Maharaj – Compromise the key to SA peace

GEOFF SIFRIN

Mac Maharaj belonged to the ANC’s armed wing Umkhonto we Sizwe, was sent to Robben Island in 1964 after being convicted of sabotage, and was imprisoned with Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and Ahmed Kathrada. Released in 1976, he smuggled out the first draft of Mandela’s autobiography. He helped negotiate transition to majority rule and was transport minister during Mandela’s presidency. Today he is President Jacob Zuma’s spokesman.

  At 11 pm on a Saturday night in March 1993 – a year before the 1994 democratic elections, when there were many threats of political violence – Maharaj got a call from ANC comrade Mo Shaik to meet him at one o’ clock that morning in Pretoria. He was nervous, but went.

Mo led him to a building and up a fire escape. It was security police headquarters. In a room at a long table, sat a group of white men. He recognised some as generals; some had been his “torturers in 1990”.

One man took videos from a briefcase, saying: “These are booby-trapped.” Others pulled out other weapons, ranging from laser guided pistols to homemade shotguns and rifles. They said: “These weapons have been captured from the right wing including the white right. We called you to tell you we have decided we will protect the elections. We tell you because we know Mandela trusts you.”

“They were true to their word,” says Maharaj. “The last bombs went off the night before the elections, at Jan Smuts Airport. Those who carried it out were arrested shortly thereafter. Later, in 1998, two years after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission started, a group of security officers were granted amnesty. Among them were those people I saw that night. For me it closed a book.”

South Africans have yet to complete the process of building a nation. “We are in the beginnings of sharing our experiences, our memories, our history, because that is the glue that holds people together.

“It is fine to say ‘unity in diversity’, asserting the right of each of us to be what we are, respect our religions, cultures and languages. But that unity has be the overarching concept of a nation. For the first time, South African people have to do that. [We must have] a common understanding of what liberation means for all of us, black and white.”

The key to their liberation, he says, is that South Africans found the way to present their cases rationally. “When you present your case rationally, you afford the other person to contradict your case. If you put your case purely emotionally, there is no discussion. You are talking past each other.”

The negotiating process between liberation movements and the South African regime, “was a learning process, to begin to listen to each other; not as a debating trick for wrong words and false statements, but to try and understand where the other side is coming from.”

After 1994 Mahajraj participated in the Arniston Conference, bringing warring parties from Northern Ireland together for dialogue.

“They travelled in separate planes. They were at one venue, but wouldn’t share the dining room <<35.16>>, or the pub. We had to discuss with them in separate rooms: Republicans in one, Unionists in another.

“When we called President Mandela, we were in trepidation. Madiba said it was fine: ‘I will address two separate meetings.’ He walked into both rooms and said one simple message: ‘You do not negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with your enemies. One day you will have to get into the same room.’ Before they left Arniston, they were in the same room.”

Maharaj congratulated the South African Jewish community for linking their exodus from Egyptian slavery with a celebration of 20 years of South African democracy.

“We need to tell our different stories of our different communities, whether we were forced into those ghettos of mind and physical tragedy by law or choice. Those stories are a common story of humankind’s march to freedom. This is a never-ending journey because we cannot imagine what we will be like as the horizons are expanding.”

Compromising was crucial to achieving peace in post-apartheid South Africa. “My privilege in the negotiations was not to do the talking, but see that the process was always on track, that people kept talking.

“Whenever they got stuck, it was hard to bring them back. To do that I had to specially listen to each party. There were 19 at that table. Madiba would have called many Mickey Mouse parties. But we had to treat them as equals, to listen and understand where they had come from, so I could go to my ANC colleagues and say: ‘I think this is their concern.’ What we have today is the outcome of parties listening to each other’s concerns and seeing which they can address and how.”

The ANC was determined negotiations should lead to one person one vote and South Africa should have equality. “We had to build a bridge between those parties with their different interests and fears and bring them on board to universal adult suffrage and equality.

“To do that we decided on an interim Constitution which would allow a final Constitution by an Act of Parliament. I reported to Madiba in November 1993, waking him at night, saying I think we’ve got a deal.

“He looked at us – Joe Slovo was there – and said: ‘Do we have universal adult suffrage and majority rule?’ When he heard the hesitance in our voice, he said: ‘Are you sure? How long?’ We said maximum five years. When he heard the confidence in our voice, he said: ‘Done! All I want is that we reach majority rule, one way or another.’ For that we had to compromise.”

The most difficult compromise was the sunset clause, linked to the name of Joe Slovo. “It was because we sat the table for years and said: ‘What are they afraid of? Their constituency was in the security forces or the civil service of the National Party. They could not sell their deal if they could not convince their voting bloc that they have security.’ We offered them a five year sunset clause and job security for five years. Without that where would we have been?” 

Maharaj cautions against today’s debating style. People want to solve problems purely from principles, to force the facts to conform to concepts and theories in their minds.

“They are theoretical, they don’t take place in the context of what we have to do and why. It’s a refusal to move with the facts and say the facts are different and we will change our theory. In the negotiations we had to assure the smallest parties they would have a place in Parliament.

“That is why we reached proportional representation, had an enforced coalition government for five years, and amnesty as a condition.

“I could tell you many stories of dramatic moments, but those are tailored by how we look at it. When I go back to Robben Island today, people ask why I look at it with such joy? It’s simple: because we succeeded in winning freedom and democracy.

“Had we not done this I would be only thinking of the pain, cold winds and brutality of the warders. Because freedom is acquired, I look at it as a privilege. The journey we took should not be seen just in terms of sacrifice.”