AfriForum sees constructive criticism as a positive opportunity to explain AfriForum’s actions and style. What I resent, however, is that some critics go to lengths to discredit the “style” of the organisation’s Deputy CEO Ernst Roets, apparently without realising the serious flaws in their own style when they resort to offensive personal attacks on Roets as a person. Their efforts to drive a wedge between AfriForum and Roets will not succeed. AfriForum and I support Roets 100%.
Of course, Roets, the AfriForum team and I – like anyone else – are not beyond criticism. What we do believe, however, is that criticism must be based on facts, and, above all, that our actions should not be judged in isolation from the environment in which we operate.
The saying that a lie that is repeated a thousand times becomes truth for some people, appears to be accurate. I have already encountered a few people who argue that AfriForum is “far-right” or even “racist”. When I ask them to substantiate their opinion, they cannot do it. They believe it is so because “Max and Pieter” say so.
This is being said in spite of facts showing that there is a long list of examples where AfriForum supports both coloured and black people and promotes mutual recognition and respect between communities.
Of course, if a few people continue to make misplaced attacks on Roets’s “approach”, the danger exists that some people will believe it, even though they do not know Roets. Fortunately, my experience is that most people can think for themselves and will ask reasonable questions such as where did Roets say what, and why did he do so.
The great weapon with which his critics are trying to attack Roets and AfriForum, is his appearance at parliament’s constitutional review committee.
It should instead be asked what options were available to AfriForum. It would have been wonderful for AfriForum if we could appear before the committee with the knowledge that the ANC and the EFF were open to persuasion and that we would be able to appease them with well-chosen words. The reality, however, was different.
Even before the conclusion of the “public consultation process” and the committee’s session, Pres. Cyril Ramaphosa made a late-night announcement that the ANC has already decided to continue to amend the Constitution to allow expropriation without compensation.
The public participation process and constitutional review committee’s sittings were, therefore, only a deception. It was used as a platform to proclaim the lie that all white people who own land, had stolen that land.
The only option left for AfriForum, therefore, was to convey a well-reasoned, but strong and clear message in its submission that white people are not land thieves. If AfriForum, for fear of a negative reaction, should not make its message loud and clear, but should rather choose to give the ANC and the EFF free rein to convey their distorted version of history as they wish, it would be a lost cause.
Of course, we have to maintain good relations and our arguments must be indisputable, but we cannot rely on that alone. For example, AgriSA – probably with good intentions and with the encouragement of AfriForum’s opponents – tried to get the ANC to abandon its plans by building good relations and expressing itself strongly against any “interference” by the USA, following Pres. Donald Trump’s tweet about South Africa. Eventually, the ANC simply proceeded with the parliamentary process to allow expropriation without compensation.
I see it as a positive development that AgriSA now also sees the need for pressure on the ANC and that it has asked the Trump government to intervene.
I myself have been involved with dozens of meetings with the ANC. The meetings were always pleasant, but no single concession was made by the ANC.
The times that AfriForum did indeed succeed at both local and national level, were when pressure was put on the ANC. The adapted approach eventually led to good settlements.
Winston Churchill is a good example of someone who adapted his actions to what reality required. In the 1930s several British politicians thought they could keep Hitler at bay by constantly trying to appease him. Churchill was the only exception, simply because he had read the plans Hitler wrote and because he believed what he had read.
Similarly, it is important that we should continually seek to understand the ANC’s mindset by reading this party’s policy documents, by believing that the ANC means what it says in its documents, and then by incorporating this knowledge in the tactical action that is required to oppose expropriation without compensation to the best of our abilities.
According to the ANC’s proclaimed “balance of forces” approach, this party will not abandon its policy directions simply on the basis of the good arguments of other stakeholders, but they will sometimes concede if they encounter strong opposition.
At a strategic level, AfriForum will continue to strive for a healthy understanding between Afrikaners, Afrikaans speakers, minorities in general and the authorities, and for issues to be resolved through discussion.
As long as the ANC is clinging to its “balance of forces” approach, AfriForum has no choice but to continue with the tactical approach of opposition where circumstances require it.
Kallie Kriel is CEO of AfriForum.
