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)

Sources

• The 1992 referendum: Twenty years on, FW De Klerk, Politicsweb, 16 March 2012
• De Klerk's Question for Whites: 'Do You Support Reform?', Los Angeles Times, 25 February 1992
• South African Whites Ratify De Klerk's Move to Negotiate with Blacks on a New Order, New York Times, 19 March 1992

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)

Please add the information available to the article

As you keep deleting information from the article regarding the "conditions for negotiations" and the second referendum, will you please add it youself. Please add the info you provided to the article, as it forms part of the history. You deleted parts of the history you don't like. It shows you are biast, and not prepared to let the facts speak for itself.

Mr. FW de Klerk didn't ask for "a black cheque" and it is rediculous to believe he didn't make promises before the referendum. We need a full list of all the promises in this article. The ANC agreed with some, and disagreed with others. This is the way negotiations go. You are biast if you delete the promises from the list whom you don't like.

His own newsletter can be seen as a reliable source, because he has proper records of his own actions, and he was the State President at the time during the negotiation process. It's not the one or other obscure reporter writing an article in a "mainstream media's" newspaper.

Infornation censored by Wikipedia: 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 124.148.68.42 (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute - Removing information related the conditions for negotiations & Second referendum

All information regarding the conditions for negotiations with the ANC & Second referendum (initially promised by the National Party) are deleted from the article. It clearly indicates biast. This is a clear example of the biast nature of Wikipedia.

This article is badly written, as all relevant information related to this subject is deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.68.42 (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Example of Wikipropaganda

This column was written by Lawrence Solomon.

---

Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a "scientific consensus" confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works.

As you (or your kids) probably know, Wikipedia is now the most widely used and influential reference source on the Internet and therefore in the world, with more than 50 million unique visitors a month.

In theory Wikipedia is a "people's encyclopedia" written and edited by the people who read it - anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper, published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming.

Of course Oreskes's conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface.

Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes's work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.

I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn't see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia "editor" who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics.

I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff them out.

Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia "editor." Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of "administrator" is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England's Green party.

And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world's most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley's supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry.

Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don't apply to Connolley, or to those he favors.

"Peisers crap shouldn't be in here," Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an "edit war," as they're called. Trumping Wikipedia's stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding.

Nor are Wikipedia's ideological biases limited to global warming. As an environmentalist I find myself with allies and adversaries on both sides of the aisle, Left and Right. But there is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia's entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers.

By Lawrence Solomon Reprinted with permission from National Review Online — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.68.42 (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)