South Africa: The Solution

Frances Kendall and Leon Louw

Since it was first published in 1986, the book South Africa:  The Solution of which this article is a summary, has attracted considerable interest and support both within and outside South Africa.  It has been welcomed not only by prominent liberal whites and moderate blacks, including Helen Suzman and Mangosuthu Buthelezi, but even people of less moderate views, such as Winnie Mandela, and the right-wing Oranje Werkers leader, H.F. Verwoerd.  The reforms which Louw and Kendall propose are based on the Swiss system of government and involve a massive decentralisation of power.

South Africa's problem can be defined very simply as one of conflict between black aspirations and white fears.

Black South Africans have very few personal or political rights, and they have been prevented by many unjust laws from developing economically.  Now they are no longer prepared to accept the inequalities of the past and they are demanding representation in government and equality before the law.

White people have controlled political power ever since they first arrived in Southern Africa in the 17th century.  Most whites today realise that this situation cannot continue, but they are afraid that if they surrender political control, a hostile black government might use the powerful machinery of this highly centralised system to suppress white freedoms and seize white property.

The situation can be likened to that of a lion who has grown too big for his cage.  When he was put in the cage the lion was a little cub.  His keeper could stroke him and play with him through the bars.  But now the lion is fully grown, he is pacing up and down, rattling the bars and growling.  The people outside the cage all agree that lions should not be kept in cages, but they are afraid that if they let this one out he will eat them!

The purpose of South Africa:  The Solution is to show that it is possible to meet the aspirations of South African blacks without in any way prejudicing the rights and freedoms of white people.

A WORLD IN ONE COUNTRY

We have described South Africa's problem in a simple way, and this serves a useful purpose.  However, most people agree that the problem is, in fact, very complex.  To begin with, South Africans come from many different backgrounds.  There are eight major black tribes and many minor ones.  There are also two main white groups plus Indians, coloureds, and numerous other ethnic minorities such as Chinese, Italians, Portuguese, Greeks, Dutch and Germans.  All of these people speak different languages and have different cultures and they all want to be free to live according to what they believe is right or wrong, and to have a say in the rules and regulations which affect their lives.

A TOP-HEAVY GOVERNMENT

At present South Africa has one of the most centralised systems of government in the world.  In other words, nearly all of our laws are made by central government.  In most countries, and especially in democratic Western countries, this is not so.  Many government functions are passed down to local levels at which ordinary people can be involved in the decisions which affect them.

This top-heavy government is one of the major causes of the intensity of the power struggle that is taking place today.  Each group is afraid that some other group will take control of the government, and use that power to promote its own interests at the expense of the needs of others.

THE SOLUTION

Democracy

South Africans differ from one another on many matters, but almost all agree that any future system must be democratic.  Unfortunately, "democracy" means different things to different people.

The word "democracy" is derived from the Greek words for "people" (demos) and "power" (kratos).  In an ideal democracy those who govern should not have unlimited power.  Instead, the constitution and other safeguards should ensure that citizens have the power to stop their elected leaders from introducing bad laws.  Nowadays the word "democracy" is often used to describe something very different from the ideal.  For example, many one-party states call themselves "democratic" because they have one man one vote.  However, votes in such countries are worth little or nothing because only "approved" people may stand for election, and once in office they can do whatever they like -- including passing laws which harm the voters, and laws which ensure that no other group will ever emerge to challenge their hold on power.

The Swiss canton system

Switzerland is considered by many to be the most democratic country in the world.  It is small -- about the size of the Transkei -- and it is divided into 26 areas called cantons.  A central or federal government links the cantons into one unified country, but this central government controls only those affairs which are of interest to all the cantons.  These matters of common interest include foreign policy, national defence, federal railways and the mint.  All other issues -- education, labour, economic and welfare policies and so on -- are determined by the governments of the cantons, each of which is elected by all adult citizens resident in the canton.

Each canton elects representatives to the central government, and a different president is elected by members of the central government every year.

Because so many decisions are made at the local level the Swiss people are closely involved with the decisions which affect their lives and because each canton is different they are also able to see for themselves which policies work best.  For example, one canton might have high taxes and expensive welfare programmes, while another might opt for low taxes and private charity.  Each Swiss citizen can then decide which policy suits him best and "vote with his feet" by moving to the canton which he finds the most attractive.

One important reason for this decentralisation of power in Switzerland is that, unlike most European countries, Switzerland is made up of several different major ethnic groups -- Germans, French, Italians and Rhaeto-Romansch.  Over the years the Swiss have developed a system which permits people of different languages, cultures, religions and traditions to live together in peace and harmony.  This makes the Swiss system particularly well suited to South Africa.

South Africa:  The Solution proposes a canton system for South Africa very similar to the Swiss system described above.

South African cantons

We suggest that South Africa be divided into cantons using the present magisterial districts as a starting point.  Not counting the homelands there are approximately 300 magisterial districts, and their purpose is purely administrative.  In other words, their boundaries were established for ease of administration only, without reference to apartheid laws such as the Group Areas Act, and thus most of them are multi-racial.  Each has a magistrate's court, licensing office, tax office, school board, labour bureau, welfare office and so on.

We believe that a referendum should be held amongst all the people living in each magisterial district to determine whether the majority wants to keep the magisterial boundary as their canton boundary, or whether they wish to join up with neighbouring districts.  Or part of a magisterial district may vote to break away and form a new canton of its own.

The formation of cantons would be an ongoing process, as it is in Switzerland, where new cantons are being formed to this day.  It is impossible to predict how many cantons South Africa would end up with.  That would be decided by all South Africans.  But we believe that, initially at least, there would be many -- at least 100 -- because existing differences and tensions would be reflected in a division into numerous cantons.  In time, as tensions lessen and attitudes improve, it is possible that more and more cantons would amalgamate.

Citizens of each canton would hold elections to choose a cantonal government.  This would be the most important level of government, responsible for all aspects of economic, political and social policy except those few assigned to central government.  We believe canton governments should pass some powers even further down to local communities.  These could handle such matters as schools, transport, parks and recreation in their own areas.

Government policy would probably differ considerably from one canton and community to another, as each area would reflect the wishes and needs of the people living there.

HOW TO PREVENT THE ABUSE OF POWER

The Bill of Rights

We propose that a Bill of Rights be written into the central constitution.  This would guarantee every South African certain basic freedoms no matter who governs.  The Bill of Rights would be binding on every level of government (central, cantonal and community) and would include the following:

1. all people, regardless of colour, race, creed or gender, shall be equal before the law, and any discriminatory law will be forbidden;
2. all people will be citizens, including those living in all the homelands;
3. every adult citizen will be entitled to vote;
4. all citizens may move freely throughout South Africa;
5. all citizens will have the right to own property, and property rights may not be taken away by any government;
6. any person may associate or transact with any other person or refuse to associate or transact with any other person for any reason;
7. there shall be freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Referendums

As another means of preventing abuse of power we suggest a system of referendums whereby any proposed change to the central constitution must be put to the popular vote.  Furthermore, we suggest that citizens should have the right to request a referendum on any law, practice or policy they disagree with.  In order to do this they would have to obtain a specified number of signatures from others who agree with them.

The referendum (direct democracy) is very important because of the tendency of elected politicians to pass laws their own voters don't want.  A referendum is the most reliable way of determining what citizens want government to do regarding specific issues.

ADVANTAGES OF THE CANTON SYSTEM

Diversity

Perhaps the greatest advantage of a truly democratic system like this is that it allows many different policies and practices to exist at the same time in one country.  In this way most people will be able to find at least one canton in which they feel at home and can live according to their own values.

The demonstration effect

The canton system tends to ensure good government regardless of who governs because it provides a demonstration effect whereby it is possible for everyone to see for himself which policies bring about the best results.  People will move to the cantons and communities which offer jobs, good wages, and attractive living conditions.  Canton governments will have to compete with each other for people just as shop-keepers compete for customers.  As a result, the economic and social policies of the successful cantons will soon be copied by others.  This is the case in Switzerland, which despite being small, mountainous and land-locked is one of the most prosperous and peaceful nations in the world.

Meeting black aspirations

South Africa's problems will not be solved until apartheid is dead.  People of all racial groups -- blacks, whites, Indians and coloureds -- must be equally free to live where they choose, to buy land and houses, start businesses, seek employment and vote for their leaders.  All of these rights, and more, would be made possible by the Bill of Rights and the system we propose.  Every level of government would be required to be colour-blind, and the constitution would prohibit any government law from applying to one race group and not to another.

Overcoming white fears

Many white South Africans fear that if everybody has a vote, the black majority will victimise whites and take away white freedoms.  The Bill of Rights and the canton system would make this impossible.  Moreover, because people would be free to move to the canton of their choice and to participate in the decisions which affect their daily lives, nobody would have to live under a government they dislike.

But at the same time, whites or blacks who do not want to mix with other race groups should not be forced to do so.  The Bill of Rights includes the right to association and disassociation.  This means that all people may mix with, or separate from, whomever they please in their own homes, or on any other property they own.  Thus the owner of a swimming pool, restaurant or hotel could restrict admission to redheads, or women, or tall people, or any other group he chooses.  But all government facilities would have to be open to all.

Whites who do not want to be governed by any other group could cluster together, buy most of the businesses and land, and create a numerical majority in a given area.  Provided they employed little or no black labour white nationalists could in this way avoid having to share power in their own community.  Black nationalists -- or Indian or coloured groups for that matter -- could establish similar segregated areas of their own.  Segregation would therefore be accomplished solely at the expense of those who desired it, and without one group imposing their will on any other.

The majority

Most South Africans are reasonable people who want a future in which they can live together in peace and prosperity.  The leaders of the various race groups and political parties already meet regularly and know each other well, and it is likely that in many or most cantons they would form alliances.

Some cantons, especially in the beginning, would probably introduce socialist measures.  Indeed, it would be possible for them to become communist -- but in order to do so governments concerned would have to buy all businesses and land on the open market and would not be able to prevent people who wanted to leave from doing so.

Other cantons might follow the example of Ciskei and become tax havens with very few economic regulations.  Hopefully the homelands would choose to be incorporated as cantons.  But all homeland citizens would be entitled to South African citizenship and allowed to move freely into South Africa -- so that homeland leaders who did not govern well would lose all their people across the border.

COMMON OBJECTIONS TO THE CANTON SYSTEM ANSWERED

Objection

Many South Africans are simple third-world people who would not be able to cope with a canton system.

Answer

When cantons were first formed in Switzerland in the 12th century the Swiss were in many ways less sophisticated than rural black South Africans are today.  Moreover, traditional African tribal systems are strikingly similar in many ways to the canton system.  To this day in many parts of South Africa small local governments hold "indabas" at which people debate issues in the village square just as they do in small Swiss cantons and communities.

Objection

Cantons with natural resources, such as those on the Witwatersrand, would be far richer than those with no resources such as those in Zululand.  This would be unfair.

Answer

Every country in the world has rich and poor areas.  In Switzerland the canton of Zurich, with excellent roads, transport facilities, hospitals and universities, is much more affluent than the tiny mountain canton of Appenzdl.  This is also the case in countries which do not have cantons, such as Australia;  the city of Sydney is rich while the outback is very poor.  Wealth inevitably concentrates where there are natural resources, excellent climatic conditions or navigable waterways.

These differences are not a problem as long as there is freedom of movement so that a person who lives in a poor canton does so through choice.  People choose to live in "poor" areas for many different reasons.  They may like the lifestyle or traditions there, or the economic system, or the scenery.  These things are of greater value to many people than material wealth.  In any case, there are many poor people in all the richest cities of the world.

Moreover, not all countries with natural resources are wealthy.  Indeed, many of the most richly endowed countries in the world are economic failures -- for example Mexico, Angola, Nigeria, the USSR and India.  By contrast, many of the world's most dynamic economies are in countries with few or no natural resources such as Hong Kong, Switzerland, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.  This may seem strange, but the reason is simple.  Countries with very few laws regulating their economies do well, while countries with controlled economies perform badly.

Objection

The system proposed in The Solution makes no provision for wealth to be transferred from the rich to the poor, bad laws have kept blacks poor, and it is not enough simply to remove these laws.  Something must be done to compensate for past wrongs.

Answer

There is no way in which wealth can be taken from the rich and given to the poor without seriously damaging the economy as a whole so that in the end everyone is worse off.  Already taxes on high income earners in this country are amongst the highest in the world.  Economic studies have shown that when taxes reach such high levels people stop producing wealth because they see no point in working hard when so much of their income is taxed away.  If it became government policy to seize the houses and cars and other assets of rich whites to give to blacks, the rich people (who help the economy as a whole, and provide many jobs for others) would pack their bags and leave.  Moreover it is impossible to determine who has suffered the most in the past, and who is most to blame.

Nonetheless, black South Africans have suffered terrible injustices.  And there is a way in which money can be raised so that a substantial sum could be paid to every black person in partial compensation for these past wrongs.  This could be done by selling off government-owned businesses and assets such as the SA Transport Services, the Post Office, Iscor and Escom, state forests and lands, etc. to private individuals and companies.  Privatising state assets in this way is presently taking place all over the world, and it is the only way to raise many billions of rands relatively quickly without damaging the economy.

The money raised in this way could be paid to black people either in the form of a cheque or bank deposit to be used as they choose, or through welfare vouchers.  In other words, vouchers or lOUs could be given to every black person, who could then exchange them for housing, education or medical services, or use them to start a business.

PEOPLE NEED FREEDOM, NOT WELFARE

It is important that any compensation awarded to blacks be a once-off gesture and not an on-going programme.  Black South Africans do not need welfare programmes to help them get on in the world;  what they need -- like anyone else -- is freedom.  This is clear from our history.  During the second half of the 19th century blacks in the Eastern Cape were allowed to compete freely and equally with whites in business and agriculture.  As a result, by the 1870s they were extremely successful traders, artisans and farmers.  They excelled particularly as farmers, walking away with most of the prizes at agricultural shows.

One of the reasons blacks achieved so much at this time was the similarity between their traditional way of life and the market economy.  For example, before Africa was colonised tribal people owned their stock, crops, huts, handicrafts and weapons.  Land was privately allotted or subject to private grazing rights.  There were no laws to stop people from trading freely and there were almost no taxes.  Chiefs and headmen had few autocratic powers and usually required the approval of their people for any decisions they made.

There is a widespread but mistaken belief today that black tradition and temperament call for socialism.  Many people argue that blacks can be properly housed and fed only through massive welfare programmes.  This is an insult to blacks, who have a proud history of achievement.  In our view, such measures are in fact in direct conflict with black tradition and temperament and would inevitably lead to greater poverty and misery.  The only way to break the chains which shackle South Africa's black people is to repeal all the laws which discriminate against them forthwith.  If they are free to participate fully in a market economy, as they did 100 years ago, within a few years there will be an explosion of economic growth in South Africa that will astonish the world.

CONCLUSION

The history of the Afrikaner is a history of a people's struggle to free themselves from government interference in their lives so that they might live according to their own values.  But this heritage of individualism and the pursuit of freedom has been largely forgotten.

In the course of the twentieth century the Afrikaner nation has become inextricably linked with the concept of the paternalistic state and powerful central government.  Now it is the Afrikaner who has taken on the role of interventionist, and the blacks who are fighting for their rights -- ironically much the same freedoms for which the Afrikaners shed their blood.  In the 19th century there were certain key similarities between Afrikaners and blacks.  In both cultures, if people didn't like the rules governing their local community, they were free to move off and join another.  Both were characterised by a minimum of central government and numerous small, semi-independent communities in which people were directly involved in decisions affecting their own lives.

The time has come for all South Africans, black and white, to rediscover the principals of true democracy and limited government which were upheld by their forbears, because these are the only principals on which a fair and enduring solution to our problems can be based.