Proposals for a National Statutory Council, presented by the government as a 'negotiating forum' for African political rights, were made in September in a way which indicated that the regime is preparing for major conflict over the scheme. Immediate responses to the publication of the National Council Bill were sharply divided. They confirmed that the opposition to constitutional schemes which will continue to deprive the majority of South Africans of effective political rights, is strong and broader than ever.
The move to introduce a National Council is one of several elements in the current phase of the regime's long-term constitutional strategy. There were also proposals to devolve more powers to the bantustans, against a background of continuing consolidation of the regime's regional and local political structures.
## NATIONAL STATUTORY COUNCIL The National Council Bill had not been adopted by the apartheid parliament when the session ended in October, even though the government had hoped to have it enacted before then.
A 'Black Council' in which Africans could participate without effective political power was included in the proposals which initiated the reshaping of the apartheid constitution in 1979 - membership of the council would then have been limited to bantustan leaders. Widespread opposition forced the government to withdraw the plan. Since then sustained mobilisation of mass resistance has delayed further moves in this sphere while the regime attempted to modify its plans in ways that might divide those who opposed it without abandoning those aspects which were needed to secure the continuation of minority political power.
The present proposals differ from the first in three respects. In September 1984 the government abandoned the policy that Africans could only exercise political rights beyond the local level through the bantustans. Local councils in African townships were identified as the basis of a separate political structure for Africans permanently resident outside the bantustans. They would be included in the planned Regional Service Councils and the Urban Councillors Association of South Africa (UCASA) was recognised by the government as the representative of those who were administered by the councils. At this stage the proposed national council was to be an informal forum consisting of members of 'interest-groups', including UCASA and the National African Federation of Chambers of Commerce (NAFCOC), along with bantustan representatives.
The forceful rejection of the councils by township residents during the past two years, the splitting of UCASA in the face of popular pressure, as well as the refusal of NAFCOC to give its support, form part of the background to the second modification of policy, namely the proposal in September's National Council Bill that the 'representatives' of Africans living outside the bantustans should be elected directly.
## 'NEGOTIATING FORUM' The third departure from the 1979 proposals, and one which reflects the strategy of the regime in trying to cope with the massive popular resistance to its plans, is that the council is presented as a transitional mechanism, a forum for 'negotiating' a new constitution. The government's view is that by securing participation in such a body of people it can present as 'leaders', it will be able to present its plans as having legitimacy. It appears to consider that even a very low level of participation will serve its purposes. During August, a 'highly informed source' spoke to a newspaper about the government's views. He was reported as saying that the government was not 'overly concerned' if there was a low voter turn-out: 'We don't care if the turn-out is 2 per cent, 20 per cent or 80 per cent.' Africans 'will have had the opportunity to vote and if they don't want to exercise it en masse then that's not our business. At the end of the day we will have a properly-elected, representative body.'
The background to this attitude and to the conviction that the regime can hold elections to a body rejected by the great majority of those it is supposed to represent, is the last two years of State of Emergency rule. The campaigns to boycott the elections to the tricameral parliament and to the local township councils were coordinated and led by organisations which have suffered sustained repression - officials and activists of the UDF or UDF-affiliated organisations have formed the bulk of detainees under the successive States of Emergency, and continuing restrictions on organised political activity will place further obstacles in the way of mobilisation against elections to the National Council. Even so, the regime is anticipating boycotts, as the above remarks make clear. In introducing the bill the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning gave a further indication of preparations for conflict, when he said that 'the safety of those involved will be a priority for the Government, as will be the safety of all voters and candidates'.
## INSTRUMENT OF APARTHEID The council will have at least 30 members. It will be chaired by the State President, and include amongst its members the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, together with any other member of the Cabinet whom the President wishes to include. There will be a Chairman from each of the Councils of Ministers of the Indian, Coloured and White houses of Parliament. There will be up to 10 members appointed by the State President. The remaining members will consist of six bantustan leaders from the non-'independent' bantustans, and nine people elected by Africans living permanently outside the bantustans. The composition of the council makes it one which is not only constituted on the basis of apartheid divisions, but also wholly under the control of the central government and the ruling white minority.
When the bill was introduced, and in the weeks preceding its introduction, the government not only portrayed it as a step towards future 'negotiations', but said the bill itself was a product of negotiations that had already taken place. A version of the bill was published in May, and the government said that it had received comments from a wide range of sources. The principal groups with which it consulted appeared to have been bantustan leaders and urban councillors. The Self-Governing Territories Bill, which was published in August and which would replace the National States Constitution Act of 1971, was also said to be the outcome of two years of 'negotiation' with the non-'independent' bantustans, henceforth to be termed 'self-governing territories'. The aim of the bill was 'to increase the internal autonomy of these territories, giving them regional authority as entities within South Africa'.
## OPPOSITION Responses to the proposals were put in terms which make it likely that there will be a large-scale boycott of any elections that might be held.
Even organisations which participate in the political structures of apartheid at other levels - such as the bantustans and township councils - are divided over the question of participation in the National Council. While UCASA has said it would participate, as have most of the non-'independent' bantustans, some bantustan leaders and councillors have stated pre-conditions for participation which have not yet been realised. Gatsha Buthelezi, of the Kwazulu bantustan, and Tom Boya, leader of the United Municipalities of South Africa (UMSA) which broke away from UCASA, have stated that they will not participate until Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners have been released, banned organisations unbanned and discriminatory legislation abolished.
Organisations which refuse to participate in any apartheid political structures, such as the UDF and AZAPO, have gone further than this, rejecting the proposals altogether. In a statement made after the tabling of the National Council Bill in parliament, the UDF described the council as a 'government-imposed structure designed to enforce and prolong white minority domination'. Anticipating 'massive and widespread rejection' of the council, the UDF contrasted 'this travesty of democracy that the government is forcing down our throats' with the demand by the majority of the country for 'one-person, one-vote in a united and unfragmented South Africa'.
The ANC's views were expressed by its President, Oliver Tambo. 'It cannot be that at this late hour we would accept some creature of the apartheid parliament, given to us as a mechanism for negotiation, created by the same illegitimate institutions to which we are opposed, and subject to summary dismissal by the same institutions.'
