The Constitution offers South Africans the rights required to participate in its governance. ROELF MEYER asks whether we are claiming ownership of them.

Roelf Meyer Courtesy BBC News

2007 will probably be the most important political year since the country’s democratic transition in 1994. From 2009 South Africa will have a new president, and the national conference of the African National Congress in December will provide the first concrete indication of who that person might be. The choice of candidate will arguably be one of the critical factors that shape South Africa’s future between 2009 and 2014, and possibly for another five years after that.

This year may therefore be the beginning of a new phase in our democracy. Before we enter this new era, it may serve us to pause and take stock of our achievements over the past thirteen years. We need to do so in order to identify our comparative gains as well as those areas where democratic deficits still persist. I would like to do this by proposing a number of indicators which I believe are important for measuring our progress, and which will also remind us of the challenges we still face.

First off, it would be fair to say that the South African democracy has developed a high degree of maturity since 1994. For those holding a different view, it might be instructive to look at recent developments in Nigeria, one of the older democracies on our continent. The development of democracy over the past thirteen years in South Africa is truly beyond what most of us, including myself, expected.

For many of us who were involved in the political negotiations, this process has, in subsequent years, extended to interactions beyond the sphere of politics. Strong friendships have been forged between individuals who sat on different sides of the negotiation table. From a personal perspective, this is one of the wonderful things that have transpired. It brings me to the first principle -- or in this case, set of complimentary principles -- which I believe will be critical in determining the course that we as a country will embark upon in years to come: consensus, reconciliation and transformation.

At the time of the negotiations, a fine balance had to be struck between consensus and reconciliation on the one hand, and justice on the other. Referring to the impact that apartheid had on the majority of our population, some argued at the time that there was no reason to seek either consensus or national reconciliation. Luckily this view did not prevail and instead we were fortunate enough to have leaders that were committed to consensus and reconciliation as the critical components for a lasting peace. However, I would like to submit that it is debatable whether, through our processes of consensus and reconciliation, we have indeed sufficiently addressed the anger that prevailed at the time. Have we vindicated the faith that was put in these principles?

We need to ask this question because, although we have managed to bring about a smooth political transition, the actual transformation of our society still appears to be incomplete. At the negotiation table, it was argued that justice for apartheid crimes should be postponed in order to allow consensus and reconciliation to pave the way for the real structural transformation of our society. This was the rationale on which the quest for reconciliation was based. It is with this in mind that we need to remind ourselves that transformation was as much part of the settlement agreement in 1994 as consensus and reconciliation were. Quite frankly, if we had to judge the state of transformation in South Africa today, many would say there is still a long road ahead of us. In 1994 my estimation was that the process of transformation would probably take fifteen years. If pressed to make this estimation today, I would probably say that we need another fifteen years. Even then, the process will most likely be incomplete. We need to start addressing the tension between the justice and the consensus/reconciliation camps, regardless of the obstacles in the way.

The second set of principles that need to be revisited relates to the juxtaposition of inclusiveness versus minority rights. During the negotiations, the government of the time maintained that minority rights had to be protected at all costs. But at some point the negotiations totally broke down, necessitating the adoption of a new paradigm which regarded individual rights as the bottom line for the equal treatment of all South Africans. This forms the basis of our Constitution as we know it today. The manner in which individual rights are therein described distinguishes it from all others, making it one of the most modern and liberal constitutions in the world. I would therefore like us to move away from the outdated majority-minority debate and focus instead on the individual rights the Constitution extends to us all.

Thirdly, I would like to refer to the category of principles that clarifies the distinction between tolerance and conflict. Although we were close to a civil war at one stage, the negotiation process forced us to develop an empathy for the positions that informed the different perspectives and political groupings in the country. Tolerance developed out of this understanding, replacing the conflict that had characterised our relationships up to that point. This, in turn, paved the way for all parties to accept ownership both of the whole process and the need to secure a common future. It is this ownership that enabled us to draft the Constitution as a homegrown model for our specific needs. While outside actors made important contributions, we were able to withstand the temptation to ‘import’ a model from abroad. If this had not been the case, we could have ended up in the same position as other troubled countries where imposed models have not necessarily translated into the resolution of conflict .

To me the important question today is whether we have managed to involve all South Africans in that ownership process. Put differently: are all of us taking on the responsibility of exercising that ownership? The way in which we will be moving forward as a democracy, should not be determined by one party or government alone; it is the responsibility of all of us because, as individuals, we have the responsibility and the right to claim ownership of it. This puts the onus on each of us to give serious thought to how we can claim that ownership and constructively correct that which we do not find acceptable in our society.

Meyer is currently a business person and serves on the board of directors of various companies and acts as a consultant on peace processes. He was chief negotiator of the National Party Government during the CODESA talks and served as a member of cabinet under the National Party government and the post-apartheid Government of National Unity.

(This is an edited version of a speech delivered by Mr Meyer which also appeared in Vol. 5, Issue 1 of the SA Reconciliation Barometer)