The Future of the National Peace Accord Structure - African Defence Review No 19, 1994


	The Future of the National Peace Accord Structures Dr Paul Lusaka National Peace Secretariate Paper delivered at a conference on Rethinking South African Security Architecture, jointly hosted by the Institute for Defence Policy and the Centre for Policy Studies on 28 July 1994, Halfway House, Midrand Published in African Defence Review Issue No 19, 1994 THE NATIONAL PEACE ACCORD The National Peace Accord was born against the background of violence sweeping the country; it was born against the absence of legitimate authority structures and communication channels between the various contesting political groups which had in common a vision to establish a multiparty democracy in a non-violent, peaceful manner. The National Peace Accord was signed on 14 September 1991 by 26 organisations and political parties who committed themselves to the promotion of "peace, harmony and prosperity in violence-stricken communities." The Accord was not a cease-fire agreement but a document in which the role-players agreed on codes of conduct for political parties, security forces and the police. The signatories thus agreed on the basic democratic principles of freedom of movement, peaceful assembly and peaceful political activity. The codes of conduct were accepted, I believe without a time frame, as game rules for the conduct of political parties in South Africa. The National Peace Accord created the National Peace Committee, it set up the National Peace Secretariat and established the Goldstone Commission of Inquiry into Public Violence and Intimidation. For this paper I shall restrict myself to the National Peace Secretariat and its structures. THE NATIONAL PEACE SECRETARIAT The National Peace Secretariat is the "engine room" of the National Peace Accord. I shall refer to only the following three of its function: to facilitate communication so as to ensure broad public participation in bringing about a climate of political tolerance on the one hand, and to resolve conflicts at grassroots level through the establishment and co-ordination of regional and local Peace Committees, on the other; to enable socio-economic reconstruction and development of society through facilitation; and to provide a focus and mechanism whereby the people of South Africa can themselves become builders of peace. During the more than two and half years of existence, the NPS and its structures have been able to bring together a broad section of political actors and interest groups who otherwise, would have been enemies. The peace structures have confronted problems at the grassroots level and, while some of them were not able to resolve problems because they had been plagued by boycotts, non-attendance and apathy, they, nonetheless, provided an opportunity for South Africans who might otherwise never have met to begin to break the barriers between them. In my view, the peace structures have been a crucial ingredient in building a culture of consultation, in strengthening negotiating skills and in showing that problems can be resolved through discussion rather then violence. As a result, following a successful election last April, a Government of National Unity is now in place. national and regional legislators have been sworn in and have assumed their duties. A euphoric "honeymoon period" set in during the period immediately after elections. South Africans are now engaged in assessing the future role of the peace structures. Regrettably, there is a perception, despite the almost multiparty character of the Accord, that the peace structures were created as a "stop gap" measure by a government facing a crisis of legitimacy. There are those who are arguing that, like other transitional mechanisms (the TEC and the IEC), the peace structures have outlived their usefulness. After the election violence subsided in the whole country except in the East Rand and parts of KwaZulu/Natal, but peace is not only the curbing of violence, it is also the availability and provision of food, health facilities, education, water, housing, electricity, transport, security and the promotion of and adherence to fundamental human rights. These strengthen democracy particularly at the grassroots level. The April elections did not bring complete peace nor did they end conflicts. Furthermore, peace structures were not meant to curb violence only during the election, also afterwards. It is against this backdrop that South Africans should be encouraged by President Mandela's words two months ago in support of the continuation of the peace structures in a different form. THE FUTURE Addressing the National Assembly in Cape Town on May 24 1994, President Nelson Mandela said: We have also directed that all relevant ministries should engage the structures set up in terms of the National Peace Accord so that these can be invigorated to pursue their noble mission in the context of the changed circumstances in our country. What are these changed circumstances? Obviously the President has a long list, but as an outsider I can think of four circumstances which emphasize the importance of maintaining the rationalised peace structures. CURRENT LEVELS OF CONFLICT The period of euphoric "honeymoon" during and immediately after the elections has passed and, politically-related violence appears to have dropped significantly. However, other forms of conflict and violence have already manifested themselves. There are the problems of refugees in the East Rand and KwaZulu/Natal; the taxi disputes in Johannesburg, Pretoria and Eastern Cape; deaths arising out of traditional healing in the Far Northern Transvaal. Faction-fighting has arisen on the mines in the Eastern Transvaal and the West Rand, political clashes between the Self Defence Units and Self Protection Units on the East Rand and in KwaZulu/Natal. The litany is too long to recite it all. The significance of this conflict and violence lies not only in the fact that it has become endemic in South African society but also in the implications for the successful implementation of the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP). If these levels of conflict remain unchanged and unresolved, the consequences for the RDP could be far-reaching and adverse. Needless to mention that the peace structures have been dealing with these problems increasingly. DEVELOPMENT - RELATED CONFLICTS Past experience in the East Rand, Alexandra Far East Project and Crossroads has shown that development programmes may lead to conflict and violence. To bring development into a community will inevitably create a situation where there are those who are having their needs met and those who are not. The experience of the peace structures is that development cannot be imported into a community. Development must be for and with that community, no matter how slow and painful that process might be. Additionally, it is critical that the community itself prioritises development targets which it understands and is prepared to manage, also if conflict erupts. Communities have to acquire the skills and systems to effect such management. Adverse situations may also arise out of discussions between representatives of the State, the civil society and the private sector where a particular group places a higher priority on job creation programmes, whereas another could opt for housing programmes, and yet another for electrification programmes. If the potential for conflict remains high during any of these development phases, facilitation/mediation and co-ordination of the whole development process remains of utmost importance. The peace structures are relatively new but with their expertise and experience in conflict resolution, they may be of value to the Reconstruction and Development Programme. Thus, in order to give effect to the objectives of the Programme, the peace structures should be involved in - the facilitation of the psychological, social and physical reconstruction communities through development, upliftment, empowerment and mediation skills in the pursuit of a peaceful, prosperous and violence - free society/community. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS The local government elections will probably not occur within the next 12 months and the establishment of effective local government structures is even further removed. It is during this time that the local peace structures in particular could play an important bridging and facilitating function until such time as an elected local administration is put in place. In this interim period, field workers could start to facilitate the consolidation of the voluntary Community Development Forums (CDF's) which would be broadly inclusive and representative of the State, the civil society and the private sector, and which would be able to immediately begin with the planning, prioritising and project implementation functions. Training by peace structures in conflict resolution techniques, mediation, facilitation and basic administrative skills including financial accountability should be available for members of the Community Development Forums. RECONCILIATION The April 1994 elections had great impact on the healing and reconciliation of the historically strained relations in South Africa. It cannot, however, be said that communities which have been separated by many years of apartheid have suddenly become unified and reconciled around common values of trust, equality, dignity, respect, tolerance, participation, transparency and honesty. Current experience in resolving some of the above manifestations of conflict and violence suggests the opposite. It suggests the extent to which distrust, secrecy, suspicion and intolerance have become embedded in the daily lives and relationships of the South African society. Thus, without a common value base it is likely that the communities will continue to be unreconciled and whilst remaining in this negative mode, will not be in an advantageous position to think and plan for the future without hidden agendas. Discussions on RDP and its implementation will remain riddled with "underlying" interests resulting, at best, in technocratic development schemes and at worst, in power struggle or conflict over perceived scarce resources. If "reconciliation", therefore, means inter alia, the experience of and commitment to common or shared values at grassroots level, then mediation or facilitation techniques by the peace structures should be further advanced. This is especially required to unite communities within the Local Peace Committees around common values as well as a shared vision and mission for the future. In this regard, value sharing/vision and mission building workshops/seminars must be conducted by peace structures at grassroots level in selected areas to start with. The success or failure of such workshops will assist in determining what further action may be taken, particularly in the areas of reconciliation, reconstruction and development. CONCLUSION I wish to sum up by stating that I support the continuation of the peace structures but, in order for them to be of general relevance in the new South Africa, their new focus will need to be defined very carefully. In my personal view this new focus should target the grassroots (local communities). In saying this I am conscious of the fact that these are days of lean government everywhere in the world. Thus, to secure continued funding, the peace structures will need to demonstrate cost effectiveness, they will need to show that they are not duplicating functions and that their objectives compliment those of the Government. My view is that the top peace structures should be kept to an absolute minimum. There is a need for full-time staff representing South Africa's gender and racial mix. However, the accent should be on a bottom-up approach rather than top-down. This should ensure inclusivity and transparency, the two vital ingredients for national reconciliation and reconstruction. The peace structures have been operating in a difficult but unique and successful way, taking into account the diversity of South African society, and let me point out that if countries in other parts of Africa and even outside had established for themselves such moral structures from the very beginning, most covert violence and conflict and even civil wars in those countries, may have been abated. South Africans have started well by creating peace structures which, on the whole, have been successful. But a moment of pause is not a moment of peace. Peace and stability are catalysts for development. It is, therefore, my hope that South Africa will find a way of continuing with the necessary peace structures.