Listening to the silent majority

[86]

The four mayors and ex-mayors in the Carlton coffee shop stressed that it was impossible to run a community on the basis of ideology. ‘The calibre of the councillors is still the big question,’ they said. ‘You will not find intellectuals or professors amongst them.’ For what it is worth, I countered, there are no professors in the American Congress either. ‘In our townships one often finds local businessmen in the town councils, who dream of furthering their business interests on the side when they enter the town council circuit. A lot of councillors are basically traders and do not represent the quality of people that are necessary to lead us. ‘Do you realize,’ I was told, ‘that besides intimidating voters, the radicals physically prevent people from going to the polls? If people were truly left to themselves to do the things that they consider right, there would be an entirely different result in municipal elections.’

I mentioned that I had heard that only 30 percent of the eligible voters had actually voted in the 1988 municipal elections. ‘That percentage would rise,’ the mayors said, ‘if widespread intimidation as well as physical threats ceased. As it stands, people are being intimidated long before voting day. Then on election day itself, people are flatly molested and attacked. A lot of people are also literally petrified that they would be seen voting, by the wrong people. If political opposition groups are of the opinion that people should not vote, they should openly campaign against voting and explain clearly the reasons why people should not

[p. 111]

vote. They should bring arguments forward and set forth their views and leave it up to the people to make up their minds.’

I countered that most radicals and political opposition groups were operating underground, because they were banned by the government, so how could they possibly go on the campaign trail? ‘At the moment they can't. That is correct. But the reason they can't is that they apply terrorist tactics and are waging a so-called armed struggle. And they pose, especially in the way their policies are presented overseas, as the great defenders of democracy. But in reality, the opponents of township elections force their ways by threatening and molesting people. They claim to be the great defenders of the “one man, one vote” system, but in reality they do not tolerate any opinion but their own. Their ultimate aim is to silence and kill their most popular and eloquent opponents, to make the townships ungovernable through violence and terror If a township election could be held in true and real freedom, without intimidation and violence, we would witness miracles. The radicals would be in the minority, that's all.’

I played the devil's advocate by suggesting that they were painting a too-rosy picture as to the majority views of township blacks They seemed incensed at the mere suggestion. ‘We have been in politics for many years,’ they said. ‘No outside person can come and tell us what is going on in the townships. We know what is happening there. We were born and brought up in this country. We know what is going on at all levels of society. We know why certain things can or cannot be done. In South Africa today, you must be first of all political realists. That's important to realise first. Don't try to be a smart politician and try to please this person or that person. You can't. You must be a political realist in this country. One must understand the situation as it is. We were there. We are here. Therefore, no man can come and tell us what is happening in South Africa today. We know the game A to Z. We also know our politics.’