|
AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS
Western Cape Province
18 MAY
1995
The ANC in the Western Cape holds, with pleasure, of Economic
Affairs and RDP, as we are committed to serving the principles of the
RDP and
realise the importance of this programme to our people. The philosophy of the
ANC in the Western Cape has always been the
upliftment and empowerment of our
people and it is these principles that will make the RDP a success. Along with
these principles,
the honourable President Mandela has demonstrated a spirit and
vision of reconciliation and has shown determination in his support
for the
RDP.
Based upon this philosophy of reconciliation and nationhood and the
principles underlying the RDP, the ANC in the Western Cape cannot
support the
shifting of Parliament to Pretoria or, for that matter, to any other city in
South Africa.
In this era of reconciliation, the loss of Parliament in
the Cape would promote regional isolation and separation. The divisiveness
wrought by the loss of Parliament and the consequent stimulation of provincial
grievances and resentments would only serve to undermine
the crucial task of
national unity and reconciliation. If Parliament were to move, it would detract
from the government's commitment
to the building of a national
consensus.
There are several salient and pressing reasons why it is in
the best interest of the RDP and the nation as a whole to retain Cape
Town as
the legislative capital of South Africa
Firstly; there is the traditional
argument relied upon and utilized by nations across the globe. This argument is
a compelling one
and relevant to the current debate. Traditionally, the site
chosen as a nation's legislative capital is located not within that
nation's
industrial heartland. Rather, in an attempt to diversify the economic base of
the periphery, a city quite apart from the
nation's economic hub is chosen as
the legislative capital. The modern convention is to
locate various
governmental industries away from the centre in an effort to bring about
regional economic development. Examples include
the designation of Brasilia
rather than Rio de Janeiro as the capital of Brazil, Canberra rather than Sydney
or Melbourne and, to
a lesser extent, Ottawa, Canada. It does not represent
good sense to further develop the economic hub, Gauteng in the South African
instance, with its comparatively low unemployment rate when the benefits of
government could be accrued in the capital of a less
developed region. It is
not the function of a national government to increase benefits to an already
wealthy region but, rather,
to perform an equalizing function to benefit the
nation as a whole. In this way government can distribute benefits in a manner
the
private sector cannot.
As stated, the undesirability of excessive
centralization of state functions, government institutions and parastatals
within a single
city is made worse by the fact that South Africa's financial and
economic hub is also within Gauteng. This tendency towards concentration
further tilts the scales in favour of Gauteng as the focus of national activity
and international interest. The economic equilibrium
of the nation is already
distorted by the fact that Gauteng, with a population of approximately 9.3
million, concentrates close to
25 per cent of the national population on 2.5 per
cent of the land and produces 43 per cent of the national GDP. That region is
home to half of the country's total manufacturing industry. In contrast, the
Durban-Pinetown complex contributes 12 percent of the
GDP and the Western Cape a
mere 10 per cent.
Secondly; in terms of arguments concerning costs, the
Pretoria Capital Initiative (PCI) estimates that establishing Parliament in
Pretoria would save approximately R70 million per annum. Such an estimate is
dubious. More realistically, to replace the existing
buildings of Parliament,
together with the adjacent and auxiliary governmental would cost in the order of
R1, 5 billion. The interest
payable on this sum alone is R255 million a year.
In addition, it has been calculated that the cost of moving ministries up and
down from Cape Town to Pretoria is R9 million a year. In reality, keeping
Parliament in Cape Town will save the taxpayer R216 million
a
year.
Furthermore, the long term economic considerations are ultimately
more important considerations. What is beyond dispute is that a
move by
Parliament to Pretoria would impose severe economic losses particularly in Cape
Town's CBD. The most conspicuous economic
damage will occur in terms of the
property market. The immediate reduction in the demand for office space will be
accompanied by
a downward pressure on rentals and a steep reduction in the
demand for office-related labour. This, in turn, will bring about a
decline in
property values and result in a decrease in new building activity. The
abandonment of office will also have a significant
impact on business and
employment in the region.
Cape Town's economy is very much service
oriented in nature and is, therefore, vulnerable to larger trends. Directly
affected by
the loss of Parliament will be the demand for services typically
support by or contracted out by Parliament as well as any agencies
reliant on or
connected with its activities. These include foreign embassies, media outlets
and various lobbies. Cape Town stands
to loose much more than simply itself.
For example, at risk are the services of caterers, computer and communications
specialists
as well as research and information personnel. Restaurants, hotels
and taxis in Cape Town will feel a very tangible bite brought
about by decreased
demand. Less tangible economic effects brought about by the loss of Parliament
are also likely to result. With
a greater degree of isolation from national
public life there will likely be a corresponding decrease in the level of
domestic and
international business interest. Ultimately, Cape Town will be
marginalized rather than receive the promotion it merits as an asset
to South
Africa and the rest of the world.
Thirdly; in terms of the replacement
costs involved in the relocation of Parliament, Australia serves as a good
example. In the 1980's
Australia decided to build a new parliamentary complex
in Canberra. It is argued, in the South African scenario, that the Australian
case is likely the most relevant because, while they did not move cities, they
did entirely replace their existing facilities with
a new purpose-built
parliamentary facility. Furthermore, it is likely that the needs of South
Africa’s 490 MP's and senators
will be very similar to those of the
Australians. The initial budget to provide a new parliamentary complex in
Canberra for 148
MP's, 76 senators, support staff and media representatives
totalling 2600, as well as facilities, totalled A278 million 1978. The
final
approved funding in 1989 was slightly over A$ 1 billion. Although it could be
argued that labour costs in Australia are higher
than those in South Africa,
inflation is considerable lower. Therefore, it can be concluded that the cost
escalation of a new parliamentary
facility in Pretoria could be even higher than
was the case in Australia.
Fourthly; and lastly, the findings of the
public opinion surveys are patently obvious in demonstrating a high level of
public support
for the retention of Cape town as the legislative capital.
Recent market surveys have demonstrated that there is no significant
public
support for the relocation of Parliament from Cape Town to Pretoria. A nation
wide survey conducted by IDASA in August/September
1994 found that 51 per cent
of the respondent argued that Parliament should remain in Cape Town and only 23
per cent believed that
it should be moved to Pretoria. Respondents from every
racial group preferred Cape Town over Pretoria. The report states "In every
province including the PWV, which stands to benefit the most from the moving of
the national legislative, support for keeping it
in Cape Town is significantly
greater than moving it to Pretoria. Only PAC supporters favoured Pretoria over
Cape Town. Supporters
form every other party, including the ANC, favoured
retaining Parliament in Cape Town. Similarly, every language group favoured
Cape Town over Pretoria with support being highest among Xhosa, Afrikaans and
English speakers.
Likewise, a further study indicated "that about two
thirds of South Africa’s top decision makers are in favour of keeping
Parliament
in Cape Town while about a third are in favour of relocating it to
Pretoria. This, in addition to the support among the public in
general for Cape
Town found by the IDASA pool, provides ample evidence that South Africans of all
walks of life and political persuasions,
are not about to accept the relocation
of Parliament of Pretoria without a fight". Precisely because democracy was
finally achieved
for the majority, in April 1994, the democratic process demands
that the majority decision be respected. The relocation of Parliament
and its
loss to Cape town would represent an abrogation of the democratic process which
was so long in coming to South Africa.
REV. A. C. NISSAN
LEADER:
WESTERN CAPE
|
