 |
|
|
How can former enemies, with opposing viewpoints, come together to successfully negotiate the terms for a common future?
Bringing former enemies to the same table to negotiate a common vision of a new society is part of the hard work of transitional justice. These negotiations can be public or private; they can be about high-level issues—how will the government work, or what will the new constitution look like—or they can be about the smallest, seemingly insignificant details. Regardless of what they are about, or how they are conducted, they will always be challenging. Often it is because of the efforts of exceptional individuals such as the man profiled in this reading, that these negotiations can succeed. |
|
|
|
 Cyril Ramaphosa, the chairperson of the South African Constitutional Assembly, became famous for his words “just 20 minutes more.” Leading meetings to write the new constitution, Ramaphosa would beg the group to continue beyond deadlock, beyond exhaustion and sometimes far beyond their desire to work together. “I know it’s late but just 20 minutes more, just 20 minutes—for our constitution which is for the next 20 years, no, 50 years, 100 years, 200 years…”1
Prior to becoming the chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly, Ramaphosa was the chief
negotiator for the African National Congress (ANC), the victorious party following the first elections. The ANC seemed to come out ahead in terms of the negotiations, but as Ramaphosa writes, the process was longer and much more complicated than that. Reflecting on the process, Ramaphosa writes:
As South Africans discovered over that period, entering negotiations does not necessarily mean the absence of conflict, violence or hardship. It does not mean the end of bitterness and racial division. Negotiations were merely another terrain of struggle, which, combined with other elements of struggle, succeeded in bringing about an end to apartheid.
Negotiations, by their very nature, are about opposing groups squaring up to find a broadly acceptable solution to their common problem. A democratic constitution was not the objective of all parties to these negotiations. If it had been, then the negotiation process would have been a lot swifter, a lot less arduous and a lot less painful.
Contrary to what they have proclaimed, the apartheid government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the democratic South Africa. The smiles and mutual congratulation which accompanied the adoption of the new constitution masked a bitter and protracted struggle for political ascendancy which went back generations.2
According to Ramaphosa, at first the negotiators plunged into a period of “talks about talks.” By the time negotiations began in earnest, South Africans were engaged in bloody battles against each other. By April of 1993, even though negotiations were favoring the ANC, the state of the country was at risk. Chris Hani, a beloved ANC leader, was assassinated by right wingers. The country was plunged into grief and anger. It was Nelson Mandela’s appeal to the nation, Ramphosa argues, that transformed the moment and became a turning point for the country.
An appeal for calm by Nelson Mandela, broadcast live on television on the night of Hani’s murder, signaled for many people that the balance of forces in South Africa had changed irrevocably. Nothing could illustrate more clearly that Mandela had become the de facto head of state in South Africa.3
It took individuals like Cyril Ramaphosa, Chris Hani, and Nelson Mandela to begin to change a nation. Individuals with not only the vision and hope for a democratic future, but also individuals who were willing to roll up their sleeves and patiently and determinedly settle in for the long haul of a difficult negotiation process. Heated debate, anger, frustration; these are the realities of negotiations, and were only amplified by the importance of what was at stake: the future of a nation.
Connections for the Classroom...
- The transition from an apartheid regime to a democratic South Africa began long before the creation of a new constitution or the elections of 1994. And though well on its way, the transition continues even today as the nation struggles with its decades-long history of oppression. As you study South Africa using this website and other resources, what were some of the various turning points“some concrete, some symbolic; some large, some small“that moved South Africa in the direction of peace and democracy?
- Negotiation and debate are crucial foundations for any healthy democracy. Cyril Ramaphosa’s determination to push himself and others beyond their comfort levels and deep frustrations—captured in his plea heard throughout negotiations, "just 20 minutes more"—inspires us to work hard for what we believe in. And the results of his efforts—a constitution that stands out as a blueprint for democracies throughout the world—show us that hard work can lead to achievements that exceed our greatest expectations.
Consider a negotiation process that has taken place in your own community, classroom or family. What positions did the two (or more) sides present at the start of negotiations? If the negotiations failed, what do you think were some of the reasons for the failure? If an agreement was reached, how do the original positions differ from the final results? Do you think one party “gave in” too much, or gained an unfair outcome?
1 “Negotiating Beyond Deadlock: From the Constitutional Assembly to the Court,” by Christina Murray. From The Post-Apartheid Constitution: Perspectives on South Africa's Basic Law, edited by Penelope Andrews and Stephen Ellmann (Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg, South Africa), 2001, p. 103.
2 “Negotiating a New Nation: Reflections on the Development of South Africa's Constitution,” by Cyril Ramaphosa. From The Post-Apartheid Constitution: Perspectives on South Africa's Basic Law, edited by Penelope Andrews and Stephen Ellmann (Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg, South Africa), 2001, pp. 71-72.
3 Ibid., p. 78.
|
|
 |
|
|
|