South African History Online

President Mandela's closing address in president's budget vote

Cape Town, 16 April 1997

Madame Speaker;
Honourable Members;
Ladies and Gentlemen,

After a refreshing exchange of views yesterday afternoon, it is a humbling
task for one to make the closing remarks. The opinions expressed once more
underlined the mammoth responsibility on the President, and the Presidency in
general, to play a leading role in managing government to fulfill its task of
reshaping society.

We therefore appreciate the consensus reached about the budget allocated to
the President's Office, and indeed the welcome proposal by one of the speakers
that perhaps that budget should be increased. The positive response to this
proposal that I seem to have discerned in the smile of the Minister of Finance,
was heartening. But I wish to assure this House that we shall endeavour all we
can to make do with what has been allocated, in the spirit of frugality that
current realities demand.

More than ever before, the opinions of the various parties in this august
assembly were characterised by constructive criticism. We all want to see South
Africa succeed. Even if it may not be obvious to each and everyone of us, we all
have an objective interest in achieving a stable, secure and prosperous society.
Many of the speakers presented proposals for implementation; and the executive
shall not hesitate to examine them in order to improve our work. Perhaps it is
not the role of the opposition to do so; for are they not supposed merely to
revel in the weaknesses and failures of the incumbents!

But, Madame Speaker, ours is a different and special kind of relationship.
Because, in the first instance, the historic change that South Africa underwent
in 1994, was not just a change of government. It was a change of a political
system - a revolutionary breakthrough after centuries of colonial domination.

And for many years to come, the primary pre-occupation of all those who owe
allegiance to the new order - which I believe applies to all parties in this
chamber - will be how to improve the fledgling democracy that we have together
established; how to ensure that it is reflective of the needs of society; how
together to defend it; and indeed with pride to proclaim our loyalty to the
constitution; to proclaim from the mountain-tops our South Africanness.

It is natural, therefore, that the character of our debates will not be so
much about policy as about how to implement it effectively. And this in part
reflects the fact that this government has got the best policies to make South
Africa succeed in building a better life for all.

Yet precisely because we are not yet out of the woods, conceptual issues
about the nature of our democracy and its meaning to various sectors of our
divided society will always come to the fore, the better to fashion a system and
a national mind-set that should be characteristic of true new South Africans.

For this reason, I will be quite specific in dealing with some of the issues
placed before this House.

The first of these relates to our constitution and the nature of our
parliamentary system. A question was posed by a number of speakers about the
right of Honourable Members to change allegiances.

I fully concur that this issue should continue to engage our minds.

However, at times, a question as fundamental as this one is raised with the
bravado that suggests a calculation based on partisan gain: that in party
boardrooms, we should assess how our 3arty can benefit from poaching, and then
change the constitution to suit that objective.

I do not think that this was the aim of those who posed this question during
the debate. They were, I believe, motivated by the desire to ensure greater
accountability to the electorate, and greater participation of this electorate
in shaping, on a continuous basis, the permutations in our legislatures.

This is a legitimate concern; because we cannot claim that the system we have
is the most ideal. Personally, I have posed this question more than once to my
party and its constitutional experts.

But we will all do well to remember the debates that we had during
negotiations about the best system to ensure that smaller parties are
represented in the legislatures; about the thresholds required to ensure the
kind of inclusiveness that we now have.

What we shall need to continue debating, as we agreed when the current
constitution was adopted, is whether to change, in time, to a constituency-based
system; whether to combine both; or to continue with the status quo but with
individuals elected on party lists having the freedom, when dissatisfied for one
reason or the other, to cross the floor.

From the narrow partisan perspective, few parties should fear any of these
options. Discussion should continue. And the abiding consideration should be
what is best, in the first instance, for the citizens in our young democracy.

Related to this, Honourable Members, is the desire, proclaimed or otherwise,
by a number of parties to break the racial mould in the voting patterns of our
country. This is a welcome endeavour which we hope will contribute to the
de-racialisation of our society, a fundamental element of the transformation
that we pursue.

What does such de-racialisation mean in actual practice? It means that we
must improve the conditions of the poor, the majority of whom are black - so
that we should not have a South Africa in which the ownership of wealth, the
spatial demography of communities, and positions of power and influence in the
public and private sectors, are delineated according to race or language group.

It means that we should all recognise that South Africa belongs to all who
live in it; and ensure that this finds expression in the distribution of land
and resources.

It means that we should work for the success of an educational system that
spreads resources equitably across communities and provinces so that all our
children are provided the best that South Africa can offer.

It means that we should have a national policy, as well as a public
broadcaster, that recognises equity among all languages without the privileges
of the past.

It means these and many other things that are at the core of our
Reconstruction and Development Programme. These principles are at the pinnacle
of the ANC's approach to the transformation of South African society; and they
have been so for decades.

It is therefore a contradiction in terms for anyone to seek to protect
privileges of a by-gone era in education, in land distribution, in the
employment of blacks and women in management positions in the public and private
sectors, in the distribution of wealth, in the status of languages, to wash
one's hands of the mistakes of the past - in brief, to seek to perpetuate
apartheid relations - and at the same time pretend that one is keen to unite
South Africans across divisions of the past.

Madame Speaker;

A number of matters were raised pertaining to crime, affirmative action and
reconciliation which deserve brief attention.

Running like a thread through all of them is what I would characterise as the
challenge of changing our mind-sets and consolidating the new patriotism.

Few will argue with the assertion that South Africa has taken great strides
in pulling itself out of the quagmire of racial conflagration. That is what our
political achievements are about.

That is what our economic miracle-in-the-making means.

Yet a mind-set creeps into our discourse that suggests that some of us are
given to throwing up our hands in despair at the slightest sight of problems; as
if fundamental transformation would come overnight.

Thus we have suggestions, on the vexed issue of crime that the President can
wave a magic wand and the problems will disappear.

Thus we have exaggerated statements that we are failing to uphold, defend and
respect the constitution.

Is it surprising then, that perceptions are taking root, that constituencies
that such speakers claim to represent seize on such statements to defy court
rulings and continue to mobilise for a rates boycott; that they attempt to break
the law in a campaign for the reinstatement of the death penalty; that they
behave in a manner that undermines the national public broadcaster - in other
words, the perception that communities which hardly raised a finger during the
darkest days of our history, are today mobilising the challenge the legitimacy
and legality of a government that is not only democratically elected, but a
government, too, that seeks to address the common problems the country faces!

When we opened this debate and at the beginning of this session of
parliament, we acknowledged without equivocation that the government needs
urgently to address problems of capacity, skills and management in the public
service, including the criminal justice system. This the government is doing in
a systematic and professional manner.

The task teams that have been sent to the provinces have already started to
correct the weaknesses that exist at this level.

Programmes are under way, including appropriate legislation, to address
constraints in local government. A t national level, new systems to assess
performance on the basis of service delivery are being put in place. And, along
with these measures, the restructuring of the service to reflect the
demographics of the country is proceeding apace.

This is what is required to deal with these problems; because the essence of
the weaknesses which we have acknowledged lies not merely in technical
competence, but in the orientation to serve the public in earnest.

The apartheid public service was neither trained nor tasked to do this. It is
therefore preposterous to suggest that the departure of some of these employees
necessarily means that standards will drop; least of all that the employment of
blacks and women automatically means lack of qualification and therefore a
harbinger of disaster. Indeed, dare we ask: what standards, and in whose
service?

We do place a high premium on training and developing capacity.

But in a country which recently had eleven different administrations with
scant regard for the national interest - a system lacking verifiable statistics
and largely hidden from public view - what is happening is quite the opposite of
a deterioration in financial administration.

There is no magic wand to rectify the problems we face. And we should avoid,
in our thinking and discourse, the tendency to pronounce imminent doom, in the
face of obstacles in our way. Change - fundamental change - requires a long hard
slog; and we will go through the tortuous paths of difficulties before we reach
the mountain-tops of our desires.

Honourable Members;

Our government will not waver from the course of reconciliation that is at
the root of our political transition.

Such reconciliation means that we must seek to understand one another's
concerns and anxieties. We must understand the basic reasons of the conflict of
the past and strive to root them out. We must be sensitive to the concerns about
language, cultural and religious rights of communities, as indeed we do in the
constitution, and seek to accommodate them in our day-to-day life.

I was therefore glad to hear that the consultations on language policy in
education are bearing fruit, in search of solutions that will protect community
rights without fencing in privilege. My door will always be open to assist in
this regard, and in relation to any other such problems.

But reconciliation also means that leaders should lead by example in
acknowledging mistakes of the past and committing themselves to prevent their
repetition. Indeed, brave men and women of the current age will be found at the
forefront of reconciliation efforts; assisting the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission, and not holding back their supporters from taking part in its work,
or abandoning those who served under them.

A related question was raised with regard to informers who served the
apartheid government, in the ranks of the majority party.

Were the issue not so serious, one would have ignored it as cheap, callous
and petty party politicking.

But I wish merely to warn, especially members of the previous government, who
are in fact responsible for this and who refuse to come clean, that allegations
of this nature can cause great distress to individuals and their families. This
is a matter that was literally one of life and death to those who were involved
in struggle.

Leaders of the former government should know better that this is a terrain
that lends itself to destructive disinformation campaigns.

And they will be well aware that it relates not only to this or the other
party, but touches all parties and all sectors of society, including the media.
In any case, within the context of broader South African society, the root of
all treachery was theirs.

We would all do better to leave these matter to the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission and at least to those that are honest enough to act when and where
necessary and appropriate.

Once again, comments were made about relations between the majority party and
its allies. We do not apologies for struggling together against apartheid and
for working together today to improve the lives of especially the poor.

There is a general tendency to approach reconciliation merely in racial and
language terms. In fact, the task of reconciliation also means bringing
together, in one shared policy, different forces and allowing their voice to be
heard. It means recognising the sacrifices of millions of poor people, at the
same time as we accommodate those who directly or by proxy perpetuated
apartheid.

It behooves us all to be both humble and generous in this regard.

Among those that suffered for the new South Africa, and among those at the
forefront of its reconstruction, we acknowledge millions of workers,
worker-leaders and communists.

For any of us, especially those who benefitted from apartheid, to seek to
marginalise these forces, suggests that we want the fruits of change to accrue
to us at the expense of those who struggled for it.

We do appreciate that during the course of the debate, many of the parties
acknowledged the successes that this government is making in meeting the basic
needs of the people.

Indeed, wherever we go, people do raise problems with the speed of change;
but all of them are grateful for the efforts that government is making to
correct centuries of deprivation. And they are ready to play their part, in the
clinics that have been built, in the fresh, clean water to which they now have
access, in the light of electricity connections, and in the opportunities for
better education, health facilities, sports amenities, improved social welfare
and other services, the poor know that freedom means more than the vote.

I wish once more to assure members of the public that this government is
steadfast in its commitment to deal with crime. As I indicated in the opening
address to this debate, a joint high density anti-crime operation began on
Monday, with members of the defence force deployed in all nine provinces in
support of the police. Within the framework of the National Crime Prevention
Strategy, they are targeting priority problems such as gang-related violence in
the Western Cape, illegal firearms in KwaZulu/Natal and organised crime in
Gauteng.

Questions were also raised about the relationship between the Minister of
Safety and Security and the Commissioner of Police.

Rather than exacerbate such problems through uninformed public comments,
responsible leaders will acknowledge the difficulties and then seek ways of
resolving them. The Minister and the Commissioner are men of the highest
integrity and ability, which is why we found them fit for such appointments in
the first place. Those who wish to assist in the task of combating crime will
contribute to the resolution of this problem rather than celebrating its
existence.

Madame Speaker and Honourable Members;

We have raised some of the problems frankly, precisely because we know that
the questions raised, the praises rendered and the criticisms offered, were part
of a robust debate meant to build a better democracy, a better society.

They were raised because all of us have confidence that the government is
dead serious about mobilising the South African nation to build this into a
country of our dreams.

We are aware that the praises rendered to the President were meant to
encourage him in his work; and that the suggestion that he can do this on his
own, without the able collective in cabinet and in the majority party were in
jest!

For, I remain steadfast in my conviction that in all parties, among all
communities, in every sphere of life, we have a great collective of leaders of
all race groups, good men and women who are capable of seizing the challenge of
the moment.

Yet again: the foundation for us to succeed has been laid; and the clarion
call is: Forward ever!