The final constitution: In the mad rush to meet deadlines, there is pressure on all sides to reach deals which may have serious long- term consequences
Marion Edmunds
Pressure-cooker politicking to resolve final constitutional disputes by Friday’s deadline has forced the African National Congress and the National Party into a series of exclusive bilaterals which promise to deliver package deals and compromises on key stand-offs between the two parties.
By midnight Wednesday, NP secretary general Roelf Meyer was able to list 14 outstanding disputes to be cracked within the next 24 hours. Of these, the most dear to the NP’s heart are the educational clause in the Bill of Rights, language rights, cultural councils, the structure of the executive and the role of minority parties in government.
NP insiders believe Meyer as chief negotiator is prepared to trade off other disputes for the sake of getting what he wants on these.
The package approach — where trade-offs come in a package cemented by the Nats and the ANC and cannot be unraveled by subsequent opposition from less powerful quarters — characterised the last days of the interim Constitution negotiations at Kempton Park in November 1993.
In the last instance, just hours before deadline, the ANC and the Nats, through Cyril Ramaphosa (now Constitutional Assembly chairman) and Meyer, produced a six-pack of agreements that essentially could not be touched by other parties because meddling would have meant risking losing consensus on the Constitution altogether. At the time, disgruntlement about the six-pack was qualified by recognition that agreement was essential to pull the country through multi- party talks and on to the scheduled April elections.
Because of numerical strength of parties in the Constitutional Assembly, the ANC needs the support of the NP to pass the final Constitution by a two-thirds majority. With that support, the ANC does not have to worry about getting the smaller parties on board, although it has repeatedly said that it wants as “inclusive” an agreement on the Constitution as is possible.
Critics speculated the NP could use the ANC’s dependence on the NP’s supporting vote as an important lever, to win concessions from the ANC. However, Nat insiders indicate the top team of negotiators does not believe it is possible to take a “do or die” stance, and threatening to cut support for the ANC for the sake of principle is not an option good either for the Nats or for the country.
Meyer said midweek that “reaching consensus” was the NP’s “chief motivating force”. Meyer also appears sensitive to the fact that a deadlock between the ANC and the NP could lead to either a referendum or an election.
While Moosa and Meyer appear confident the essentials will fall into place, there is a fear within the NP that the Freedom Front will steal an Afrikaner victory from under its nose. Both the NP and the FF want mechanisms to protect the Afrikaner language and culture from the cultural rough and tumble of the new South Africa, and both wish to claim having won those mechanisms as victories in the run- up to the local government election.
While the Nats have placed their ambitions in the context of protection for all cultures, the Freedom Front has doggedly stuck to its guns on white Afrikanerdom, and has made this its bottom line, neglecting or ignoring other aspects of constitutional debate.
The FF’s negotiator Corne Mulder said midweek the skeleton of an agreement with the ANC has been worked out, although he could not describe the package until the deal had been clinched. It includes cultural protection on education, partly through cultural councils and partly through inserting a number of extra clauses in the Bill of Rights.
Mulder did not think it would be difficult to introduce new formulations into the Bill of Rights at this stage. The deal would also make provision for the establishment of a mechanism or instrument, such as the Volkstaat Councils, to continue to pursue the volkstaat dream.
All these deals will be discussed openly in the Constitutional Assembly next week, when draft legislation will be on the table and political parties will be able to move formal amendments to alter agreements. This means that behind-the-scenes negotiations on key issues can continue, but because a firm draft is on the table, it will be more difficult for political parties to change position on essential issues and save face for their electorate.