STATEMENT BY
LPHM MTSHALI, MPP
PREMIER OF KWAZULU NATAL
AND NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, INKATHA FREEDOM PARTY

The Location of the ordinary seat of our Provincial Parliament

Durban: May 31st, 2002

It is incumbent on the IFP to explain to the people of KwaZulu Natal why it cannot go along with the process designed by the ANC for the determination of the seat of our provincial Parliament. Our fellow citizens should become sensitive to the long-term political, historical and social implications of a possible decision to locate the ordinary seat of our provincial Parliament in Pietermaritzburg. The ANC wishes our Parliament to resolve that it shall ordinarily sit in Pietermaritzburg. This decision and the manner of its adoption, as proposed by the ANC, would be the last in a long string of broken promises and breaches of honour.

The IFP calls on the people of KwaZulu Natal to consider the real issues of this matter because they affect the type of government our province and our country will have, and underpin the issue of whether morality, honour and integrity should be features of governance.

Under the leadership of former Premier Frank Mdlalose, the IFP and the ANC agreed to appoint a commission headed by Mr R. Cadman to decide where the seat of the Legislature should be located, and both parties participated in its research and deliberations. There is an erroneous but very real and politically charged perception that the seat of the Legislature carries the connotation of where the capital of the province is, when in fact no provision in law or in the national Constitution gives power to a province to declare its capital, which is a matter usually dealt with in a provincial constitution.

The IFP has always believed that there are compelling historical, developmental and administrative reasons to place the seat of the Legislature in Ulundi, as an important step in building Ulundi as the capital of the Province. However, the IFP moved away from its position to accept the compromise engineered between former Premier, F. Mdlalose and the then ANC provincial leader, J.G. Zuma, and embarked on the Cadman Commission process. The Cadman Commission decided that the present status quo which alternates the seat of the Legislature between Ulundi and Pietermaritzburg should be retained until the holding of a referendum to test the will of the people of KwaZulu Natal as to where they wish the seat of the Legislature and, with it, their symbolic capital to be located. The IFP respected this position and did not place this issue amongst those on which it campaigned for in the 1999 elections.

Technically, in 1994 the IFP had the power to make a unilateral decision on the matter and declare Ulundi the seat of the Legislature. Nonetheless, it entered into an agreement with the ANC to respect and abide by the decision of the Cadman Commission. The ANC has now broken and dishonoured this agreement as it attempts to push a decision on this matter unilaterally, on the strength of the support it may receive from the DA. The IFP does not share the DA’s view on the matter of the seat of the Legislature, which it considers short-sighted and parochial, not considering the long-term interests of the Province and the greater picture of balanced development, historic significance and equitable administration. However, the IFP respects the DA’s position, which the DA has consistently held, and its right to pursue it. The ANC is in a different position, at it has now shifted grounds on such a fundamental issue and has done so only for political expediency.

The IFP and the ANC have established an extremely high-level and authoritative structure to deal with problems experienced in their relationship; the 15-a-side Committee. The 15-a-side Committee has been seized with this issue for a long time and after many delays which were not of the IFP’s making, the 15-a-side Committee finally met for the first time last Thursday and discussed this matter. In this Committee the IFP and the ANC agreed that the matter would need to be discussed further next Wednesday. In the meantime the ANC seems to go ahead with its determination to foist a decision on the seat of the Legislature in a unilateral manner. This makes a mockery of the 15-a-side Committee and its process.

During our meeting last Thursday, the starting point of our deliberations was that both the IFP and the ANC see value in fostering the cause of reconciliation and walking the extra mile on that path, and for that reason, both parties remain equally committed to continuing their co-operation in the Government of KwaZulu Natal. One must wonder whether in making this statement, the ANC was as frivolous as it must have been in its handling of the issue of the seat of the Legislature, adjourning discussions on it until next week, while proceeding to dispose of the matter unilaterally before the next meeting.

This is not the first time that the IFP and South Africa will be faced with a fundamental breach of trust by the ANC. This is not the first time that after long negotiations, the IFP and the ANC reach a settlement based on mutual compromises, which the ANC then reneges on. The same thing occurred when after more than one year of negotiations, the ANC and the IFP agreed to enter into the solemn Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation signed by former President Mandela and Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, as well as the then State President FW de Klerk. The Agreement called for international mediation to resume as soon as possible after the April 27, 1994 elections, to settle in that manner the outstanding constitutional issues and the vexed issue of the recognition of the Kingdom of KwaZulu Natal within a unified South Africa. That Agreement was blatantly dishonoured.

Similarly, after 18 moths of exhausting and detailed negotiations, the IFP and the ANC agreed upon the text of the provincial Constitution of KwaZulu Natal which was unanimously adopted on March 15, 1996. This Constitution contained many compromises. Also on that occasion the ANC reneged on that which it had agreed to and opposed it during the process of certification in the Constitutional Court with the full measure of might it was able to muster. Other issues, like the handling of the local government powers and functions of traditional leadership, reveal the same pattern of deception.

The IFP wishes to be part of a country in which promises are kept and part of a province in which a decision as important as the seat of the Legislature is conducted within the broader frame of relevant historical, developmental and administrative considerations, rather than being rushed for political expedience. This issue has been a political football for too long and because it underlies the issue of a possible provincial capital, it should be settled in a provincial constitution where it would no longer be at the mercy of shifting parliamentary majorities and expediency-driven political agendas. To this end, the agreement must be kept to consult our citizens through a referendum.

If it is handled in this unbecoming, unthoughtful, provocative, politically-driven and irresponsible manner, the IFP will be duty bound to correct its most severe implication by exercising its prerogative to decide that all meetings of Cabinet shall henceforth be held in Ulundi, thereby creating a split between the legislative and executive hubs, similar to the national Government in respect of Pretoria and Cape Town. This much the IFP’s sense of responsibility would demand in respect of Ulundi.

We need the breathing time to serenely consider this sensitive and potentially explosive issue. The IFP believes that it is right for KwaZulu Natal and the long-term interests of its citizens, that Ulundi be its legislative and administrative capital. This important decision must reflect a long-term vision of governance. Establishing the legislative seat in one place while maintaining the administrative hub in another in respect of all or only some provincial departments, could be inefficient and problematic. The decision must derive from a coherent plan which improves on good governance for our people, and respects our people’s history and sentiments. We are duty-bound to place governance emphasis in areas which were by-passed by development, and Ulundi will under any condition remain an important administrative hub.

Ulundi was the last capital of the Zulu Kingdom and its destruction under the conquering British army symbolises the subjugation of the Zulu people. Moving the capital out of Ulundi would be perceived by many of us as a second burning of Ulundi. In the Battle of Ulundi a large number of "native" Zulu soldiers were employed by the British and mainly drawn from the Pietermaritzburg area. This fact carries heavy symbolic significance and emotional resonance to this day, and makes the issue highly sensitive and potentially explosive.

Ulundi was re-built where only bushes existed with the efforts and dedication of the Zulu Nation, to symbolise its will to survive and its renewal. Within a quarter of a century it became a city which provided the only hub of development for its region, supplying job opportunities and services to people who had none. If Ulundi were to cease to be a capital, it would soon be transformed into a ghost city which would stand for eternity as a monument to the failure of liberation.

The debate on the capital cannot be separated from the need to develop Ulundi and maintain its economic viability, even if it were no longer the capital. On many occasions, the IFP has put forward proposals for a comprehensive plan for the economic development of Ulundi, which met with little interest from its ANC colleagues. We need to have time and a debate which extends to the organs of our civil society to deal with this issue.

Declaring a place a capital does not necessarily bring large-scale development. Nonetheless, there is significant development which comes with it. It would be unconscionable to move this benefit into an affluent area such as Pietermaritzburg and away from the poorest of the poor. It would also counter the ends of redistributive justice because, in Pietermaritzburg, the developmental benefits of the capital would be captured by segments of the population who are already affluent and not previously historically disadvantaged. It would also confirm that the spatial inequalities of apartheid are maintained and that areas by-passed by the colonialist-driven development continue to be marginalised in the new South Africa.

It would send a terrible message to our people in all the rural areas which were by-passed by development if Pietermaritzburg were to be forced on them as something which rightly or wrongly will be perceived as the provincial capital rather than the mere seat of our Legislature. Their sense of alienation would deepen and so would their anger and despair.

Logistical reasons favour Ulundi as the seat of the Legislature, as Pietermaritzburg has insufficient accommodation for Members of Parliament and an inadequate legislative building. Ulundi has better infrastructures to accommodate the Legislature, its members, its staff and its infrastructure, including overnight accommodation.

Throughout the world capitals are not necessarily placed in the bigger cities and their location reflects developmental considerations. In the Eastern Cape, Bisho was preferred over Port Elizabeth, East London and other bigger cities. The capitals of Mpumalanga, the North West Province, the Northern Cape and other provinces have not been placed in the largest or most developed cities but rather in places where the developmental value of their location could be highlighted. Abroad, cities like Brasilia have been erected as capitals while, in the United States it is almost common practice that the capital be located in a smaller and often remote city.

The people of KwaZulu Natal must discuss these truths and make inputs in a process where the final decision can be made in a constitution. The recommendations of the Cadman Commission should not be overruled. Our posterity must see that this issue has been dealt with with the dignity it requires. For this reason the IFP cannot be part of this dishonourable and irresponsible process.