Listening to the silent majority

[114]

‘This is a curious country,’ commented The Citizen in an editorial recently. In four days in June the ANC attacked four so-called police targets, injuring a 14-year-old boy. A Russian-made F1 grenade was hurled at a police vehicle, another 1 kg limpet mine wrecked another police car, and a mini-limpet mine destroyed a police vehicle in Sandton. The ANC feels - obviously supported by Moscow - that attacks on law and order institutions are justified. Now, another bunch of no less than 120 people, (funded by the US, Canadian, Dutch and Danish Governments, mind you), were about to leave for Lusaka to meet some 40 anc delegates, ‘as if they are a jolly decent lot’, commented The Citizen.^89. The paper feels it to be ‘curious’ that in a fit of masochism, the Pretoria government lets all these developments take place without the slightest hindrance by way of cutting off funds for foreign-funded junkets.

When I think of all the conversations with blacks throughout this country, some of which were reproduced here that consider the ANC ‘one voice’ in the liberation process, but certainly not ‘the only voice’, I am curious to understand what Pretoria's policy vis-à-vis terrorist organisations is. Why are so many South Africans allowed to conspire with the anc abroad against this country, and can come and go without restrictions of any sort, while for instance Archie Gumede was first restricted inside the country. Archbishop Desmond Tutu screamed. Minister of Law and Order, Adriaan Vlok released a letter stating that he lifted some of the restrictions on Gumede, because Tutu whipped up noisy trouble. How can a government minister put out a document reversing a decision ‘because Tutu intervened’? Apparently the modification of the restrictions by Mr Vlok was a move aimed at achieving peace in Natal between Inkatha and the cosatu - udf alliance. But, why underline Tutu's role in the matter as if the Bishop possessed better brains than the government minister? Let's never forget that Mr Tutu was a teacher who turned to the Church because the Bantu Education Act of

89. The Citizen, June 16, 1989

[p. 159]

1953 denied him the advancement he sought in his first profession. The Economist underlined, ‘this natural conformist has become famous - even a bit of a bore - for instant comments to reporters and commentators of all stripes. He is happy with the English upper classes, who treat him like something of a pet. Lavish with other people's money,^90. he raises funds even faster than he can spend them. Yet, he has the gift that matters, of words of loving-kindness.^91. Why would Mr Adriaan Vlok refer to Tutu as if he all of a sudden emerged as an honest broker between warring factions in South Africa? Many of my interlocutors, some on record, have more-than-serious doubts about the man's mental abilities, so to present him as a silent partner to a serious government minister seems rather unusual. This was the very reason for The Citizen commenting: ‘This is a curious country’. If the editors of this paper can't follow what is happening, how could I explain this behaviour to my readers overseas?

90. After a recent visit to Birmingham, England, by Desmond Tutu, the city found itself landed with a debt of 800,000 Rand - a bill the Church had to foot

91. The Economist, April 23, 1988