|
13 January 1994
ERIK TONSING
Concept for a new political system for
South Africa
On 2 February 1990 South Africa's old political system was
destroyed ‑by the party who had created that political system. For
this
party it was a change of course through 180 degrees. On that day its leader,
F.W. de Klerk, destroyed the old system with his
speech in parliament. Breaking
it down was easy, that was done within an hour. But to build something else is
a completely different
matter and task - on 2 February 1994 it will have been
four years during which the new construction has been cobbled together. In
essence the construction has been done by only two organisations: the ANC~SACP
and the NP. The structure they have erected is shaky
because a large part of
the population is bitterly unhappy with it and reject it totally: a large part
(probably mare than half)
of the whites (particularly the Boars) and various
black nations: Zulus, Tswanas, Ciskeians. The new system therefore does not
comply
with one of the essential requirements of a constitution, namely that it
should be accepted by the entire population. Conseq ently
it is necessary to
search for a new system which would have to satisfy the following
requirements:
(a) It must meet the wishes of the vast majority of the country's residents
and in any case not engender such great antagonism that
it will lead to a civil
war.
(b) There may be no discrimination against any nation or race. Where the
constitution therefore creates groups or nations or races
as independent
entities, they must stand on their own feet in all respects and not feed an
another group or exploit it.
(c) Existing structures must be kept intact as far as possible as long as
they are not in conflict with the abovementioned two principles.
The
following concept is an attempt t realise these three principles.
Presently
we are being threatened by a civil war because two groups whose wishes and
demands are apparently incompatible are opposing
each other. These two groups
are the following:
- The
people who do not want race or nation to play any role in the constitution - we
are all simply people and not, in the first place,
whites or blacks or Boers or
Xhosas or English.
- The
people for whom their race and/or nation form the essence of their entire
identity and who will be plunged into a deep spiritual
crisis should the
country's constitution fail to take this into account.
An attempt
must therefore be made to satisfy both these groups in the constitution. It
could easily be done if each group were concentrated
mainly in one area, but
unfortunately this is not the case, and so it would seem to be impossible to
give each of the two groups
what it wants through territorial separation. It is
therefore necessary to seek a solution without territorial separation as a first
imperative. Bophuthatswana provided proof that a state can function perfectly
successfully without consisting of one contiguous
area, because this state
consists of areas that are completely separate from one another, spread across
Transvaal, the Cape and the
Free State. If Bophuthatswana, with 12 separate
regions, could function as a successful state, it is also possible that a state
with 100 or I 000 such areas can do so. The essence of a state is that it must
enjoy the love, the dedication the loyalty of its
citizens. The first stop
towards a new system in South Africa is therefore to determine to what kind of
state each inhabitant would
be willing to give his loyalty. To determine this,
everybody who may and wants to vote must complete the following questionnaire
and return it to a particular government body:
Questions to all permanent
residents of South Africa of 18 years and older
N.B. Everyone who wishes to
exercise the vote must complete this form and hand it in to any government
office on production of an
identity document. Make a cross (X) next to your
choices:
- Who
do you prefer to be citizens of your state?
(a) All races and
nations
(b) One particular race
(c)One particular nation
- If
you prefer I(b), which race?
(a) Asian
(b) White
(c) Coloured
(d) Black
3. (a) If you prefer I(c), write down the name of the nation (eg. Zulu,
Xhosa, Ciskeian):
(b) If you be willing to accept individuals from other
groups or nations or races an citizens of your nation, write down the name
or
names. You may also write "any".
Your full name (please
print):
Identity number (if any):
Date of birth: .... ---- Place of
births Date: Signature
According to the choice each adult individual
makes, he then becomes a citizen of a state of which all the citizens have the
same
identity‑consciousness, even though they do not live together in one
contiguous area. I will name a few as examples:
- A
state for all those who attach importance to humanity only and attach no
importance to racial or national bonds.
- A
state for all who attach great importance to their racial group, eg.
whites.
- A
state for all who attach the greatest importance to their language and national
bonds, eg. the Zulus and the Tswanas. This would
not exclude such a nation from
being willing to absorb individuals from other nations and races into their
nation, as is apparently
the case with Zulus and Tswanas and which is surely
understandable because the technical capabilities of their nations will be
advanced
thereby.
The crucial determining question now in how such a
state can be brought about if not by means of a circumscribed area with fixed
borders
- particularly examples (1) and (2) above will consist of
citizens
spread out all over the country. The answer is by means of DIFFERENTIATION OF
TAX LIABILITY. A practical example will explain
this best. Let's take No 2
above, white South Africa. All those who wish to be citizens of a white state
are registered as such
(on the basis of the questionnaire) and they then elect
for themselves, an own authority. Only this authority has the right to collect
taxes from these citizens. Using theme financial means, this authority then
supplies services such as education, hospitals libraries,
law courts, policing,
etc. to its own citizens only. Each state created in this way then determines
the nature and content of its
constitution foe itself. The Zulus will probably
not wish to be anything other than a kingdom, and the whites a republic.
This
will satisfy the first two basic principles of a stable state system, namely (a)
the satisfaction of every citizen with the state
system and (b) no exploitation
or discrimination, because each state must finance its budget from taxes
collected from its own citizens
only. At this point the objection may be raised
that it is difficult or even impossible to link some indirect taxes and
non-personal
taxes to a special state, and I want to go into theme
objections.
(a) The most comprehensive indirect tax is VAT, and with the aid of modern
computers it will be no problem to channel it from a particular
individual to a
particular state. For this reason it will be essential that (i) all the states
impose the same VAT percentage and
(ii) that each state be given a number which
must be supplied to the sales agency with each purchase. This is entered into
the computer
which then shows what amount must be paid to the various
states.
(b) The non-personal tax (eg. company tax) is channeled to the state where
the company prefers to be registered. The tax paid by
Anglo American will most
probably go to the Paceless and nationaless slate, which we could perhaps call
Camp South Africa.
(c) Taxes of which the origin cannot be traced to the citizens or companies
of a particular state, go to the umbrella organisation
of all the states of
South Africa, which will be detailed a little later in this article. Let us
call it, in the meantime, Umbrella
South Africa.
We have now satisfied the
most noble principles of this state system, i.e. the satisfaction of all
citizens with it and equality for
all but of course the fact remains that every
state in the world must have territory, and if this is not contiguous, there
must be
fair principles according to which one can determine what are should go
to which states and I will now consider this aspect. As
a paint of departure I
wish to suggest that cities, townships and towns be retained as indivisible
units with their present boundaries.
This will satisfy principle (c) named at
the start of this article, namely keeping intact an much as possible that which
is in existence
in order to minimalise the disruption which change brings about.
In each of these areas (cities, townships, towns) a referendum or
election must
take place and the state which achieves a two-thirds majority then gets that
area as part of its territory. Should
no state win a two‑thirds majority,
the area remains under the trust control of the umbrella government for two
years. At
the end of two years another referendum or election is held and it is
repeated every two years until a two-thirds majority in favour
of one state is
achieved. The area then becomes part of that state. I foresee that the
following will happen in regard to our cities:
Johannesburg and Soweto part of
the Cosmo state, Pretoria part of the white states Durban part of the Zulu state
or a possible Indian
state, Cape Town part of the Cosmo
state or a possible
Coloured state.
This leaves the non-urban countryside. Here the principle
will apply that the registered owner of the land decides to which state
his land
belongs. If the land is owned by a company, the company decides. If ownership
of the land changes, the new owner may decide
to transfer the land to a new
state of which he is a citizen. Where the area is the property of a black
tribe, the present tribal
authority can decide to which state they wish to
belong.
On more than one occasion reference has been made to an umbrella
organisation which must have certain functions which affect the whole
of South
Africa and consequently all states within it, and we now have to look at its
composition and functions. The composition
flows from certain important
functions of this body, and particularly the central element of this
constitution: TAXES. The umbrella
organisation must decide on the countrywide
taxes, which should be the same for each state, and of which the most important
are VAT
and fuel taxes, an well as tall fees on national roads, customs and
excise. Of course the Individual states will also collect their
own additional
taxes (if they so wish). The tax year ends on the same date for everyone (for
example the end of February as at present).
The umbrella body decides what
percentage of their total tax income the individual states must pay over to the
umbrella body. This
must be the same for all states, e.g. 25 per cent, and must
be paid over within a month of the end of the financial year. The financial
officials of the umbrella body will then calculate what percentage of the total
payments each state has made. One of two management
bodies of the umbrella body
will then be constituted for the next year April to April) on the basis of these
percentages. This will
be called the states General and consist of 100 members.
Each individual state is then entitled to the same number of members of
the
States General as corresponds with its percentage contribution to the total tax
payments. Should the Casmo state have paid
40 per cent of the taxes and the
Zulu state 15 per cent and the white state 10 per cent, the Cosmo state will be
entitled to 40 of
the 100 members of the States General and the Zulu state 15
and the white state 10. This was the principle according to which the
management of the Netherlands' Dutch East India Company (DEIC), the so-called
Lords Seventeen, was constituted at the end of the
16th century, and it worked
very well - it put an end to discard that sometimes resulted in violence and
war.
However, to prevent financially stronger states from dominating
everything, there must be a second controlling body for the umbrella
organisation, and this will be called the STATE SENATE. This will consist of a
number of representatives nominated by the heads
of state of the various states
- two by each head of state - of which one is a permanent member for as long as
the head of state
wishes him to be there, and the other alternating to make
provision for experts deliberating and deciding on different matters.
For
example, these could be the ministers of water affairs of the various states
when the building of a dam is at stake. All decision
of the States General
(excepting those in regard to taxes) not taken unanimously must be referred to
the State Senate and will be
valid only if the State Senate has approved it with
a large majority (for example 90 per cent). If it does not achieve this
majority,
it has been vetoed and this could happen two years in succession
should the States General wish to submit it for the approval of
the State Senate
the next year. In the third year in which the States General submits it, it
becomes law if the State Senate approve
it with a simple majority.
Now we
have to look at other matters apart from taxes over which the umbrella body must
have control. The main function of this body
is to maintain the economic unity
of the entire country, and therefore
the following matter will fall under its
control:
(a) the reserve bank and the monetary system
(b) foreign loans and debts
(c) country-wide transport matters; national roads, railways, harbours,
airlines
(d) posts and communications
(e) allocation of frequencies to the radio and television services of the
various states
(f) dams and rivers and the allocation and supply of water
(g) trust control over cities, townships and towns that have not opted for a
particular state with a two-thirds majority
(There may possibly be other
matters that I cannot think of because of a lack of economic knowledge.)
This
umbrella government will efficiently see to it that this country's economic
unity is not violated. According to media reports
of 9 January 1994 Mr Mandela
said that the ANC cannot allow any Afrikaner Volkstaat because other ethnic
groups will then demand
the same and that this will destroy the country's
economy. This umbrella government renders this fear totally without
grounds.
Another objection of the ANC against the system described above will
probably be that it does not provide enough opportunity for affirmative
action,
because the taxes of the citizens of the white state would then be out of their
reach. In this instance two questions must
be put to the ANCT XI) If the whites
of the past have (as the ANC alleges) made themselves guilty of exploitation of
the blacks,
is it then ethically defensible to expect the present whites and
even those of the future to compensate for this? (2) A practical
question: Is it
at all possible that a large number of poor people can be raised from
their
poverty by means of the redistribution of the wealth of a small number of rich
people? Somebody once used the following analogy
in this regard: If the water
in a dam below a farmers house should insist that it be at the same level as the
water in a tank next
to the house, it will be useless to let the water in the
tank run into the dam in order to achieve this: The tank will run dry and
the
dam will not rise measurably. Poverty can be distributed, but not wealth; by
giving the poor the riches of the rich, you may
make the rich poor, but you will
not make the poor rich. There is only one recipe for wealth: enterprise and
HARD WORK. The Germans,
who were crushed and impoverished after World War II,
are a good example. The states created by means of the system described above
will also compete with one another to prove this, and this will bring about a
blossoming of the entire economy.
Of course many problems are likely to crop
up with such a unique system, but with goodwill they will all be solved. I am,
for example
thinking of a court case in which two citizens of two different
states are involved: which state or magistrate should hear the case?
The answer
is: it must be a multi-state court in which each party's state has an equal
number of legal officers, and if they cannot
agree an a judgment, they must
agree on a legal officer from another state, and his judgment will then be
final. As regards, for
example, the police, policemen should have the right of
arrest over the citizens of another state as well, but such an arrested person
should then be held in a cell or prison of his own state. Another matter that
may cause problems is the property of the present
state which state must inherit
it? The solution is that fixed property in cities, townships and towns should
go to the state that
received the two-thirds majority. Fixed property in other
areas and also movable property (e.g. the army's equipment) remains under
control of the umbrella government for 5 years and in then sold at auction or
by tender to the state or other body which offers
the highest price. The
proceeds go to the umbrella organisation.
This system will bring satisfaction
and calm to our country and put an end to discrimination, hate, unrest and
violence. Of course
the states that are created in this way must not consist of
only a few eccentric individuals. For this reason a minimum of possibly
5 per
cent of the total number of eligible voters should be prescribed for any group
wishing to form a state. Personally I would
regret it if a separate white
English and white Afrikaans state came into being, not to mention a white German
or white Portuguese
state. After all, these groups have since 1902 learnt to
get along with each other and with two official languages, and the English
Darby-Lewis couple have surely suffered and sacrificed more for the Boer cause
than many a Boor leader. The preservation of our
present national flag, symbols
of state, Springbok name for sports teams, "Die Stem" an national anthem etc.
will then cause no conflict
whatsoever.
However, that everything an this
earth is unsettled and changeable, is something we have experienced in the past
year in the most
dramatic fashion; the Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet superpower
crumbled Czechoslovakia split in two and in Yugoslavia the components
of the
former unitary state are busy wiping out each other. However, we have
experienced the greatest demonstration of inconstancy
and change in our own
country: the people who 30 year* ago were the creators of the first free white
republic in all of South Africa
are now busy destroying it and many of those who
in 1961 cheered the arrival of an Afrikaner republic (e.g. Pik Botha and F.W. de
Klerk) now work day and night and travel all over the world to destroy it. On
the other hand there are many English-speakers - the
Stallard supporters of 1961
- who in those days vehemently fought the arrival of the white republic and now
put in every effort
to save it. The explanation for this is humanity's
subjection to consciousness manipulation, and a constitution must make provision
for this an well. It is therefore proposed that a possibility for change after
30 years be created. Should two-thirds of Bloemfontein,
for example, now decide
that they wish to be part of white SA, they remain so for 30 years, but if after
30 years a great number
of Bloemfontein residents would rather belong to Sctho
SA, they may address a request to Satho SA and Sotho SA will transmit the
request to the States General which will then arrange for a referendum in
Bloemfontein. Should two-thirds or more vat* for Sothe
SA, Bloomfontein becomes
a part of that state, but should two thirds not be achieved, it remains a part
of white SA.
I ask everyone in our country who strives for peace and justice
and stability without a hindrance to change to think about these matters
anew -
anew and in prayer!
|
