Harambee versus NEEEF: Groepe en klasse teenoor individue

JW F (Koos) Pretorius skryf:Ek sê nie dat die betrokke amptenare en die Kommissie vir Regshervorming en -Ontwikkeling (LRDC) nie opgewasse is vir hulle taak nie. Nee, ek sê dat die geheime verbatim notules van die Grondwetskrywende Vergadering se subkomitee van 21 lede nie vir hulle beskikbaar was nie.Wat dus in hulle voorgestelde raamwerk en wetsontwerp vir bemagtiging (NEEEF/NEEEB) duidelik is, is dat hulle nie in die bedoeling van die wetgewer enige nut sien nie, maar hulle eerder laat beïnvloed deur wyle mnr. Moses //Garoëb se suggestie van “kruisig hom, kruisig hom!” Wat bedoel was as versoening, het blykbaar nou vergelding geword.Wyle mnr. //Garoëb het tydens die 1998-bespreking oor regstellende aksie onder meer die volgende gesê:"If we have to apply affirmative action in this country to its logical conclusion, the interpretation of our black people are: Let the whites be out from the power structures and let us be in. It is as simple as that. But then it is wrong, because first and foremost we fought for this country, not so much against race, but against the system that gave people of a different skin superiority over us and degraded us. That is also the fact of the reality. It is wrong to replace white racism with black racism. The world will condemn us. But I can assure you, our constituency will applaud us. But then it will have consequences."DIE GESPREK TOEPresies waaroor het dit gegaan in die subkomitee?Dit het gegaan oor of die woorde “ras of kleur” enige rol moes speel en of daar enige verandering moet kom in die sogenaamde Westerse voorstelle (1982) wat betref ’n teikengroep. Die Westerse groep se verklaring (1982) was eenparig deur die Grondwetskrywende Vergadering aanvaar op voorstel van mnr. Theo-Ben Gurirab. Dit sou dien as vertrekpunt in die bewoording van die beoogde grondwet.Laasgenoemde het die beginsel aanvaar waarvolgens wetgewing aanvaar kon word wat die metode of uitvoering betref. Die besondere aspek van regstellende aksie het dan ook tuis gekom in Artikel 23 en meer in besonder Artikel 23 (2) waarvan die laaste sin soos volg lees: “. . . or for achieving a balanced structuring of the public service, the police force, the defence force and the prison service.”Hoekom was die private sektor nie genoem of selfs gesuggereer nie? Nêrens is dit ook deur die subkomitee bespreek of oor besluit nie.Dit moet ’n mens sien teen die agtergrond van die Swapo-party se voorstel dat dit moes geld vir ’n “class of people”. Na indringende bespreking is besluit dat ’n “class of people” vervang sou word deur “persons”, d.w.s. individue afgesien van ras, kleur of geloof.In my vorige skrywes het ek verwys na die kwessie van “individue” wat die uitgangspunt sou wees dwarsdeur die Grondwet en ek gaan dit nie herhaal nie. Om volledig reg daaraan te laat geskied, sou te veel ruimte in beslag neem en ek stel voor dat alle belanghebbendes ’n verbatim notule in die hande probeer kry by die eerste minister se kantoor of uit te vind waar dit te kry is.POSITIEF EN NUGTERMnr. Dirk Mudge van die DTA het wat my betref ’n baie positiewe en nugtere bydrae gelewer wat regstellende aksie betref. Alhoewel ek op ’n paar punte verskil het, het ek tog besluit om stil te bly uit strategiese oorwegings. Dit moes nie in ’n wit teen swart debat verander nie.Reeds op 13 Desember 1989 het mnr. Mudge die volgende gesê:"Again to avoid all misunderstanding, I want to repeat what I have said when we first discussed this article. The DTA fully supports affirmative action, we fully support that the injustices of the past must somehow be corrected, but I have a problem in principle and I will try to explain. If you look at our draft, you will see that every article starts with the word “person” or “human being”. Nowhere in our proposal do we refer to a group of persons, because we consider this to be a Bill of Fundamental Human Rights, and I had many fights in the past, even with my colleague, Mr Pretorius, because I always said that when I talk about the Bill of Fundamental Rights, first of all that I am now discussing fundamental rights, and to me there is a difference between a fundamental right and a right.“Secondly, I want to point out that when you leave it at the discretion of parliament to decide who will be the members of a class of persons, they might find many difficulties, because I will be able to prove that there are many black and brown people – and I must now refer to them – in this country who have benefited from the system of the past, who have become millionaires under the system, because of the system. We have pensioners in this country at the age of 30, earning quite a substantial pension every month because they were part of the system and benefited from the system. I will also be able to prove that there might be white people in this country who have suffered because of the system. So, in other words, it is not so easy to define that category of persons or that class of persons. I want to maintain that if you confine it to a person, then we can consider that, every person, and let us agree that then it will in fact boil down to one thing and that is that it will be all persons who could not own property in the country, who could not move freely, who could not do many other things, all of those persons will then qualify under this article. But if you write in class of persons, you might have difficulties."’n Bietjie verder in sy toespraak vervolg hy toe:"Many white people are poor and now we ask, must we discriminate against them because they are white? We cannot do that. They have never benefited from any system. They might be people who have come to the country a short while ago and qualified for citizenship. They haven’t in any way contributed to or they were not part of the system. So, to conclude, I want to suggest that without in any way rejecting the principle, and we must not. I fully support that something must be done to assist those people and have special programmes for every person in the country who did not enjoy all the privileges in the past. I fully support that, but I think we must be careful of the way we draft this article. Maybe we can find a way out."NIE KLEUR OF STAMDaarop het die voorsitter en tans ons president, Sy Eksellensie dr. Hage Geingob, die bedoeling van die wetgewer baie mooi saamgevat:"According to the minutes and according to my scribbling here we agreed on this. We discussed this a long time and we agreed. It is a question of affirmative action. So we cannot reopen the debate on it now."Wyle dr. Mosé Tjitendero het aangetoon dat hy graag die begrip “class of persons” wil behou en onder meer aangetoon dat, “. . . If we want to implement it we have to look at the class of persons and that would mean even a tribe. . .” Het hy toe die Herero''s in gedagte gehad?Mnr. Nahas Angula, later ook die eerste minister, kry toe vir oulaas ’n standpunt in voordat die debat afgesluit het. Mnr. Angula het deurgaans die indruk geskep dat hy ’n skerp, maar eerlike denker was. Hy sê toe die volgende:"I was trying to follow the argument of Mr Dirk Mudge about the words ''class of persons'' and he is connecting this with colour. If you are unemployed you are unemployed, if you are poor you are poor whether you are black, brown or white. If affirmative action is taken it should affect all these people. It has nothing to do with colour."Self kon ek dit nie beter gestel het nie!Ek hoop om in ’n volgende artikel meer te sê oor mnr. Dirk Mudge se bydrae. Sonder om dit te kwalifiseer, sou dit vatbaar kon wees vir ’n misverstand. Ook die LRDC sou hierdie gedeeltes kon aangryp om hulle gesindheid te regverdig.My houding is dat dit nie altyd die stelling of stelsel is wat verkeerd is nie, maar die gesindheid waarin dit toegepas word.Versoening en vergelding is twee teenoorgestelde pole.• Pretorius is ''n voormalige lid van die Grondwetskrywende Vergadering (1889-1990) en Nasionale Vergadering (1990-2005).

Harambee versus NEEEF: Groepe en klasse teenoor individue

Kommentaar

Republikein 2025-12-09

Meld asseblief aan om kommentaar te lewer

Harambee versus NEEEF: Groepe en klasse teenoor individue

Kommentaar

Republikein 2025-12-09

Meld asseblief aan om kommentaar te lewer

Intekening vereis om toegang tot inhoud te kry. ×

MELD AAN

Advertensie

Intekening vereis om toegang tot inhoud te kry.