Resistance within the black community to the South African regime's constitutional plans intensified during the first months of 1983.
The government secured support for its plans from the leadership of two of the Coloured and Indian parties which already participate in the segregated political system of apartheid. However popular rejection of the proposals manifested itself in mounting and increasingly broadly organised opposition.
The government has taken action to disrupt the opposition, in the form of a number of detentions and bannings of publications. In the face of criticism of the proposals it has on several occasions reaffirmed its commitment to the basic principles of apartheid.
After the adoption by the National Party, in the second half of 1982, of the current constitutional proposals it was intimated that enabling legislation could be expected during the 1983 parliamentary session.
On the basis of a set of 'guidelines' the government set about trying to secure support from sections of the Coloured and Indian communities. During 1982 it sponsored and organised 175 meetings to introduce its constitutional guidelines to these communities.
The plan is for a segregated parliament with three separate White, Coloured and Indian chambers, with representation at a ratio of 4:2:1. The proportions, together with special procedures for the resolution of disagreements, would ensure white dominance. Ultimate power would lie in an executive president, chosen by an electoral college representing the majority parties in each separate chamber: three quarters of its members would be white.
The African majority (75 per cent of the country's population) would be expected to exercise their political rights through the bantustan system. Africans living permanently outside the bantustans have, as yet, not been effectively brought within the scope of the bantustan political structures.
In spite of the evidence of strong and widespread rejection of the proposals both within the Coloured community as a whole, and within the Labour Party itself, the Labour Party agreed at its annual conference early in January 1983 to participate in the proposed new system. While it expressed reservations, particularly concerning the exclusion of Africans, the decision to participate was an unconditional one.
The decision was met immediately with strong criticism and condemnation, both within and outside the Labour Party, and from the widest range of organisations throughout the country. Several leading Labour Party figures resigned as did a number of members. A country-wide speaking tour by the Labour Party leader to explain the decision became a forum for the Coloured community to show its rejection of the scheme. Mass meetings around the country were characterised by heated argument and in some cases violence. Those in favour of the constitutional proposals at such meetings were generally in a minority.
The decision also met with criticism from some black organisations which work within the present political system of apartheid. The Labour Party was suspended from the South African Black Alliance (SABA), whose members include the Indian parties participating in the government's South African Indian Council (SAIC) and Inkatha, headed by the Kwazulu bantustan leader.
Of the Indian political parties within the SAIC, only the majority National People's Party agreed to participate in the proposed new system. Its position, conditional on an expression of approval by the Indian community in the form of a referendum 'or some other means', was endorsed by the SAIC. The smaller Reform and Democratic parties rejected the proposals, citing as evidence of the Indian community's attitude, the highly successful boycott of the SAIC elections in November 1981.
Outside of the organisations already involved in government-created institutions, reactions to the constitutional proposals and to the Labour Party decision were even more forceful and explicit in their rejection.
The scale of opposition and the degree of unity was expressed both in statements made by existing organisations and in the formation of new organisations to campaign against the proposals. The new bodies built on and consolidated the advances made in the course of campaigns of the last few years.
These developments included the formation during January 1983 of two regional bodies, the Eastern Cape Coordinating Committee and the Ad Hoc Anti-President's Council Committee in the Transvaal. These brought together civic, community, youth, sporting, trade union and church organisations.
In what appears to be a far-reaching development, it was decided at a conference on 23 January to form a national organisation, the United Democratic Front (UDF), to coordinate and promote resistance to the proposals. The conference, organised by the Transvaal Anti-SAIC Committee (TASC), was attended by about 400 delegates from all over the country representing many organisations. Speakers included Alan Boesak, President of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, and representatives of the South African Allied Workers Union (SAAWU) and General and Allied Workers Union (GAWU). The conference defined its goals with explicit reference to the Freedom Charter. It also decided to revive the Transvaal Indian Congress (TIC), formerly part of the Congress Alliance. Although never banned, it had become inactive following the banning of its leadership.
Organisations which immediately declared their support of the UDF included the Natal Indian Congress (NIC), the Transvaal Anti-SAIC Committee, the Release Mandela Committee, and AZASO (the Azanian Students Organisation).
Simultaneously with the developments described above, complete rejection of the proposals was expressed by many other organisations, including AZAPO (Azanian People's Organisation) at its Annual Conference in February, and FOSATU (Federation of South African Trade Unions).
In response both to complete rejection of its proposals and to those who appeared only to oppose the exclusion of Africans from the segregated parliamentary system, the government has reaffirmed its commitment to apartheid.
- Government spokesmen on several occasions declared that the question of African political rights will continue to be dealt with according to the existing principles of apartheid. In extensive press interviews during January and February the Minister of Constitutional Affairs and Development, Heunis, said that there would be no fourth chamber for Africans in the new parliament. He said that 'the Government does not intend to offer constitutional solutions for the black [i.e. African] population on the same basis as the rest'.
During February a Cabinet Committee was appointed to make proposals regarding the position of Africans living permanently outside the bantustan. While this has been interpreted as a response to criticism of the proposals and as 'an effort to keep alive Western hopes of a "hidden agenda" for Africans' the Minister made clear that the committee would work within existing National Party principles.
- While some facilities may be used by different population groups (as at present), Mr Heunis said that 'own residential areas for each group are non-negotiable', a principle repeated by the Minister of Transport.
- The possibility of mixed political parties under the new system was ruled out by the Minister of Internal Affairs. The amalgamation of segregated local authorities would not be allowed, Heunis stated, as this 'would be contrary to the Government's fundamental principle of self-determination over own affairs'.
