TOESPRAAK DEUR ADJUNKPRESIDENT F W DE KLERK, GRONDWETDEBAT, 8 MEI 1996
Vandag bereik ons almal in hierdie vergadering die einde van ‘n lang en moeisame pad. Daar is geswoeg en gesweet, geveg en gebots. Onderhandelings het dikwels vasgeval. Dit was taai.
However, it was also a creative path that we travelled. There was method in what often seemed like madness. Slowly but surely the CA crafted a Constitution, unique to some extent, here and there a contradiction in terms, but nonetheless a final starting point for the new South Africa.
The trial run is over. Now we are ready to begin the real race to our destination. We are generally speaking united in our definition of what that destination should be:
• A vibrant non-racial multi-party democracy;
• a prosperous country constantly offering new opportunities and opening new horizons to all its people; and
• a nation at peace with itself and reconciled with its past.
We are divided in our convictions as to the exact route we should follow to reach that destination. These differences will henceforth be the subject matter of our democratic contest.
Within the framework of the freedoms which our new Constitution guarantees, political parties, cultural communities, civil organisations, churches, universities, business and trade unions will be able to advance their cause – to maintain their identity, to spread their message, to teach, to trade, to negotiate or to do whatever.
Within the framework of this Constitution we face the challenge to normalise our society, to turn our backs on the bitterness of the past, to build and develop, to bring a better life to all our people.
It is not a perfect Constitution. But it is a reasonable starting point. The National Party will therefore vote for this Constitution, irrespective of its many shortcomings from our vantage point.
We will vote for it because we have succeeded, through our inputs, to achieve many positive provisions – provisions offering security for our cultural diversity and opportunities for all our people, offering balance as well as reasonable restriction of the misuse of power.
We will vote for this Constitution because it contains and enshrines many important principles with which we identify.
We will vote for this Constitution because we have, in the majority of its many provisions, succeeded in improving the original proposals through our inputs.
Nonetheless it was a difficult decision. There is also much in the Constitution with which we are not satisfied. We are even in total disagreement with quite a number of provisions.
In the final analysis the decision to vote for the Constitution was also motivated by the following factors:
1. In respect of the most fundamental issues related to our basic values and principles we can truthfully say that they are sustained in a reasonable way.
2. A vote against the Constitution would carry a serious risk that much of that which is positive, might have been put in serious jeopardy by a negative vote from the National Party.
3. A long, drawn-out period of uncertainty and an inevitable confrontational referendum could damage the interests of our country irreparably.
Let me stress that, irrespective of the last two factors, we would have voted “no” if we were not satisfied about the first – i.e. that by voting yes, we would not be violating any fundamental and basic principles of our Party.
Ek wil nie vandag op die negatiewe konsentreer nie. Daarom beperk ek my tot enkele belangrike sake – sake wat ons ernstig laat besin het of ons nie moet “nee” stem nie.
Die eerste is die feit dat die nuwe Grondwet die doodsklok lui vir veelparty deelname aan besluitneming op uitvoerende gesagsvlak. Nie eers ‘n baie gematigde voorstel ten opsigte van ‘n veelparty konsultasieliggaam is deur die meerderheidsparty aanvaar nie. Hiervoor sal Suid-Afrika ‘n duur prys, in die vorm van verlies aan vertroue, betaal.
Suid-Afrika gaan nog vir baie jare in oorgang wees. Die ingewikkeldheid van ons bevolkings- en ekonomiese samestelling – en die konflikpotensiaal wat daarin gebou is – kan ten beste bestuur word in ‘n konsensus soekende model. Dit is nou taboe! Instede daarvan sit ons weer net met ‘n meerderheidsoorheersing-model. Dit is ‘n fout!
Tweedens, bevat die Grondwet bepalings oor die reg op lewe wat so verwoord is dat die Nasionale Party drasties daarteen gekant is. Instede van die meerderheid van alle Suid-Afrikaners se teenstand teen aborsie op aanvraag te akkommodeer, lê die Grondwet juis ‘n grondslag daarvoor. Instede van die herinstelling van die doodstraf in ons geweldsgeteisterde land moontlik te maak, klap die Grondwet die deur daarop toe. Dit is ‘n fout en boonop negeer dit die siening van die meerderheid!
‘n Laaste voorbeeld van dit wat totaal onaanvaarbaar is, is die debakel oor die uitsluitingsreg van werkgewers. Van Nasionale Party-kant – asook van ander partye se kant – is heel redelik onderhandel op die basis dat “uitsluiting” nie by name ingesluit hoef te word nie. Al wat ons gevra het, is ‘n billike balans tussen die omskrywing van vakbondregte en werkgewersregte. Wat nou in die Grondwet staan is pateties, onbillik en onverdedigbaar.
Ek wil nie ‘n mooi dag bederf nie, maar ek sou my gewete verkrag as ek nie sê dat die hantering van hierdie kwessie ‘n skandaal is nie. Die besluit hieroor is afgedwing deur Cosatu – en lede in die ANC wat van beter weet, het geswig.
Die Nasionale Party glo dat die huidige bepalings oor arbeidsake nie voldoen aan Beginsel 28 nie en vra dat die Konstitusionele Hof fyn daarna moet kyk in die sertifiseringsproses.
Ek sou nog sake wat ‘n grondslag bied vir ‘n “nee stem” kan opnoem. Tyd laat my egter nie toe nie. Oor die sake waarna ek verwys het – en oor die ander bepalings waarmee ons nie saamstem nie – wil ek nog net dit sê:
Die Nasionale Party sal hom beywer vir die verbetering van die Grondwet. Van nou af sal die verandering van daardie belangrike bepalings deel wees van die Nasionale Party se beleidsvoorstelle in elke verkiesing wat kom.
Teen hierdie agtergrond moet almal weet: Die Nasionale Party stem nie – wanneer hy aanstons vir die Grondwet gaan stem – vir die tekortkominge en foute in die Grondwet nie. Ons het die plus- en die minuspunte op ‘n skaal geplaas – en ons het besluit die positiewe weeg swaarder as die negatiewe. Daarom stem ons, volgens Parlementêre tradisie, vir die Grondwet.
Uiteindelik stem ons “ja” omdat ons kan sê dat ons, deur vas te staan, ‘n Grondwet beding het waarmee ons kan saamleef.
So byvoorbeeld is ons oortuig dat die finale bepaling oor onderwys wel deeglik volwaardige erkenning gee aan die reg op moedertaal-onderwys en dat dit die voortbestaan van nie-rassige enkelmedium skole, waar dit geregverdig is, verseker. Ons sou dit nog beter wou formuleer, maar is oortuig dat ons – ook met inagneming van ander verbandhoudende bepalings – in ons onderhandelings-doelwit oor hierdie saak geslaag het.
The same applies to the property clause. If you trace the history of this clause, and compare it with the final clause, then it is apparent that it has been vastly improved – improved in the sense, as it now stands, offering effective assurance to property owners of all sorts. Also here, we would have preferred to phrase it differently. However, what we have before us, allows me to say that we have essentially succeeded in achieving our negotiating goal.
In lighter vein, madame Speaker, I therefore claim – in Bafana-Bafana terminology – a 2 – 1 score on the last three crucial issues of the negotiation process.
I could mention numerous other provisions, where we feel that our contribution contributed to a better Constitution. So could all the parties do with justification.
In conclusion therefore I lift my proverbial hat to all the negotiators – to the high profile ones, such as Mr Cyril Ramaphosa and Mr Roelf Meyer, but also to the scores of MP’s and Senators who have worked through many nights. I also salute the experts and staff who worked so tirelessly.
They have, through their combined efforts, delivered a Constitution – complete and on time. No doubt, mistakes have been made and many technical amendments will be placed before us in the months to come.
Dit doen egter nie afbreuk aan die reusewerk wat gedoen is nie. Daarvoor huldig ons die hele Grondwetspan.
En nou begin ‘n nuwe hoofstuk. Die reëls van die spel is bepaal. Ons Handves skep ‘n veiligheidsnet vir alle Suid-Afrikaners – dit bied beskerming en geleenthede aan hulle oor ‘n wye spektrum.
Ons Grondwet skep die kanale waarlangs alle Suid-Afrikaners hulleself kan laat geld op ‘n demokratiese manier. Dit skep instellings en meganismes om die demokrasie in stand te hou, om korrupsie te beveg, om onreg van die verlede te herstel, om diskriminasie teen te werk, om die regspraak te laat geld, om ons kultuurverskeidenheid te akkommodeer.
Binne hierdie raamwerk sê die Nasionale Party vandag dat hy sy volle bydrae sal maak om Suid-Afrika ‘n wenland te maak. Ons sal dit doen deur vreesloos te opponeer wanneer nodig. Ons sal dit doen deur lojaal saam te werk, wanneer ons glo dat Suid-Afrika dit van ons vra. Ons sal getrou bly aan ons leuse:
Suid-Afrika Eer