Hon Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon members, the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910, represented the triumph of inhumanity over the common good. It symbolised the victory of racial segregation and discrimination perpetuated by colonial authorities over nonracialism and equality advanced by the downtrodden black majority.
The institutionalisation of racial discrimination through the enactment of apartheid laws in 1948, as well as the proclamation of the Republic 13 years later in 1961, served as a consolidation of the inhumane, racist projects of 31 May 1902 and 31 May 1910.
It was therefore the democratic breakthrough of 1994, 84 years following the formation of the Union, that represented the triumph of the common good over inhumanity. It ushered in an era of democracy, freedom and nonracialism in a popular rejection of the centuries old system of colonialism and apartheid oppression.
It provided us with the hope to live again. It also gave us a belief that a better tomorrow for all our people was possible, and granted us an opportunity to bring into reality the aspirations of those who came before us.
The centenary anniversary of the Union of South Africa invokes ambiguous feelings on our journey to the democratisation of our country. It is geared at rolling back the effects of the legacy of the brutal system of exclusion, white supremacy and illegitimate rule over the majority by the minority.
The results of the 1910 parliamentary elections - the first under the Union's constitution - showed a government that was committed to bringing about reconciliation between Boer and Briton, and the exclusion of blacks from the political life of the country. It was this government, which was dedicated to promoting the exclusive interests of whites and the degradation of black people, that took office on 31 May 1910.
Even the African franchise in the Cape, which was entrenched in the Union's constitution, was a flimsy protective cover, which in time was scrapped and thereby rendered all Africans voiceless. It placed the Afrikaners and English in a position to determine the place of Africans in their scheme of things.
Subsequently, in the very first session of the Union Parliament in 1911, the government fired the first shot in what would become a barrage of legislation that was designed to strip Africans of the means to defend themselves. This was to render them helpless in the face of capitalist exploitation by mining and farming interests.
Two important statutes were passed in that first session. The Mines and Works Act reserved certain occupations in the mining industry for whites only, and thus laid down the principle of the industrial colour bar. The second piece of legislation passed during the same session of Parliament was the Native Labour Regulation Act.
In terms of this Act, the government armed itself with powers of control over the movement of Africans. Not only was the movement of Africans from one area to another strictly determined by this law, but their vertical mobility was to be strictly controlled through subsequent legislation, which condemned the African worker to a position of menial labourer.
The government was able to create a pool of cheap labour in the native reserves by controlling the movement of African labourers. They could be drawn up to satisfy the needs of employers in the white areas, be it the mines, manufacturing industries, commerce or farms.
After the defeat of the African kingdoms, the British imperialists and the colonialists faced what came to be known as the Ethiopian or Native Problem. This coincided with the partitioning of Africa by European powers and the discovery of gold around the Witwatersrand in 1885. The mining industry not only made the Witwatersrand the gravitation point of African labour, but also an important centre for missionary work.
Racism and racially discriminatory practices as well as the suppression of African culture and traditions in the missionary churches in Africa and the Diaspora, led to the secession of the African converts from the missionary churches. This resulted in the formation of African independent churches, popularly known as the Ethiopian churches. These were notably the African Methodist Episcopal Church in the USA, and the Ethiopian Church of South Africa, established by Rev Mangena Mokone.
In 2009, President Zuma posthumously honoured Mokone as the father of African Ethiopian theology. But the Dutch and English colonialists saw Mokone and his Ethiopian movement as the biggest threat after wars of resistance. Ethiopianism was indeed a threat to racism, which was becoming the cornerstone of their policies.
However, during the Anglo-Boer War, now the South African War, of 1899 to 1902, African people fought on both sides hoping that in the event of victory, they would regain their civil and political rights. In 1900, while the war was still raging, W E du Bois told the first Pan-African conference that the biggest problem of the 20th century would be the colour line. The conference also condemned the atrocities perpetrated against African people during this war.
At the end of the war, the Dutch and the British concluded the Peace Treaty of Vereeniging in 1902, which made racism or the colour bar the cornerstone of their constitutional vision. Meanwhile, delegates from the First Pan- African Conference joined officials of the AME Church in Cape Town, from where they spread Ethiopianism and Pan-Africanism into the interior. At the same time, Ethiopian Christians swelled the ranks of the emerging Native congresses, which were formed in all four colonies, and came together to form the Union of South Africa in 1910.
Ethiopianism was so influential that the Orange Free State Native Congress used the rules of the Ethiopian Church as its constitution. Ethiopianism became such a threat to the racial ideology of the colonialists that they appointed the SA Native Affairs, SANAC, Commission to investigate it. The Commission found that many Ethiopian Christians participated in the Bhambatha War.
This growing unity and co-operation of black people, including Indians and Coloureds, forced the colonialists towards greater unity. Their unifying factor was the threat of Ethiopianism rooted in the slogan "Africa for Africans", at home and abroad. This resistance movement came to be known as the "black peril" or "swartgevaar".
This was the birth of the Native problems. The birth of Ethiopianism meant that there were two constitutional visions in South Africa at the beginning of the 20th century. It was the racial ideology of the colonialists and the nonracial ideology of Ethiopianists and Pan-African nationalists who were profoundly influenced by, inter alia, the nonracial Christian message, which was distorted by the missionaries. These two constitutional visions became clearer with the whites-only national convention held in Durban and the blacks-only national convention held in Bloemfontein, in the same year, in 1908.
The passage of the South Africa Act of 1909, which gave birth to the Union of South Africa in 1910, marked the triumph of racism over nonracialism. The formation of the SA National Native Congress, SANNC, renamed the ANC in 1923, marked the beginning of a national political resistance against colonialism and its underlying racial ideology.
However, on the contrary, as early as 1892, John Langalibalele Dube had called for a different society; a society that would be spiritual, humane and prosperous. Dube was a self-confessed Ethiopian Christian. His vision of a new Africa was echoed by Pixley Isaka ka Seme, convener of the founding conference of the ANC, in his oration entitled: The Regeneration of Africa.
Seme also called for the creation of a unique civilisation for Africa and Africans based on both spirituality and humanness. Both Dube and Seme had come under the influence of Ethiopianism during their studies in the United States.
The Ethiopian Movement was more than a religious movement, as our icon Mr Mandela observed. It went beyond the African interpretation of the Scriptures to address native grievances side-by-side with all sectors of society. Its fundamental tenets were self-worth, self-reliance and freedom. These tenets drew the Ethiopian Christians to the growing political movement of the early 1900s that culminated in the formation of the ANC in 1912.
The Ethiopian clergy and lay preachers, including people like S M Makgatho, the ANC president from 1917 to 1924, used the church platform to recruit members for the ANC. In this sense, Nelson Mandela observed, the ANC traces the seeds of its formation to the Ethiopian Movement of the 1890s.
Nelson Mandela has observed, quite correctly, that the links between the Ethiopian Church and the ANC and the struggle for national liberation, go back to the activism of the 1890s, when the products of missionary education observed and recorded that African people were not only dispossessed of their land and cattle, but also of their pride, dignity and institutions.
As we mark the hundred years since the formation of the Union of South Africa, it should also be noted that Ethiopia is this year observing the 114th anniversary of the victory of the Battle of Adwa, where the Italian fascists who attempted to colonise Ethiopia were defeated by the Ethiopian army led by Emperor Menelik II in 1896. The defeat of the Italians by the brave, ancient Ethiopian martyrs represented the rejection of racist, colonial oppression in defence of African sovereignty.
When the fascist Italian forces made a second attempt at invading Ethiopia in 1935, African and other Third World countries expressed solidarity with that country. This Pan-African solidarity culminated in the Fifth Pan- African Conference, which called on peasants, workers, women, students and intellectuals to use all means in their power to fight for freedom and the independence of their countries. The Ethiopian clergy in the ANC also played a critical role in shaping its moral vision. For instance, Rev Mahabane, the ANC president in the 1920s, challenged the colonial status of the African people in terms of which they were treated not as adult citizens with full rights, but as children to be spoken for and controlled.
Mahabane argued that the racist rulers of South Africa had denied Africans their basic human right to self-determination and that any advance in human rights in the South African context had to begin with the affirmation of African humanity.
As I conclude, the point we are making here is that today we are celebrating the victory of humanity over inhumanity and the future that lies ahead of us. Thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, the passing of the controversial South Africa Act by the British parliament in 1909 was the first irreversible step in setting our country on its voyage of self- determination and, ultimately, the election of a free constitutional democracy. The passing of this Act was the precursor to throwing off the yoke of colonialism.
However, the opportunity cost was the exclusionism provision which would exclude black South Africans from any form of suffrage. The then Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, William Schreiner, and a South African delegation to Britain tried in vain to oppose the exclusionism provision.
The main objective of the formation of the Union in May 1910 was an endeavour to unite the divided white population, namely those of English origin and those regarded as Afrikaans-speaking South Africans.
The two defining events in this regard were, firstly, the Anglo-Boer War - the South African War that the Chief Whip of the Majority Party referred to - that took place from October 1899 to May 1902, where neighbours, friends and families fought to the bitter end in the name of Afrikaner nationalism.
The second defining event was the Bhambatha Rebellion, where Zulu-speaking South Africans revolted against British colonialists over disputes concerning land and tax grievances.
Another issue of immense political importance at this time was the fear of an emerging black consciousness and growing African nationalism. These myopic fears resulted in inexplicable displays of racial intolerance, violence and outright discrimination which culminated in the dreaded Natives Land Act of 1913.
This discriminatory legislation not only allowed for the systematic dispossession of land belonging to indigenous black South Africans at the beginning of the 20th century, but it continued to be a key tool in subjugating black South Africans during the apartheid years. Obviously, this milestone in our political pilgrimage will invoke different emotions among different communities in South Africa.
The same can be said of many of our national days. Such national days include days like Human Rights Day, when we remind each other never to allow past human rights abuses to happen again; and Youth Day, when we remind ourselves that young black heroes sacrificed their lives in order to protest against apartheid and Bantu education, which prevented the use of mother-tongue education in black schools.
So, too, we have the Day of Reconciliation, formerly the Day of the Covenant, which was used by some to celebrate the Voortrekker defeat of the Zulu izimpi at Blood River. Others, namely ANC activists, used this day to commemorate the beginning of the armed struggle to overthrow apartheid.
Today we celebrate this day as the Day of Reconciliation. I mention these three days of the eight national holidays as they invoke mixed emotions, but serve as milestones of where we have come from. They also serve as salutary lessons and reminders that we must never go there again.
The only way we can effectively and authentically confront the demons and challenges that face us as a nation is to respect and confront these milestones; not as a means to reinforce our segregated history, but as a way to overcome it. The Spanish-American philosopher, George Santayana, said in this regard:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
There looms another very significant milestone on the horizon that is poised to form part of an unprecedented celebration in this country, and probably on the continent and, indeed, the rest of the world. The centenary celebration of the ANC, as a liberation movement pre-1994 and a first democratic government of South Africa post-1994, is, indeed, worthy of celebration.
The DA will be the first to wish you well. However, allow me to quote the former President and current Deputy President, hon Kgalema Motlanthe, who said, and I quote:
Our collective history must be acknowledged, no matter how painful. There is no merit in reviewing the past with a selective memory.
We must avoid the temptation to elevate the importance of certain days by politicising them at the expense of denigrating others, or by promoting different interpretations of these days by various communities. By attempting to change our recollection of our history or by contextualising it, we run the risk of undermining how far we have travelled in overcoming it.
The formation of the Union in 1910 was ironically the first unsteady step of a newborn nation that culminated in the coming of age of our rainbow nation in April 1994.
The growing pains of our country during the more than eight decades between the formation of the Union and our first democratic election - which were so painful for so many, especially those that were disposessed, suppressed and disadvantaged in so many painful manifestations - are a cause of deep regret to all of us.
We will never forget these milestones or fail to respect and honour those who sacrificed so much in the creation of the South Africa that we celebrate today. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, we welcome the approach of having this debate today to allow ourselves to reflect on where we stand as a nation. One hundred years ago, South Africa was in serious need of reconciliation between all cultural groups, and we messed it up.
History was unfolding on the continent of Africa, driven vigorously by the imperialists and, in our case, the British to serve their own needs. It was clear that they would only allow some sort of a country on their terms. So, the Union of 1910, whether it was conceived in sin or not, has no doubt influenced the path of our history and followed other examples in the world, such as Canada and Australia.
The Anglo-Boer War, let me remind this House, was a war in which black South Africans participated and also died at the hands of both forces. This saw the restoration of the two Boer Republics in 1907 and then followed the Union.
The F W de Klerk Foundation summed it up quite correctly yesterday, referring to the Union, and I quote:
There was no supreme constitution, no distribution of real power, no Supreme Court to interpret the constitution and no limit to the actions of the executive - there were hardly any rights for black people.
As Keir Hardie, the Scottish socialist leader, observed during the debate in the British parliament on the South African issue, and I quote:
The purpose of the Union was to unify the white races, disenfranchise the coloured races and not to promote union between the races of South Africa. In 1914, a section of the Afrikaners - my grandfather and my uncle were rebels - rebelled against the British, showing displeasure at what had happened to them in South Africa. Fortunately, they were not the only group. The majority who were left out of the Union started to regroup, but for almost 50 years it was a struggle between two white groups, until the Republic was proclaimed in 1961.
However, in June 1955, the Freedom Charter, as a statement of core principles, was adopted at the Congress of the People's convention in Kliptown. As you know, the second day of that convention was broken up by the police and Madiba escaped by disguising himself as a milkman. Nobody knew that he would become the most famous delivery man of hope, peace and reconciliation in world history!
He, together with other leaders, such as F W de Klerk, allowed us to become reborn and today we stand proudly as a teenager on the world platform.
Today we proudly show off our South African flag and our culture; and more importantly, we are showing the rest of the old democracies - many of whom have exploited Africa - that because of sound monetary and fiscal policies we are today an example of how to run state finances.
Barney Mthombothi wrote in the Financial Mail, and I quote:
A second decade into our liberation, we are a people still grappling with what it means to be South African.
Let us use our lessons of the past 100 years and use this 2010 Fifa World Cup, and the many other events that will follow, to grow the love for our flag, our country and ourselves. That would be the real mark of patriotism. I thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the acting President of the Republic, hon Ministers and hon members, in our country we have dedicated a day to the celebration of human rights, Africa, our heritage, freedom, workers, youth and women, and rightly so; but the celebration of the centennial of South Africa's birth as a united nation goes by almost unmarked.
Just now, hon Mr Koornhof said that it was conceived in sin; well it does not mean that if a child is conceived in sin then we must deny its existence.
In this debate, we need to consider how our national identity has been shaped by events both noble and deplorable, and accept that history cannot be painted over with prettier colours.
In remembrance of the signing of the Act of Union of 31 May 1910, I have said, in a certain article that even bastards are entitled to celebrate their birthdays. There is no doubt that there is great controversy around the events that led to the genesis of South Africa as a united country. We did not have a glorious process of unification creating a mythology with which we can all comfortably identify. However, the unity of the country and the moment of its birth are facts which can neither be denied nor ignored.
We no longer talk of bastards, but rather children born out of wedlock, because we recognise that at the time of birth no one is to bear the sins or faults of his or her parents. The unification of South Africa was preceded by the Anglo-Boer War, the Anglo-Zulu War, the so-called Kaffir Wars in the Eastern Cape, the resistance of King Sekhukhune, and other conflicts which bear memories of horrors, glory and mixed feelings.
The founding fathers of our liberation struggle reacted to this white unilateral declaration of South Africa as an autonomous state by meeting in Bloemfontein in January 1912 to found the South African Native National Congress, later the African National Congress.
Four years prior to the Act of Union, a last attempt was made by black South Africans to throw off the yoke of oppression through revolutionary violence. After the Zulu Rebellion, often referred to as the Bhambatha Rebellion - the last armed struggle within the borders of this country - the white presence in this country and the destruction of the boundaries of the then existing black kingdoms became realities that had to be faced, willy-nilly. A new multiracial South Africa had come into existence and the options were either war or participation.
It is a tribute to the statesmanship of early black leaders that they elected to begin campaigning for the inclusion of blacks in the newly born Union through peaceful means. The Act of Union made black South Africans citizens, but denied them fundamental social, political and economic rights.
As black South Africans turned to grasp at new realities and to evolve tactics and strategies aimed at gaining full acceptance of blacks as citizens of the country, a new political tradition was born and a long struggle began.
The Act of Union was the culmination of very problematic processes and sets of events, but in itself did not necessarily carry the sins and stains of that which preceded it. It was an act of hope for a better future. That hope was realised for a minority, while the majority remained hopeless. But the fact that hope was asserted was of immense importance for, a century later, we may now rise to celebrate its final triumph for all South Africans.
Other countries have been unified by a shared national identity, ideology, religion or common interest, which is what underpinned the unification of Germany, Italy, the French Revolution, or the American Declaration of Independence. These events acted as the crucible for the birth of a new nation.
In our case, the birth of the nation was the result of an accommodation arising out of the settlement of many conflicts, all of which were rooted in greed, the need for survival, fear of those who were different, the quest for more land or the desire to protect one's own ancestral land, depending on who tells the story.
The moment of birth was not the act of a phoenix, as it were, rising out of a crucible of fire, but rather eight years of lengthy negotiations after the Anglo-Boer War, which resulted in the type of compromises that underpin our country, having been born out of mutual accommodation rather than a collective will.
We ended up with three capitals, spread between Cape Town, Pretoria and Bloemfontein, with Durban becoming the seat of railways and ports; a situation which persists 100 years later. We ended up with cohabitation between the then two ruling groups, the English and the Afrikaners, which then led to a bilingual society which they imposed on the rest of us, a country that has 11 official languages.
It was a political marriage of convenience. From that time, we blacks became a problem. When I was growing up, white politicians openly spoke of us in this Parliament as the "Native Problem". And I can visualise my mentor Professor Z K Matthews at Fort Hare University, complaining one morning during his lecture, when the Federasie vir Vrouens was making statements about the black problem; and worse - we became "Die Swart Gevaar"!
All this might be less than desirable, colleagues. But we are what we are and neither a country nor a person can deny the fact and significance of South Africa's birth. Like many other countries, we should have had the courage, self-respect and pride to organise a grand parade which could show to ourselves and to the world where we come from.
This would have been particularly poignant coming just nine days before the kick-off of the 2010 Fifa World Cup, as the eyes of the world are upon us. We may have used this opportunity to open a debate on the independence of nations and the interdependence of history.
We could have shown the world how a country like ours, born out of compromise, could grow into a shared identity. We should be proud of our diversity, and this was an opportunity for us to showcase it, for to me it represents the very strength of our nation.
The patriotism on full display in South Africa is not diminished by reminders of where we come from, but rather enhanced. On the centennial anniversary of our country's birth, I would have liked to see celebrations across the country, a dedicated day and all the other public and private activities which have marked the significant striking of the clock of history in our country. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, hon Acting President and hon members, the issue that we are debating today remains as relevant as it was 100 years ago.
I have listened to what some of my colleagues before me have said. It is not a question, as far as I am concerned, about "Swartgevaar" or not "Swartgevaar", about racism or inhumanity. It is a question of how to get the recipe right in this country to live together as one nation, understanding the cultural diversity, the reality of South Africa, of how to become a winning nation.
Why do we have this debate today? We have this debate because the centenary of the Union is part of our history, something that we cannot deny. That is what happened 100 years ago. Somewhere down here in the basement is a huge picture of the National Convention. That is part of our history. Maybe one day we should display it, together with new pictures of the new South Africa and the new Cabinet and the new Presidents, because that is all part of our history.
I listened to the Chief Whip of the ANC, and he made the point that we are celebrating the victory of humanity over inhumanity, the victory of nonracism over racism. Yes, we are all brilliant with hindsight, but sometimes it is not that simple.
Ek kan u verseker dat vir Afrikaners wie so pas uit die Anglo-Boereoorlog gekom het waar hulle alles verloor het - hul vryheid; hul huise; hul geliefdes; hul alles - het 1908 of die Nasionale Konvensie nie oor 'n oorwinning oor swartmense gegaan nie.
Dit het daaroor gegaan om te probeer herwin en teen Britse imperialisme op te staan; om te probeer om selfregering en selfbeskikking in daardie tyd terug te kry. Ons moet ons geskiedenis in die regte konteks sien. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[I can assure you that for those Afrikaners who had just come out of the Anglo-Boer War where they lost everything - their freedom; their homes; their loved ones; everything - 1908 or the National Convention was not about a victory over black people.
It was about reclaiming, and standing up against British imperialism; an attempt to reclaim self-rule and self-determination at that time. We must look at our history in the proper context.]
On 31 May 1910 the Union of South Africa came into being, precisely eight years after the signing of the Treaty of Vereeniging, which brought an end to the Anglo-Boer War. It was a Union under the British imperial flag. The head of state was King George V. The British had achieved with the war what they had set out to achieve right from the beginning. Why? The world's richest gold mines were now safely under the control of British imperialism, not Afrikaner nationalism. They were in the hands of British imperialism.
It was expected of Afrikaners to rebuild the destroyed Boer Republics and the Union of South Africa, and for that they received limited self-rule under British supervision.
The birth of the Union in 1910 was a direct result of the deliberations of the National Convention that started in October 1908 in Durban, and that National Convention - I mentioned the picture - consisted of 30 persons: 12 from the Cape Colony, eight from the Transvaal, five from the Free State and five from Natal. Now of those 30 people, 16 were of British descent and 14 were Afrikaners - my time is long gone.
The point I wanted to make is that Afrikaners were there at that stage to play their role. They have been here over the past 100 years to play their role. They have played their role and they will continue to do so. The challenge that we all have is: What is the final recipe to make us a winning nation in all respects? The goodwill is there. We still need to find that final recipe. Thank you. [Applause.]
Deputy Speaker, Acting President, whilst understandably there are those who have no desire to celebrate the centenary of the Union of South Africa because it was the beginning of suffering for the majority of South Africans, it remains an event that we cannot ignore or wish away.
In 1910, the original South African constitution came into being to bring to an end the Anglo Boer War to an end and unify the four colonies. The draft constitution appeared to offer an end to antagonism. Sadly, the existing antagonism between the Boers and the British took precedence over all other considerations, resulting in the trampling of other people's rights, specifically those of the blacks, coloureds and Indians.
The Union and the constitution nearly failed because of the refusal of the more northern colonies to accept the extension of the Cape's nonracial franchise. A delegation led by W P Schreiner, a former Prime Minister of the Cape, and his fellow petitioners told the British House of Commons that the only method of securing peace, harmony and contentment was by granting equal political rights to qualified men, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
We look back with 20-20 hindsight and see the foolishness of not embracing all peoples living in the nation and regret the time wasted when we could have walked side by side and learned from one another.
Like the coming Soccer World Cup, unification promoted a more rapid modernisation of the country than might otherwise have been the case. The infrastructure passed on to the government in 1994 compared favourably with developed nations.
Today South Africa is a unified rainbow nation and the result of efforts both helpful and harmful by all over the past 100 years. Our willingness to consider celebrating our unity on a day like today shows, I think, a degree of maturity which offers hope for all who live in and love South Africa. I thank you. [Applause.]
Chairperson, some see the Union of South Africa centenary as something that should be celebrated or commemorated, but what is it that we should commemorate about this Union? Is it the fact that the British and the Afrikaners, in spite of their contentions with each other, agreed that the country needed to put in place laws to limit black access to political power? Or is it the fact that the Afrikaners and the British agreed that they needed to unite in order to secure cheap black labour and exploit our minerals? To me, this is what marks the Union of South Africa's centenary. I hear the blabbering about this being a milestone, but all it really reflects is the white race uniting to oppress native black South Africans. This we must not forget. [Applause.] We cannot afford to forget, especially when looking at the economic situation for blacks and the reluctance of many whites to address and redress this.
The need to address economic and land ownership disparities is urgent, because when we today reflect on the Union of South Africa centenary today, the legacy we see is whites really having united in acquiring wealth at the expense and through the exploitation and oppression of native South Africans. That legacy needs to change as a matter of urgency. I thank you. [Applause.]
Adjunkspeaker, net soos die totstandkoming van die nuwe Suid- Afrika as 'n wonderwerk aanvaar word, kan die onderhandelinge van die Nasionale Konvensie wat op 12 Oktober 1908 in Durban begin het en op 31 Mei 1910 tot die totstandkoming van die Unie van Suid-Afrika gelei het, as 'n staatkundige wonderwerk vir sy tyd beskou word. Dit was egter een wat ongelukkig nie aan al sy inwoners gelyke regte gegee het nie.
Dit was egter 'n wonderwerk omdat, toe die Nasionale Konvensie begin het, die drie jaar lange Anglo-Boereoorlog maar ses jaar vantevore op 31 Mei 1902 met die Vrede van Vereeniging ten einde geloop het. Gevoelens tussen Boer en Engelsman was nog rou. Verder was daar sterk wantroue by die bevolking. In die Transvaal was daar digene wat gevra het waarom die ryk goudopbrengste met die res van Suid-Afrika gedeel moes word, en ook waarom hulle die gevaar moes loop van die ho belastings wat in daardie tyd in die Kaapkolonie gegeld het.
In die Kaapkolonie was daar weer digene wat gevrees het dat die Transvaal met sy ekonomiese voorspoed die res van die land sal oordonder en die vrees dat die Kaapkolonie die stemreg van sy swart en bruin bevolking sou moes inboet. In Natal was daar gevrees dat hulle hul sterk Brits-gebaseerde karakter en vryhede sou verloor, en in die Vrystaat was daar weer die vrees dat so 'n klein republiek binne 'n Unie deur die ander oordonder sou word.
Die dertig afgevaardigdes - twaalf van die Kaap, agt van die Transvaal, en vyf elk van Natal en die Oranje-Vrystaat, plus drie afgevaardigdes sonder stemreg van Rhodesi - het inderdaad 'n wonderwerk vir hul tyd bewerkstellig. Dis maklik om vandag vinger te wys na die gebreke van die Nasionale Konvensie.
Ons moet egter hul tydsgebondenheid verstaan. Twee voorbeelde is onder andere: die 33 mans het byvoorbeeld meer as een petisie van vroue gekry, een met meer as 7 000 handtekeninge, om tog nie stemreg aan vroue te gee nie, iets wat eers twee dekades later sou kom, en niemand minder nie as genl Jan Smuts het sterk geargumenteer dat die Parlement die hoogste gesag moet wees en dat die onverkose regbank nie finale uitsluitsel oor wetgewing mag gee nie. Abraham Fischer, premier van die Vrystaat, het vir Smuts hierin teengestaan.
Daar kan met reg ges word dat die Uniewording se hoofdoel was om ongelukkig net die Afrikaners en die Engelssprekendes bymekaar te bring, hul versoening na te streef, en in die proses Suid-Afrika ekonomies op te bou.
Dit is interessant om daarop te let dat 16 afgevaardigdes van Engelssprekende afkoms en 14 Hollandssprekend was. Lees 'n mens die debat van die imperiale Parlement in Londen wat op 16 en 19 Augustus 1909 die Zuid-Afrika Wet gedebatteer het, is dit ook duidelik dat die hoofsaak vir Brittanje was 'n welvarende land wat tot die imperiale ryk moes bydra. Oor die regte van die res van die inheemse bevolking is daar in di debat wel vrae gevra, maar die wet is onveranderd deurgevoer.
Lof vir die afgevaardigdes se leierskap - met veral die voorsitter van die konvensie, Sir Henry de Villiers, Hoofregter van die Kaapkolonie wat uitgesonder is - is uitgespreek, want die nuwe Unie het Britse belange eintlik volledig verteenwoordig.
Ja, die vinger kon gewys word dat die konvensie die totstandkoming van 'n sterk Unie as die enigste manier gesien het om die inheemse vraagstuk, soos dit genoem is, vorentoe op te los. Wat stemreg betref, is die Unie dus in sonde ontvang en gebore. Die Transvaal en die Vrystaat wou niks weet van stemreg vir swartmense, bruinmense en Indirs nie.
Die wete dat die Britte ten minste 60 000 swart en bruin mans onder wapen gebring het om teen die Boere te veg en veral ten opsigte van wat hulle op die plase aan weerlose vroue en kinders gedoen het, het waarskynlik tot hierdie onverbiddelikheid bygedra.
Selfs die Natalse afgevaardigdes, kol Greene en Sir Hislop, was onverbiddelik teen die uitbreiding van stemreg, omdat hulle gevrees het dat die Zulus met wie hulle vantevore in oorlo was teen hulle sou draai. Op die ou end is die status quo gehandhaaf. Geen stemreg vir swartes, bruines en Indirs in die Transvaal en die Vrystaat nie, terwyl swartmense in Natal stemreg kon bekom, maar dit was onder sulke moeilike voorwaardes dat dit stemreg eintlik uitgesluit het.
Net in die Kaapkolonie is daar betekenisvolle stemreg vir swart en bruin kiesers behou. Adv F S Malan wat gedurende die oorlog deur die Engelse in die tronk gestop is oor sy koerant se ondersteuning vir die Boere en ook ander Afrikaners uit die Kaap het regdeur geveg vir die behoud van die Kaapse stemreg.
Oor ander moeilike kwessies is geredelik eenstemmigheid gekry. 'n Unie en nie 'n federasie nie sou tot stand kom en dit sou wel onder die Britse Kroon plaasvind. Oor ampstale is die volgende voorstel eenparig aanvaar: Beide die Engelse en Hollandse tale sal amptelike tale van die Unie wees en sal gelyke vryhede, regte en voorregte besit en geniet. Alle verslae, joernale en verrigtinge van die Unie-Parlement sal in albei tale wees, en alle wetsontwerpe, aktes en kennisgewings van algemene publieke belang en betekenis wat deur die Unie-regering uitgevaardig word, sal in albei tale wees.
Verskeie sake en sommige wat vandag selfs geld, is so in goedertrou besleg. Pretoria is die administratiewe hoofstad, Bloemfontein is die regterlike hoofstad, en hier sit ons in Kaapstad in die wetgewende hoofstad.
Laat ons leer uit die foute oor uitsluiting wat destyds gemaak is, maar laat ons ook positief wees. Uniewording het hierdie mooi land van ons tot 'n geografiese eenheid gebind. Die staat Suid-Afrika wat ontwikkel het, het tot die suksesvolste land op die Afrika-vasteland ontwikkel.
Die bevolking het van 6 miljoen tot 50 miljoen gegroei. Die lewensstandaard het dramaties gestyg, en staatkundig het 'n kieserslys wat oorheers is deur blanke mans ontwikkel tot 'n volwaardige stemreg vir almal bo 18 jaar. Na die monargale stelsel van 1910 het ons in 1961 'n Republiek met 'n President as 'n staatshoof gekry wat behou is toe ons in 1994 'n volwaardige demokrasie geword het.
Soos in 1910 en 1994, kan ons weer eens in ons nasiebou en in ons ekonomiese opheffingstaak wonderwerke laat gebeur. Ek lees die volgende aanhaling deur Antonio Gramsci, 'n Italiaanse filosoof:
The old is dead and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum, many morbid symptoms appear.
Ja, daar was na 1910 vir baie jare morbiede simptome, en daar is ook morbiede simptome in die nuwe Suid-Afrika wat ons nie verwag het nie, waarteen ons veg, maar die nuwe moet gebore word: 'n nuwe Suid-Afrikaanse identiteit waarin ons onsself kan wees en deel met almal; 'n nuwe identiteit waarin ons almal in ons land, die Republiek van Suid-Afrika, tuis sal voel. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Mr W P DOMAN: Deputy Speaker, in the same way that the establishment of the new South Africa is considered to be a miracle, the negotiations of the National Convention, which started in Durban on 12 October 1908 and led to the establishment of the Union of South Africa on 31 May 1910, could also be seen as a constitutional miracle for its time. It was, however, one that unfortunately did not afford all its residents equal rights.
Nevertheless, it was a miracle because when the National Convention started the Anglo-Boer War, which lasted for three years, had ended only six years before when the Peace Treaty of Vereeniging was signed on 31 May 1902. Feelings between the Boer and the Englishman were still raw. In addition, there was a feeling of deep-rooted distrust among the population. In the Transvaal there were those who questioned why the high returns from gold had to be shared with the rest of South Africa, and why they had to run the risk of paying the high taxes that were levied in the Cape Colony at that time.
In the Cape Colony, in turn, there were those who feared that the Transvaal with its economic prosperity would overshadow the rest of the country and that the Cape Colony would have to forfeit the franchise of its African and Coloured population. In Natal, the fear existed that they would lose their strong British-based character and freedoms, and in the Free State there was the fear that such a small republic would be overshadowed by the others in a Union.
The thirty delegates - twelve from the Cape, eight from the Transvaal, and five each from Natal and the Orange Free State, plus three delegates from Rhodesia without the right to vote - did indeed accomplish a miracle for their time. Today, it is easy to point fingers at the shortcomings of the National Convention.
However, we have to understand that they were time-bound. Two examples, amongst others, are: the 33 men, for instance, received more than one petition from women, one with more than 7 000 signatures, not to give women the franchise, something that would only happen two decades later, and no less a person than Gen Jan Smuts put forward a strong argument that the Parliament had to be the highest authority and that the unelected judiciary may not make the final pronouncement on legislation. Abraham Fischer, premier of the Free State, opposed Smuts on this.
It could justifiably be said that the main aim of establishing the Union was unfortunately only to unite the Afrikaners and English-speaking people, and to strive towards their reconciliation and build the South African economy in the process.
It is interesting to note that 16 delegates were of English-speaking descent and 14 were Dutch. When one reads the debate of the imperial Parliament in London, which discussed the South Africa Act on 16 and 19 August 1909, it is also clear that the main objective for Britain was a prosperous country that had to contribute to the imperialist empire. Questions were indeed asked about the rights of the indigenous population during this debate, but the Act was promulgated without amendments.
Praise was expressed for the leadership of the delegates - singling out the chairperson of the convention, Sir Henry de Villiers, Chief Justice of the Cape Colony in particular - because the new Union actually fully represented British interests.
Yes, it could be said that the convention saw the establishment of a strong Union as the only way to resolve the indigenous question, as it was called, in the years ahead. With regard to the franchise, the Union was, therefore, conceived and born in sin. The Transvaal and the Free State wanted nothing to do with enfranchising Africans, Coloureds or Indians.
The knowledge that the British had called up at least 60 000 African and Coloured men to take up arms against the Boers, and particularly with regard to what they had done to defenceless women and children on the farms, probably contributed to this implacability.
Even the delegates from Natal, Col Greene and Sir Hislop, were implacably against extending the franchise because they feared that the Zulus, with whom they had been engaged in wars before, would turn against them. In the end, the status quo was maintained. Africans, Coloureds and Indians in the Transvaal and the Free State were not allowed to vote, while Africans in Natal could be enfranchised, but it was under such difficult conditions that it actually excluded franchise.
Only the Cape Colony retained meaningful franchise for African and Coloured voters. Adv F S Malan, who had been imprisoned by the British during the war for his newspaper's support for the Boers, as well as other Afrikaners from the Cape fought throughout for the retention of the Cape franchise.
Other difficult issues were readily agreed upon. A Union would be established and not a federation and it would indeed be under the British Crown. The following recommendation was accepted unanimously with regard to official languages: Both English and Dutch would be the official languages of the Union and they would have and enjoy equal freedoms, rights and privileges. All reports, journals and proceedings of the Union Parliament would be in both languages, and all Bills, Acts and notices of general public interest and significance issued by the Union government would be in both languages.
In this way several matters, and some that are still relevant today, were resolved in good faith. Pretoria would be the administrative capital, Bloemfontein the judicial capital, and here we are in Cape Town in the legislative capital.
Let us learn from the mistakes made back then in respect of exclusion, but let us also be positive. The establishment of a Union brought together this beautiful country of ours as a geographical unit. The South African state that emerged developed into the most successful country on the African continent.
The population has grown from six million to 50 million. The standard of living has improved drastically, and constitutionally a voters' roll which had been dominated by white men has developed into a full franchise for everyone above 18 years. Subsequent to the system of monarchy of 1910, we got a Republic in 1961 with a President as the Head of State, which was retained when we became a fully fledged democracy in 1994.
As was the case in 1910 and 1994, we can once again make miracles happen in our task of nation-building and economic upliftment. I am reading the following quote from Antonio Grasci, an Italian philosopher:
The old is dead and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum, many morbid symptoms appear.
Yes, after 1910 there were morbid symptoms for many years, and there are also morbid symptoms in the new South Africa that we did not expect, that we are fighting against, but the new has to be born: a new South African identity in which we can be ourselves and share with everyone; a new identity in which we will all feel at home in our country, the Republic of South Africa. [Applause.]]
Deputy Speaker, hon Deputy President, hon members, when the Blue Bulls won the Super 14 Cup at Orlando Stadium, whilst many may have missed the significance of the occasion, the Blue Bulls coach offered us an important respite when he remarked amidst the euphoria, and I quote:
One day we will look back and appreciate what it was about. This was not an insignificant or minor occasion. In the same way, the founding of the Union of South Africa was an important event 100 years ago. Those of us who are lucky to be alive today are accorded that precious moment to look back and appreciate what it was about. We carry with us the responsibility to find what was positive, if any, in that act and yet to negate through our present day deeds, its destructive legacy of exclusion, racism, class oppression and gender discrimination.
Before we proceed, we need to remind ourselves that the colonisation of South Africa, as was the case with the other colonies, had been spawned by the emergence and spread of capitalism as a global system.
In 1776, Adam Smith wrote that the discovery of America and the passage to the East Indies via the Cape of Good Hope were the two greatest events recorded in human history. The full extent of those consequences at the time, although they very great, were still impossible to fully comprehended. However he said and I quote:
To the natives, both of the East and West Indies, all the commercial benefits which can have resulted from these events, have been sunk and lost in the dreadful misfortunes which they have occasioned.
Almost a century later Marx said these events "signalled the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production" and were "the chief momenta of primitive accumulation".
They not only shaped the modern South African state but also laid the foundation for the subsequent dreadful misfortunes that black people were to experience for almost a century.
More than anything else it was the discovery of diamonds and gold that was to play a decisive role in the course of political and economic development in South Africa. It created new conditions which were, in many ways, different from the general situation of the classical colonial system pertaining throughout the African continent.
As a result of these discoveries, the settler communities decided to settle here permanently, which accordingly created a peculiar situation in which both the colonial ruling class, with its white support base, and the oppressed majority shared a single country.
In this arrangement, all white classes benefited, albeit unequally and in different ways, from the internal colonial structure and conversely, all black classes suffered national oppression and economic exploitation albeit in varying degrees and different ways. This is what came to be known as "colonialism of a special type".
The discovery of mineral wealth propelled conditions for an advanced capitalist economy in South Africa, but within the broader system of colonial domination in the imperialistic epoch.
This created new levels of economic greed and political ambitions amongst the British imperialists and set them along the path of war. The so called Anglo-Boer War was an imperialist war fought to decide the ownership of the richest gold mines in South Africa. Despite its being regarded as a family quarrel to forge white unity, many Africans participated in the war and suffered in one way or another. Their contribution was neither acknowledged nor rewarded.
This was deliberate as neither the Brits nor the Boers wanted to be seen to owe the Africans anything out of the war. The defeat of the Boers and the end of the South African War resulted in the consolidation of the British Empire over all of South Africa. In the postwar arrangements, the Afrikaners emerged as junior partners even though they were never to accept this position.
They began systematically capturing the levers of the state and the economy in order to better position themselves in the new settlement, forging specific economic interests and referring to themselves as a "volk" [people].
Critical in what they did, was the use of "korrektiewe aksie" [corrective action] in order to enhance their political and economic aspirations as a group. They, today, think that the victims of the legacy of this marriage of convenience achieved in 1910, do not deserve the same "korrektiewe aksie".
The Union partially settled the native problem by uniting the two central political blocks of the white establishment and excluding the black majority in the settlement. The priority now was the unity of the two main white groups to resolve the native question, the proverbial white man's burden.
In this arrangement, these two groups would have no concern for what black people thought or aspired to. Unsurprisingly, in the Union race was to play a primary role. South Africa was dubbed a white man's country and democracy itself was defined as a white man's democracy. Accordingly, we see that the Union of South Africa was, throughout its existence, an anti-African union wherein black people had neither a political role nor an economic stake.
It was predicated on this notion that Africans were cheap and expendable labour, and were not South Africans. By failing to grant black people political rights, their economic exploitation was turned into law and created a situation in which race, class and gender oppression were so enmeshed to a point where national liberation would be meaningless without, at the same time, pursuing gender equality and class emancipation.
This meant that they could neither pursue their political aspirations nor realise their full economic rights in the Union that would condemn them to be perpetual producers of wealth, which they produced not for their own benefit but for its appropriation by the white minority. They were treated not as human beings but as beasts of burden - cheap labour without rights.
Furthermore, it was to ensure that they did not become a political threat to the establishment. They feared that by offering them a franchise, they would use their numbers to unseat them, take over the state and transform them from the status of producers without rights, to that of masters of their own destiny.
The natives were an ever present menace in the Union. Accordingly, the exploitation of their labour, going hand in hand with their political oppression, became a vital instrument for the pursuit of economic plunder.
The exploitation of the country's resources depended upon black labour. For this reason the colonial regimes would put in place a battery of laws to control and exploit black labour such as that pertaining to Bantu education and intended to ensure that black people would have no skills, generation after generation.
This explains why the European settlers and successive white regimes relied on unskilled African labour and consequently why South Africa is today faced with such an enormous lack of skilled labour and high unemployment, particularly amongst Africans. [Applause.]
Amongst whites, the unemployment rate has always hovered at 4% from 1970 to 2008 and only went up to approximately 6,1% during the recession, which disproves the lie that the white youth have been negatively affected by affirmative action and black economic empowerment, BEE.
The current structure of the South African economy was created over a century ago and was pursued with unyielding zeal and an unnerving totality during this period that started in 1910. Clearly, the Union economic structure was so perverse that it negated its own possibility for further development and modernisation and eventually became a fetter to capitalism itself.
From the white minority state, established in 1910, we see that Africans got the rawest deal, which is why in 1976 Walter Sisulu characterised the central feature of the revolution in South Africa as an African revolution and wrote:
In the first place, the oppression and exploitation of the African people is the pivot around which the whole system of white supremacy revolves.
By this he meant that the liberation of the African people was a necessary condition for removing the oppression of all other national groups in South Africa.
Nineteen ninety-four achieved what the founders of the Union of South Africa in 1910 had been too shortsighted to envision, which is the creation of a nonracial Union of South Africa. Standing as we do at this historic juncture, only our extravagant imagination can allow us to go back a century earlier and imagine what could have been achieved, had the Brits and the Boers sat together in Vereeniging with the leaders of black people, such as Dr Abdullah Abdurahman, Prof Jabavu, Dr Dube, Dr Pixley ka Isaka Seme and Charlotte Maxeke, to found a nonracial Union on the basis of universal franchise.
Indeed, the past 100 years would have turned out vastly and qualitatively different and the previous century of racial strife would have been avoided. South Africa would have long been a nonracial nation. This is precisely what the Union of South Africa failed to achieve. Whilst it united South Africa, it deliberately and dismally failed to forge a united, nonracial and democratic nation.
By precipitating as it did the unification of South Africa, it also helped to precipitate the forging of a liberatory African nationalism that eventually culminated in the formation of the African National Congress, bringing together the various native congresses that already existed in the colonies and compelling them to forge a congress of the African nation in the whole territory of South Africa.
The formation of this congress of the African nation was an answer to the Union of South Africa and set us along a path of a truly democratic and nonracial nation. The antithesis of the colonial state of 1910, must find expression in the fulfilment of the social aspirations of all South Africans, black and white, so that they can all identify themselves with the new state.
The new South Africa we are constructing today is consciously duty bound to be inclusive and biased towards the poor and vulnerable of all racial groups. To say this does not mean that the liberation of the Africans and black people in general is no longer relevant. However, it acknowledges the new political and social dynamics spawned by the progress of the national democratic revolution such as that there are poor and vulnerable white South Africans who equally need the support of the new democratic state.
The new South Africa established in 1994 has been premised on the noblest values of the Freedom Charter that South Arica belongs to all who live in it, black and white. No government can justly claim authority, unless it is based on the will of all the people. Our country will never be prosperous and free until all our people live in brotherhood, enjoying equal rights and opportunities. Only a democratic state based on the will of all the people can secure to all their birth right without distinction of colour, race, sex or belief.
This remains a revolution of all the people whose liberation of the most oppressed would simultaneously result in the liberation of white people in general from the burden of apartheid, which they have carried for centuries around their necks like a heavy chain. In particular, it would free the white working class and the white poor from the pact they made with white capital to defend the status quo.
It would bind them into a new, principled pact with their black counterparts and free them wholeheartedly to pursue their genuine interests together with black workers, without having to pay allegiance to a system that negated their genuine interest as a class and made them partners in its depravity.
This is what a real Union of South Africa should have been about in the first instance. I thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, hon members, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, ladies and gentlemen, as we all know, yesterday, 31 May 2010, marked the centenary of the Union of South Africa.
We are gathered in this National Assembly as public representatives in the democratic state of South Africa. We are not assembled here to apportion blame or to exclude others from sharing in nation-building and social cohesion programmes. In our approach to commemorating history, we should neither be eclectic nor silent.
As has been said by speakers before me in this House, the formation of the Union was a significant milestone in the establishment of the nation-state we now know as the Republic of South Africa. This marked the culmination of engagements of the victorious British economic interests on the one hand, and the defeated Boer republics on the other, in a manner which excluded the African people, who had also participated in this South African War.
It is worth noting that this war was referred to by the Afrikaner historians as ...
... die Tweede Vryheidsoorlog ... [... the Second Boer War ... ]
... eVryheid baba ngapha eNatali ...[... in Vryheid sir, in Natal ...]
... and by the British or English historians as the Anglo-Boer War, implying that only Afrikaners and British participated in the war. And yet, we know today that the Sesotho language is richer because of the observations the Basothos made during this war, when they described a fierce war or a fierce contestation. In Sesothso they say...
Ke ntwa ya dibono ena ntate; ho hobe. [Man, this is a war that is very tough; things are bad.]
This is an idiom informed by the fact that a contingent of Scotsmen, a Scottish regiment, also participated in that war. When the Basothos came across the bodies of the dead Scotsmen lying there with their kilts not quite covering the lower part of their bodies, they coined this idiom, which they use up to today to describe fierce contestations. [Laughter.]
The founding of the Union is one singular event that determined the contours of modern-day South Africa since the South Africa Act of 1909.
Hon members, engagement with the Union of South Africa as a chapter of our history will not only help us understand where we are today as a nation, but also, based on this historical understanding, help us find correct ways out of our present conditions.
We are a people who have always been ready to engage and discuss what is of concern to us as a nation. Throughout the history and experience of dispossession, African people opposed exclusion and never accepted being left out of processes that affected their lives. Therefore they always posited principles of inclusivity as opposed to exclusion.
It is thanks to visionary leaders such as Dr Abdulla Abdurahman, Mohandas Gandhi, Prof John Tengo Jabavu, Sol Plaatje and Dr John Langalibalele Dube, and many others, that our people were kept abreast of all the developments leading up to the formation of the Union. These brave men and women could unpack and translate every part of the debates to their chiefs, elders and ordinary fellow Africans.
Hon members, as an answer and a direct response to this act of exclusion, these leaders came together in Bloemfontien on 8 January 1912 to form the South African Native National Congress as a parliament of the people.
Because they were excluded from the main body politic of this country, they formed their own parliament. Most importantly, the seeds for nonracialism in South Africa can be traced back to this era of activism in which leaders opposed the rendering of Africans as temporary sojourners in the land of their birth.
As public representatives, we are obliged to take the lead on behalf of our people by relaying our history as our forebears did in the past. Let us engage with history in its entirety and shun the silence to inaction. I believe we are ready to take on the meanings and implications emanating from the centenary of the Union of South Africa.
Since the dawn of our constitutional democracy, we have always demonstrated a collective maturity to deal with inconvenient truths, as uncomfortable as they may be. The task before us, irrespective of where in the political spectrum we reside, is one requiring us to engage with this history comprehensively and objectively. We have to deal with this history in its entirety and embrace it for what it is, failing which, history will become subjective and reflective of the interests and viewpoints of the victors. As one old African idiom states: Only once lions have historians, will hunters cease to be heroes.
Therefore, our task, as a nation united in its diversity, should not be restricted by a willing embrace of only what is positive in our eyes, because those negative elements in our historical record are there to alert us to the directions from which we should steer clear.
Ordinarily, this centenary celebration should be a subject for national discourse, discussed in every town and village, dorpie and township. But, as matters have turned out, it is not. Instead, we find ourselves in a headlong rush to move forward without understanding where we come from.
Let me not delve into the details of events that occurred leading up to the formation of the Union 100 years ago, as this has been covered by other hon members.
For practical purposes, this epochal moment signalled the beginning of the long period of exclusion of the majority of our people from meaningful participation in the main body politic of our country. This exclusion also meant that race continued to be a significant index in both the polity and economy of our country.
The consequences of the establishment of the Union of South Africa are reverberating in all aspects of society today, 16 years into our democracy. And so, if we are to address the challenges besetting us in present day South Africa - challenges of poverty and inequality, social cohesion, and residues of racism and sexism - we can only do so guided by a clearer comprehension of this collective past from which none of us can escape.
Of course, reflection on odious acts in our past does not call for a common interpretation of history. Instead, it encourages all of us to be candid and open about our shared past with a view not only to prevent repetition of such mistakes, but also, more importantly, with a view to use such mistakes to rebuild our nation.
This is our history and a ledger of memory upon which our present socioeconomic conditions are based. Admittedly, our past is a past of pain for many of our people. The majority of South Africans have suffered much from policies of dispossession and from practices of exploitation. Yes, we are saddled with monuments reminding us of this pain and suffering. Yes, there is a temptation for us to consider wiping the slate of our history clean.
Every event in our lore, dating from the arrival of the Dutch East Indian Company in 1652, should, of necessity, be objectively catalogued and narrated for posterity. If we decide to make feel-good history our focus, we are most likely to repeat the errors of our past. Should we be remiss in this task, I believe we would be betraying the memory of those who lived and died in the course of this history.
Hon members, in embracing the past, especially its negative and unappealing aspects, such as those resulting from land dispossession, we do not by any stretch of the imagination intend to rub it in among certain sections of our population.
What we need is an all-inclusive process that involves the participation of all communities and social groups in determining our collective history and shared destiny. This is what would happen if we remain silent about our history and select to focus instead on episodes favourable to our purposes. Only this time, those condemning history to the bin of forgetfulness will not be agents of oppression, but all of us, through our silence and selective amnesia.
As it is commonly said, there is no silence without a language to make it so. Instead, it is our duty to betray silence, since there is no sorrow as deep as a sorrow of the unknown and what is denied.
I am convinced silence would not be the correct approach. We need to have a dialogue with the events from whence we come. We have to negotiate our presence by preservation of the unimaginable acts that took place during South Africa's period of slavery, colonialism and apartheid. There cannot be any lasting comfort in razing material testaments which, I would suggest, need to be imaginatively recaptured by our artists, architects and historians, so that the tales continue to live on, not only in the oral narrative but in the material representations such as museums and place names. After all, in the dialogue of slavery, colonialism and apartheid are stories of survival and of ultimate triumph against inhumane systems.
The project of nation-building and social cohesion that we began 16 years ago demands nothing less than inviting every group and community in deciding on how we approach and relate to our shared history and common destiny.
I am of the view that if everyone is made to feel welcome in communicating the narrative of South Africa, we would then be a step closer to convincing them to feel patriotic as South Africans.
Hon members, our history when viewed in its entirety offers us salutary benefits on how to deal with issues of racial politics, building programmes of unity and forging ahead to build a society all its inhabitants can be proud of.
In conclusion, let us remember the fact that silence is as much an omission as it is a commission. The late national laureate, Mazisi Kunene, with these words, offers us a reason to preserve our history:
We must congregate here around the sitting mat, to narrate endlessly the stories of distant worlds. It is enough to do so, to give our tale the grandeur of an ancient heritage and then to clap our hands for those who are younger.
I thank you for your attention. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.