Talk:1992 South African apartheid referendum

Pictures

If somebody has some pictures of the referendum or something else, don't hesitate do add. I'm sorry, but I am not so good to put pics on Wikipedia. // User:Dr.Poison, January 17, 2005, 22:13

Indeed. If someone could get the figures by constituency or something, I'd be happy to make a map. email me if you have them, please, in case I miss the detail on my watch list. Thanks! — OwenBlacker 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned earlier that it would be good with a picture, and i'm now thinking about that we could have a pic of the old SA flag (pricevlag?), this because it is a "symbol" of the apartheid regime (in a way)! So if somebody who knows how to ad pics here at wikipedia could do it I would be very happy! I have never done it before so idon't really know how to do it. // User: Dr.Poison

I have put up a picture of the old SA flag. I am not used to puting pictures to a article so if I have violeted some picture rule or something, forgive me. Dr.Poison 22:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few small adjustments; feel free to look through them for future reference. dewet|✉ 23:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Okeay, thanks! It's nice to see that people are interested in this article! I am going to write some more after I read som newsarticles and etc. from that time. ����Dr.Poison 10:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for results

Someone has writen some new facts, and I am not so sure if it is NPOV. Dr.Poison 14:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many reasons why a yes vote was passed. 1) Many white South Africans had become fed up of being regarded as a pariah nation. 2) White South Africans had simply become resigned to the inevitability of black rule. 3) The white electorate knew that voting no would further isolate South Africa internationally and bring about further sanctions. 4) South Africans wanted increased access to international trade that they were denied by the sanctions. 5) The white South African electorate naively believed that multi-racial democracy would bring about an end to the violence. 6) Many whites had simply become morally opposed in principle to apartheid. 7) The fact that capitulation to South Africa's blacks was the only option on offer (the idea of a separate white state was discussed by some politicians, but was not offered in the referendum). 8) The government had waged a series of unpopular wars across southern Africa that resulted in a number of lives being lost that was unacceptable to the electorate. 9) An expression of general discontent with De Klerk's predecessors. 10) Many political leaders reluctantly backed the apartheid government because it was fighting against communists in Africa. With the demise of the Cold War and the Soviet Union shortly before the referendum, the apartheid system suddenly lost a significant amount of world support, with the white electorate recognising its position as being untenable.

This sounds not to me like a NPOV . . . ��Dr.Poison 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too happy with it either. I'll see if I can change it refactor it a bit... dewet|✉ 15:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be nice Dr.Poison 07:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to re-write those reason a litle bit so that they are more of a NPOV Dr.Poison 20:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed them in the mean time. These are too speculative and analytical for an encyclopedia article, unless for example they're cited as findings of some reputable body. Zaian 22:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is much better now. If someone has any more information about this subject, please contribute! ��Dr.Poison 15:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere is it mentioned that the Government renaged on its promise of a referendum on any constitutional changes. The referendum was held BEFORE changes had been negotiated and the question was twisted to one of 'should the negotiations continue', rather than 'should there be majority rule in a unitary state'. Funding was unequal, Government controlled media was biased in favour of the yes vote. The print media was ovwerwhelmingly supportive of a yes vote. I know I was there at the time. Its not easy to find references because history has been largely written by the victors in this case, but if anyone can access the Citizen newspaper archives (or even other impartial local media on this issue) around March 1992 its easy to verify what I am saying is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.173.163 (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Citizen an impartial source? The origins of the Citizen (created by a very conservative government with state funds) make this impossible. The media around the world is usually more liberal than the government and SA's was no exception (that's why the Citizen was created). I don't deny that it was an unequal fight and that the media were overwhelmingly in favour of YES. Having said that there is no decent precedent in the world why it should be equal. The government of the day decided to support negotiations. They have to state their opinion. They did that. Media editors have their opinions. They stated them. As for the reneging point well please come up with the 'promise' made at the time of the referendum. I remember people asking if there would be another referendum after the negotiations. I don't remember the exact promise. Biscuit1018 (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I was there at the time too and the above is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.38.12 (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles with unsourced statements

I saw that this article is put to the Articles with unsourced statements. Much of the facts that I have writen are from old newspapers and from this site: http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/ If there is anything I have done wrong or something that I should not done, please let me know. �Dr.Poison 10:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Secondary sources cited should include reference(s) to independent primary source(s). See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. --WickedHorse 19:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A contradiction

This article states that white, coloured and Indian voters were allowed to vote at the start, but later says that only whites were allowed to vote. Which one is correct?

White South Africans could only vote in the referendum. My sources are [1] and [2]. This article has been edited at some point, and the orginal version staited that only whites could vote. Dr.Poison 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has been edited with new information, that is faulse:

a) The South African referendum of 1992 was held on March 17, 1992 in South Africa. In it, South Africans were asked to vote in the last tricameral election held under the apartheid system, in which the Coloured and Indian population groups could also vote, to determine whether or not they supported the negotiated reforms begun by State President F.W. de Klerk two years earlier. The result of the election was a large victory for the "yes" side.

It was a referendum and not a parliament election. Only white South Africans had the right to vote in the referendum. My two sources cleary staits this and I can give more sources if wanted. Dr.Poison 18:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said in October, what I know and what my sources clearly staites, it was only white South Africans that where allowed to vote in the referendum. I have many sources on this, if wanted. I have changed it now to the current form, that staites that only whites where allowed to vote, as I haven't seen any sources to the allegation that Indians and Coloureds also had a vote in this referendum. My sources are clear and I have staited them earlier. They all say that only White South Africans had a vote in this referendum. But as far as I am concerned, this is a fact, until I am proven wrong. If there is any problem or anything else such as spelling and so on, please make a edit. Dr.Poison 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Minimum conditions for negotiations with the ANC

The National Party (NP) promised the white voters in South Africa that will not give the country away to the ANC, but they undertake to negotiate for at least certain minimum conditions. Flyers were distributed before the elections, and on the voting day (at voting stations) indicating these minimum conditions of negotiations with the ANC.

If you have copies of these old adverts, please scan it and post it on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.17.178 (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes they did promise minimum conditions including property rights & a couple of other things. To my recollection these were all protected (or almost all) by the new constitution. Biscuit1018 (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The 1992 referendum: Twenty years on - FW de Klerk

Former president writes on the day whites finally turned their back on racial domination

20 YEARS AFTER THE 1992 REFERENDUM

At the end of 1991 the National Party lost a key bye-election in Virginia to the Conservative Party. The Conservatives crowed that we had also lost our mandate to continue with the constitutional negotiations and demanded a whites-only election. Their claims were greatly amplified on 19 February 1992 when the National Party lost another key bye-election - in Potchefstroom. Its majority of 2 000 in the 1989 election was wiped out and replaced by a CP majority of 2 140 votes. The CP's claim that we had lost our mandate to negotiate seemed to have been vindicated.

We had for some time promised that we would hold a referendum at some time to enable the white electorate to express its views on the negotiation process. Our defeat in Potchefstroom convinced me to do so as soon as possible. I accordingly announced my decision to hold a referendum to the NP leadership and caucus the next morning. I did not put the question to a vote - which I might well have lost - but decided to use my powers as party leader to decide on the issue myself. I was determined to resign if we lost the referendum.

The question we put to the electorate on 17 March 1992 was "Do you support the continuation of the reform process that the State President started on 2 February 1990 and which is aimed at a new constitution through negotiations?"

In the run-up to the referendum I told audiences that I was not asking for a blank cheque. I said that we had already reached broad consensus in the negotiations on a number of key points regarding the future constitution. These included a multi-party democratic system; a parliament comprising an upper and lower house; the necessity for a Bill of Rights; the separation of powers; the independence of the judiciary; proportional representation; a strong regional basis for the future dispensation; the maintenance of language and cultural rights; and community-based education for those who want it.

I said that there were a number of issues on which we were still seeking consensus. They included the prevention of domination and the abuse of power; effective protection of minorities; the protection of property rights; career security for public servants; a market-based free enterprise economy; maximum constitutional protection for regional and municipal government; and the dispersal of the powers that were then concentrated in the hands of the State President.

I truly believe that it was on 17 March 1992 that the great majority of white South Africans finally and decisively turned their backs on 350 years of white domination. In my victory speech on 18 March 1992 I said that they had finally closed the book on apartheid. "The White electorate has reached out, through this landslide win for the YES vote, to all our compatriots, to all other South Africans and the message of this referendum is: Today, in a certain sense, is the real birthday of the new South African nation."

The mandate that we received enabled us to proceed with the negotiations and to nail down virtually all the goals that I listed in my pre-referendum speeches.

Now, ironically, almost exactly twenty years later, many of the fundamental provisions of the constitution that we subsequently negotiated and adopted are under threat.

On 5 March the ANC released policy discussion papers claiming that the ‘first transition' had served its purpose and should now make way for a ‘second transition'. The discussion papers proposed that the present provincial system should be amended and that the property rights should be reviewed to facilitate land reform.

This followed the announcement the previous week of the government's plan to ‘review' the judgments of the constitutional court, accompanied by dark rumblings from the President regarding the need to review the court's powers. It coincided with the South African Languages Bill that would effectively strip Afrikaans and seven black indigenous languages of their official status.

Our Constitution has served us well. It has provided a firm foundation for the development of our ‘rainbow' nation. It has provided the framework for sustained economic growth and impressive social development.

Our failure to make substantial progress against poverty, inequality and unemployment cannot be ascribed to any shortcoming in the Constitution - but rather to inappropriate policies. The Constitution is under pressure not because it is standing in the way of transformation - but because it is limiting the power of the executive and the legislature to do as they please.

The time has come for all our communities - not just white South Africans as was the case twenty years ago - to stand up for the values and rights on which our new society has been based. Their response will - in a very real sense - determine the sustainability of the new South African nation that I believed was born on 17 March 1992.

Issued by the FW de Klerk Foundation, March 16 2012 http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=286925&sn=Detail&pid=71616 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.54.11 (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Minimum conditions for negotiations with ANC being removed from this article

It is clear some auditors are trying to remove information related to:

A) The minimum conditions for negotiations with the ANC; and B) The promise of a second referendum - where the white people had to "approve / disapprove the negotiated settlement" with the ANC.

This is a deliberate attempt to remove reality from the History books.

The article: 20 YEARS AFTER THE 1992 REFERENDUM, written by FW de Klerk - illustrated and confirmed some of the facts. http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=286925&sn=Detail&pid=71616

That article says absolutely nothing about a "second referendum". The only information I can find about a purported second referendum is in this news article from the time:

"[De Klerk] suggested that, if he wins, it will be the last referendum of white voters only in the country.

[...]

At a news conference later, he said he would interpret a yes vote, even by a majority of one vote, as authority to enter into binding agreements with the African National Congress and other leaders of the black majority--without seeking further approval from the white minority. "It would be meaningless if we win the referendum, if we succeed in attaining in negotiation exactly what we say we are going to negotiate, to once again go back and say you must re-authorize it," he said.

But he added that a second referendum might be necessary, if the final, negotiated version of the constitution differs substantially from what the government has promised white constituents."

This is quite far from the suggestion that a second referendum was promised or required.

If you want to add information to the article about "minimum conditions", feel free: but do it by writing up a description referenced to reliable sources. Don't just copypaste the letter from FW. That letter could perhaps be used as a reference, though it would be better to have a source from 1992 rather than what FW now claims he said at the time. - htonl (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Info on second referendum

Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/1992-02-25/news/mn-2654_1_south-africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.108.110 (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

De Klerk's Question for Whites: 'Do You Support Reform?' : South Africa: President unveils wording of referendum that poses a make-or-break test for his government. February 25, 1992|SCOTT KRAFT | TIMES STAFF WRITER JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — President Frederik W. de Klerk, facing a make-or-break test of his government's apartheid reform program, Monday unveiled the question he will put to white voters in a nationwide referendum.

He suggested that, if he wins, it will be the last referendum of white voters only in the country.

He announced that on March 17, whites will be asked: "Do you support the continuation of the reform process, which the state president began on the second of February, 1990, and which is aimed at a new constitution through negotiation?"

If they vote yes, negotiations for a unified, multiracial South Africa, with built-in protections for whites and other minorities, will continue apace, De Klerk said. If they vote no, he said, he and his government will resign and call for new parliamentary elections.

"I shall accept your verdict," De Klerk said in a nationally televised address from his office in Cape Town.

The main opponent of reform, the right-wing Conservative Party, was locked in high-level meetings late Monday, and its spokesmen declined comment. Conservative leaders were known to be unhappy with the wording of the referendum question, which they believe is biased in the government's favor. And they are expected to decide soon whether to campaign for a no vote or to boycott the referendum.

De Klerk said his referendum question is reasonable and "offers the voters a clear and unambiguous choice. I have to know that those who gave me a mandate in the first place are still standing by me and authorizing me anew to go ahead," he said.

At a news conference later, he said he would interpret a yes vote, even by a majority of one vote, as authority to enter into binding agreements with the African National Congress and other leaders of the black majority--without seeking further approval from the white minority. "It would be meaningless if we win the referendum, if we succeed in attaining in negotiation exactly what we say we are going to negotiate, to once again go back and say you must re-authorize it," he said.

But he added that a second referendum might be necessary, if the final, negotiated version of the constitution differs substantially from what the government has promised white constituents. "This referendum brings us to a momentous moment in the history of our country," De Klerk said. "The sword of Damocles will hopefully be removed. I'm sure we will win."

The referendum, the third in South Africa's history, boils down to a test of the willingness of South Africa's 3 million white voters to proceed to dismantle apartheid, the 44-year-old system of racial separation that has subjugated 28 million blacks.

De Klerk's party supports a multiracial South Africa with universal adult suffrage but with key provisions to protect whites' interests. The provisions would include: a bill of rights; separation of executive, judicial and legislative powers, and a two-chamber parliament that would give minority parties a significant say in a powerful second house.

The government is already negotiating with the ANC and other major political groups, and substantial progress has been reported. The negotiations, called the Convention for a Democratic South Africa, will continue throughout the referendum campaign.

The Conservatives want to carve South Africa into separate, independent states for whites and black ethnic groups. The states would be economically interdependent but would maintain their political sovereignty. The Conservatives have boycotted the negotiating convention, refusing to talk with black leaders without a guarantee of a separate white state, something neither the government nor the ANC will endorse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.108.110 (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)