persisting
racial divisions in our society.
Arguments are advanced honestly that such a discussion,
about racism, can only lead to the division of our country into mutually antagonistic
racial camps.
It is also said that it might very well encourage racial
conflict, destroying the progress we have achieved towards national reconciliation,
towards the birth of a happy rainbow nation.
It has been argued that those who point to the persistence
of racism in our country are themselves racist. Those who propagate affirmative action are
accused of seeking to introduce reverse racism, or, more directly, of resort to anti-white
racism.
Some assert that the description 'racist' is merely an
epithet used by bad people to insult others, as well as a means of intimidating and
silencing those who hold views critical of the government.
Alternatively, it is said that the issue of racism is
brought up by unscrupulous politicians, in an effort to mobilise black constituencies to
support them. After all, so it is said, we ended apartheid and therefore racism, when we
became a non-racial democracy in 1994.
On the other hand, others within our society argue that
those who are most vocal in seeking to suppress discussion of this issue are those who
benefited from centuries of colonial and apartheid racial domination.
These will go on to say that the privileged do not want
this discussion because they want to maintain their privileged positions at all costs.
It is also said that in order to achieve this result, the
privileged work hard to convince both themselves as well as the rest of society, that what
is being complained of does not, in fact, exist, except for isolated incidents.
This is categorised as the denial mode, in terms of which
the dominant instruments of propaganda, which, by definition, are at the disposal of the
privileged, are used to obstruct recognition of reality.
The aggrieved will go further to argue that the privileged
sectors of our society, accustomed to setting the national agenda, continue in the effort
to set the national agenda, regardless of what the majority of our citizens might desire.
Of course, by this time, the latter have been empowered by
the establishment of the democratic system to believe that they have the democratic right,
openly and legitimately, to set this national agenda.
The point is also made that our process of national
reconciliation has been somewhat of a charade. In this regard, it is said that only the
victims of racism have responded to the call to forgive and to let bygones be bygones.
The charge is made that the perpetrators and beneficiaries
of racial oppression and exploitation have acted merely to defend their interests,
refusing to extend their own hand towards the victim, in a true spirit of reconciliation.
Among others, the response of certain sectors of our
society to the request to them to make submissions to the TRC helped to reinforce the view
that the beneficiaries of white minority rule were unwilling to contribute to the process
of national reconciliation.
The same can be said of the initial response of sections of
the media to the decision of the Human Rights Commission to hold hearings on the issue of
racism in the media.
It is of course obvious to all participants at this
Conference that colour and race would, essentially define the two schools of thought
represented in the remarks I have just made.
Necessarily, this adds to the acrimony, the unpleasantness
and, therefore, the difficulty of conducting a rational and even-tempered discussion on
the question of racism.
With all these problems, some might legitimately pose the
question - why not abandon this discussion until some later date, when we can discuss all
these matters in a more propitious atmosphere!
The Government is firmly of the view that this would be a
very serious mistake.
The postponement of this discussion would sharply
exacerbate the danger of the social instability implicit in the racial divisions that
continue to characterise our society.
Nevertheless, as we enter into discussion, it is clear that
all of us will have to make a supreme effort to allow all points of view to be heard and
discussed in an atmosphere that permits the free exchange of views.
As we begin to engage one another at this Conference, I
would like to believe that there are some basic propositions on which we would all agree.
Let me state some of these.
First: the practice of racism is both anti-human and
constitutes a gross violation of human rights.
Second: as it has been practised through the centuries, the
black people have been the victims of racism rather than the perpetrators.
Accordingly, what we have to deal with is white, anti-black
racism, while giving no quarter to any tendency towards black, anti-white racism, whether
actual or potential, as well as anti-Semitism.
Third: racism is manifested in a variety of ways, these
being the ideological, existing in the world of ideas, and the socio-economic, describing
the social, political, economic and cultural power relations of domination of and
discrimination against the victims of racism.
Fourth: for many centuries racism has been a fundamental
defining feature of the relations between black and white, a directive principle informing
the structuring of these relations.
Fifth: the legacy of racism is so deeply entrenched that no
country anywhere in the world has succeeded to create a non-racial society.
Indeed, a deeply disturbing resurgence of racism and
xenophobia constitutes part of the current social and political reality in some of the
developed countries of the North.
These countries pride themselves, perhaps justifiably, as
the home and repository of the ideas and practice of human rights, democracy, equality and
human solidarity, and leaders whose example we should emulate.
Sixth: global experience stretching over a long period of
time, demonstrates that the creation of a constitutional and legal framework for the
suppression of racism is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition to end this
violation of human rights.
Accordingly, a constitutional and legally guaranteed right
to equality and non-discrimination is very important in the fight against racism.
Similarly, the legal possibility and right to redress in case of such discrimination is
also critical.
At the same time, the creation of the socio-economic
conditions enabling such equality to be achieved is fundamental to the realisation of that
constitutional and legally guaranteed right to equality.
The American scholar Alan David Freeman has written that:
" The concept of 'racial
discrimination' may be approached from the perspective of either its victim or its
perpetrator. From the victim's perspective, racial discrimination describes those
conditions of actual social existence as a member of a perpetual underclass. This
perspective includes both the objective conditions of life (lack of jobs, lack of money,
lack of housing) and the consciousness associated with those objective conditions (lack of
choice and lack of human individuality) in being forever perceived as a member of a group
rather than as an individual.
" The perpetrator perspective sees
racial discrimination not as conditions but as actions, or series of actions, inflicted on
the victim by the perpetrator. The focus is more on what particular perpetrators have done
or are doing to some victims than on the overall life situation of the victim class."
(Legitimising racial discrimination
through anti-discrimination law: A critical review of Supreme Court doctrine)
Whatever else we may disagree about, I would hope that, at
least, we would agree about these propositions.
Let me address our own situation more directly. Once more,
I would hope that we would agree on most, if not all, the observations I will make.
Racism has been a fundamental organising principle in the
relations between black and white in our country, ever since Dutch immigrants settled at
the Cape of Good Hope.
As the dominant group in our country, the white minority
worked to structure all aspects of our national life consistent with the objective that
the whites should always remain the dominant group and the black majority, the dominated.
Throughout this period of over three hundred years, this
work, focused on the deliberate construction of a racially divided society, was done
explicitly on the basis of a racist ideology, legitimised by its open and consistent
adoption as official state policy.
The destruction of the Nazi and Fascist regimes in the
world was one of the principal outcomes of the Second World War.
The apartheid system constituted a latter-day manifestation
of the crime against humanity that Nazism and fascism had imposed on the European, Asian
and wider world, more than a decade earlier.
Accordingly, as a country, bearing in mind the post-war
process of de-colonisation and the advances achieved as a result of the civil rights
struggle in the United States, we became the epicentre of the state-approved ideas of
racism, to which all humanity could legitimately attribute such anti-human phenomena as
racism and anti-Semitism, slavery and colonialism.
Our own specific history has created a situation that
constitutes a common legacy and challenge.
The social and economic structure of our society is such
that the distribution of wealth, income, poverty, disease, land, skills, occupations,
intellectual resources and opportunities for personal advancement, as well as the patterns
of human settlement, are determined by the criteria of race and colour.
An important part of this legacy is that the imposition of
the ideology of the dominant group has led to the weakening of the self-respect, pride and
sense of identity of the dominated.
This results in the incidence among some of the dominated
of self-hate, denial of identity and a tendency towards subservience to a definition of
themselves as would have been decided by the dominant power.
Clearly, it will take time for us to wipe out this legacy.
The struggle waged by the black majority against
colonialism and apartheid, supported by some principled white compatriots and the rest of
the world, has, in the first instance, been aimed at ending the relationship of
dominant-and-dominated, as between white and black, and achieving equality among all South
Africans, in all spheres of human life and activity.
However, the incorporation in our Constitution and national
statutes of the objective of the creation of a non-racial South Africa has placed an
obligation on our society as a whole to strive to achieve this outcome, as an agreed
national task that transcends all narrow partisan interests.
Our constitutional and legal framework and regime provide
us with a strong legal base to confront the scourge of racism. That base includes:
- our Constitution;
- international law, such as the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Convention for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination;
- domestic legislation such as the Promotion of Equality and
Prevention of Unfair Discrimination as well as the Employment Equity Acts; and,
- our jurisprudence, as represented, for instance, by the
Constitutional Court decision in the City Council of Pretoria v Walker matter.
Our transition to a non-racial democracy in 1994 and the
subsequent creation of the constitutional and legal framework we have just described, have
not ended the inherited racist, discriminatory and inequitable divisions of our country
and people.
Despite our collective intentions, racism continues to be
our common bedfellow. All of us are therefore faced with the challenge to translate the
dream of a non-racial society into a reality.
Fortunately for all of us, we have the advantage that the
overwhelming majority of our citizens, whether we are white or black, or black or white,
we are South African and African.
Almost all of us do not have the option to uproot
ourselves, to resettle ourselves and our families in other, wealthier countries, happy to
assume another nationality and proud to denounce our former homeland, South Africa, and
continent, Africa, for their failures and brutalities.
Whatever the negatives we feel ourselves to be subject to,
most of us take the view that we should address such negatives, rather than respond to
them by packing our belongings and leaving.
Those of us who do not leave stay because we take the
decision to fight for the emergence of a society that would enable us and our children to
lead secure, comfortable and happy lives.
In a sense, this constitutes a prayer to the future. It
also represents a confident confirmation of our conviction that we are capable and willing
to participate in determining what that future will be.
Accordingly, what happens to South Africa, as a result of
policies and practices originating from the government and other decision-makers in our
society, is of direct concern to all our citizens.
This includes the most lowly and those most marginalised
from the centres of social power, regardless of race, colour, gender, age and geographic
location.
Consequently, what you will decide at this Conference is of
the most fundamental importance to the millions of South Africans whose interests all of
us in this hall claim to represent and speak for.
will therefore make bold to advise - please bear in mind
that we are a multi-racial and multi-cultural society, born out of and conditioned by
policies and practices that sought to emphasise our differences as these racial and
cultural groups, rather than our commonalities as human beings who have lived together for
many long years.
We must also recognise this, that all of us are products of
what the intellectuals have described as a process of socialisation.
Accordingly, all of us are even conditioned to understand
South Africa, our common home, in different ways.
Even at this Conference, the apparently simple question -
how would you characterise present-day South Africa - will produce responses as varied as
the colours of the rainbow.
As we try to determine what is best for us as a people, our
intelligentsia will have to consider a wide variety of important matters. These include:
- the interconnections between the abstract and the empirical,
between the ideal and the actual;
- social organisation, scientific inquiry and the impact of
property relations on the integrity of the process of the expansion of the frontiers of
knowledge; and,
- empirical evidence that we are actually succeeding, or not,
to end the disparities that define some as the racially dominant and others as the
racially dominated.
As I have said, hopefully all of us present here can find
it within our possibility to agree also with these assertions about our own specific
reality.
Needless to say, we are also perfectly at liberty to
disagree with any and all of them.
Such an honest response is surely an inevitable and
necessary part of the kind of discussion we need, that will enable us, collectively, to
confront the challenge of racism.
All of us at this important Conference will have to answer
the question - how do we respond to all the general and specific propositions we have
presented to you, thus far!
This might very well include the response that all we have
said constitutes the most unadulterated rubbish that you have ever had the pain to listen
to.
Naturally, the delegates are perfectly entitled to arrive
at this conclusion, having rationally argued that this is the only rational conclusion
that any reasonable person would reach.
Having heard the charges that the government acts in a
manner that seeks to intimidate those who differ with it, I would like to take this
opportunity to encourage all our people to break through the barrier of fear and to speak
their minds.
At the same time, they must understand that true
intellectual discourse presumes the vigorous contention of ideas.
By this we refer to the concept put forward at some time in
the history of China when, for better or for worse, the political establishment advanced
the slogan - let a hundred flowers bloom! let a hundred schools of thought contend!
Given the difficult solutions we have to find to the
hundreds of problems that confront all of us, with none of us occupying a privileged
position of being the exclusive domicile of wisdom, we cannot but agree that, in our
instance as well, let a hundred schools of thought contend!
We speak here of a contention of ideas and not the
reduction of ideas to persons, such that intellectual debate is reduced to skirmishes,
battles and a war among individuals, however much any idea might be identified with a
particular individual.
I make these observations because I believe that as we
discuss among ourselves at this Conference, it will be important that we do not transform
our rejection of any views that might be expressed into hostility towards the individuals
who might express such views.
Whatever our protestations and our elevated views of
ourselves, many of us are still immersed in a learning process of how to handle open and
vigorous debate.
I would now like to request your indulgence to state what
our Government believes that we, as South Africans, can and should do to respond to the
common challenge of racism.
One of the critical national and international challenges
that confront us as a country and a people, is to succeed in the objective of creating a
truly non-racial society.
Many across the globe believe, with good reason, that
because of our specific history, we have the possibility and will make an important
contribution to the universal struggle to defeat the scourge of racism.
Whatever the problems we face today, our Government is
convinced that, as a people, we have the capacity to achieve this historic and
epoch-making objective.
We are convinced that as a people, both black and white, we
have the wisdom, ingenuity and sensitivity to the human condition that will drive and
enable us to overcome the demon of racism.
Correctly, much has been made by people around the world
about the 'miracle' of our transition from apartheid rule to a non-racial society.
At the heart of the sense of wonder and relief among the
international community was the fact that, contrary to many expectations, we avoided a
racial war, despite the racial brutality of the apartheid system and the racial
antagonisms it generated.
The international community responded with a similar sense
of wonder and admiration at the formation of, and the work done, by the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, reinforced by the morality and humanism of that outstanding son
of our people, the Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Unfortunately, we have not done the necessary work to
assess what it was that made it possible for the miracle to happen, being seemingly
content merely to bask in the universal praise.
But this we all know, that what we achieved was the product
of conscious and purposive human efforts and the outcome of the understanding by the
millions of our people that all of us, regardless of race and colour, are interdependent
members of a common neighbourhood.
It was the result of the effort expended over many years to
entrench the understanding among the millions of our people that black domination was as
evil as white domination.
I am convinced that precisely because we can rely on the
same factors that made our peaceful transition possible, we can say, with confidence, that
we will, indeed, defeat the demon of racism.
The first step we must take towards the realisation of this
goal is the common recognition by all of us, black and white, that racism exists and that
it is indeed a very serious problem, without whose solution it is idle to speak of a new
South Africa.
Secondly, we must abandon any notion that the problem of
racism has nothing to do with me and is the responsibility of another. We have to treat
racism as a problem that challenges the black people. We must treat racism as a problem
that challenges white people.
It is obvious that it makes no sense whatsoever to argue
that the responsibility to end racism resides with the victims of racism.
Another step we have to take is to make the common
determination that, precisely because this issue is so fundamental to our future, we have
to ensure that it is discussed frankly, freely and openly. We must be ready to take the
pain that will be an inevitable part of this open discourse.
None among us should seek to suppress this discussion. To
suppress it is to guarantee the perpetuation of racism, with the destructive consequences
of which all of us must surely be aware.
These requirements place a particular obligation on the
white section of our population, itself voluntarily to recognise the reality of racism,
not to propitiate any sense of guilt, but to make a contribution to the bright future of
our country which they legitimately expect.
It is not possible to over-emphasise this particular
imperative, so central is its place among the panoply of initiatives we must take in the
common struggle to end racism.
We will never succeed in the struggle against racism if the
white section of our population does not join with its black fellow-citizens in common
effort to transform ours into a non-racial society.
Naturally, I am aware of the justified feeling among many
of our white compatriots that they were not responsible for racism and apartheid.
Accordingly, they argue that they feel insulted when the
crimes of the apartheid system are blamed on them.
From this, it becomes an easy step to take to the
conclusion that these compatriots have no particular obligation to heal a wound they did
not cause.
Correct as this argument may be, nevertheless we have to
respond to the actual situation that faces us in this country.
This actual situation is that racism organised our society
in such a manner that the black oppressed could not possibly have a way of distinguishing
between those who elected to enforce a racist system, and those who were the involuntary
beneficiaries of racism.
Explained in other words, racism constitutes the practice
of uniting people on the basis of race, even by statute, as in our case, and presenting
them as a united entity relative to those who are the victims of racism. It is to such a
united entity that the victims of racism must necessarily respond.
In this context, we must also recognise the fact that
throughout a very long period of struggle against racism, very few of our white
compatriots broke ranks with the system of white minority rule to join the black millions
who were in rebellion against racist rule.
In this situation, it becomes easy to argue that - you may
not have been against us, which we only know from what you say, but you were not with us,
which we know because you were not with us in struggle!
It serves little purpose to take offence at a perceived
attribution of guilt and therefore to decide to take no responsibility to help solve the
challenges our country faces. In reality, such a position only serves to make it more
difficult to end racism in our society.
If I may I would like to refer briefly to what the
distinguished President of our Constitutional Court, Justice Arthur Chaskalson said last
year when he addressed the Congress of the Jewish Board of Deputies.
He says that by the time he entered the legal profession,
discrimination and humiliation of Jews in South Africa because of their religion "had
ceased to be a significant factor in our lives." He continues:
" Then, the dominant defining characteristic of our
family, within the broader context of South African society, was not our ethnic or
religious origins, but the fact that we were white. Because of that, we were entitled to
all the benefits then accorded by law to people who were white. We prospered, as so many
of the Jewish community did, not only because of our work, but also because of the
opportunities offered to us as whites. We were no longer part of a marginalised group
within society; we had become part of a privileged group, and part of a society in which
others were subjected on a daily basis to the discrimination and humiliation which had
been the lot of so many of our ancestors."
As we engage the challenge of racism, it is also clear that
we have to address the seemingly two-sided phenomenon of 'white fears and black
expectations'.
Many within white society harbour fears that our country
will slide into the abyss, if it has not already begun that slide. They fear that they
will be the worst and perhaps the express victims of the impending catastrophe.
In her book, Country of My Skull, Antjie Krog says that
General Constand Viljoen told the Truth and Reconciliation Commission:
" The Afrikaner can in no way detach
himself from the past. But we must be allowed to make for ourselves an honourable role in
the new dispensation. The Afrikaner feels disempowered, unsafe, his language is
threatened, his educational structures are in pieces - in short, the Afrikaner feels
flooded by the majority and he has nowhere to turn."
In this situation, the many negative things that do happen
in our country, as they do in any other, are easily read as confirmation that the expected
dismal future is on its way.
It is in this context that even the discussion of racism,
aimed at ending racism, itself generates the fear that it will provoke black violence
against our white citizens.
Out of all this comes the advice - move gently with your
transformation processes lest you worsen white fears about the future!
For their part, the black people watch and wait in
expectation that real change will come sooner rather than later.
They, too, are fearful that sensitivity to the reality of
white fears might translate into insensitivity about their expectations speedily to end
the pain they have endured for centuries.
If white South Africa is fearful of the future because of
what it might lose, black South Africa looks forward to the future because of what it will
gain.
In the end, what it expects it will gain is, fully, its
human dignity, based on an end to poverty, ignorance and inequality, and based on the
creation of a society in which its blackness will no longer be a badge of subservience.
Out of all this comes the advice - move speedily with our
transformation processes lest we lose confidence in everything that has been said about,
democracy, non-racialism and national reconciliation!
Peter Rule, with Marilyn Aitken and Jenny van Dyk have
written a biography of Mrs Nokukhanya Luthuli, the wife of Chief A.J. Luthuli, entitled
Nokukhanya: Mother of Light. At the age of 90 years, they quote her expressing this simple
but profoundly humanist and African wish:
" My wish before I die, is to see
blacks and whites living harmoniously in a united South Africa."
To answer her prayer, we have no choice but to act together
to address both the fears and the expectations, without allowing that these fears are used
to perpetuate racism, without allowing that the justified expectations are addressed in a
manner that will create new crises.
The very act of getting together in pursuit of a common
cause would both reduce the fears and remove any confrontational attitude attaching to the
expectations.
It would surely confer a universal benefit if those who
might despise and fear others because of their race, our history and its legacy, no longer
had cause to do so; while those who might carry anger in their hearts against others
because of their race, our history and its legacy, also no longer had cause to do so.
Thus shall we have a future of hope for the black and white
children of our country, to whom we must bequeath an adulthood as free of hate and fear as
they were free of hate and fear when they were born.
In the speech I have already cited, Judge Arthur Chaskalson
says that what is demanded of all South Africans is:
" That we commit ourselves completely
and wholeheartedly to the transformation that has to take place. This calls for more than
pious statements or resolutions at the end of a conference...(It means) seeking solutions
and not recrimination. Pragmatically (as the Jewish people) this is what we have to do;
ethically, this is what we are obliged to do, and in good conscience we can do no
less."
In 1967, a group of experts convened by UNESCO issued a
"Statement on race and racial prejudice". The statement begins with these words:
" All (human beings) are born free and
equal both in dignity and in rights. This universally proclaimed democratic principle
stands in jeopardy wherever political, economic, social and cultural inequalities affect
human group relations. A particularly striking obstacle to the recognition of equal
dignity for all is racism. Racism continues to haunt the world."
That world includes our own country.
You have convened here, distinguished South Africans and
valued foreign guests, to help our country answer the question - what shall we do to end
the nightmare!
This urgent question deserves an urgent answer.
Thank you.
Issued by: The Presidency, 30 August 2000 |
