Sunday, 21 December 1986: Jan van Eck – Making a Difference in South Africa

December 26, 9:00 PM, Helmsley Hotel, Cape Town

After the service last Sunday at St. George’s Anglican Cathedral in Cape Town, Jan and Eunice van Eck invited me to their home in suburban Claremont.  It was certainly an offer I couldn’t refuse. 

Jan is a member of the liberal Progressive Federal Party (PFP) and was recently elected to the South African Parliament.  He and Eunice treated me to a typical South African braai (barbeque) with steaks and boerewors (Boer sausage).  We drank copious amounts of beer and wine and had much to talk about.  For starters, I was pleased to learn that Jan is a fellow geographer.  He received his honors degree from Stellenbosch and taught Geography of the United States in secondary school before getting involved in politics.  In 1983, Jan and Eunice spent several weeks travelling extensively in the States as guests of the U.S. State Department and even visited Denver and Colorado Springs.  

Jan is technically an Afrikaner – he immigrated to South Africa with his family from the Netherlands as a child.  Eunice describes herself as a “nothing” although English seems to be her first language.  Their 5-year-old son speaks English.

Of course, we quickly moved on to politics.  I learned that Jan is involved with an unrest monitoring committee.  As a Member of Parliament, he can legally go into the black townships to observe what’s going on when there is a disturbance and interview the residents.  He can also visit political prisoners in jail and check on the conditions under which they are being held.  They showed me pictures on a wall of their home of Jan interviewing blacks who had been sjamboked (beaten with rhinoceros-hide whips) by the police. 

A policeman sjamboks (whips) an escaping student rioter during unrest and protests in Western Township near Johannesburg, South Africa, 21 August 1985.  Photo by Louise Gubb.  Source: https://digitalcollections.lib.uct.ac.za/islandora/object/islandora:5335/print_object

Some anti-Apartheid activists are skeptical of Jan and other PFP party leaders.  They are, after all, a minority white political party participating in a white government, but remember that, under Apartheid, multi-racial parties are strictly forbidden.  The PFP is working for change within the system.  They don’t advocate violent revolution, disinvestment by foreign companies, sanctions, or even one-man, one-vote.  What they do favor is some sort of federal system with one legislative house based on one-man, one-vote.  The other chamber would be based on geographic representation.  They also want a bill of rights which protects white and non-white minorities.  Apartheid would be totally abolished, all political parties (including the ANC) would be unbanned, political prisoners would be released, and a national convention would be convened with broad racial/political participation to work out the details.  It sounds very moderate and reasonable but it seems to me pie-in-the-sky given the current situation.  However, a recent poll showed that 38% of white voters surveyed favored this plan while only 28% preferred the “Reformed Apartheid” plan put forth by the ruling National Party (“Nats”).  Yet the fucking Nats stay in power because the rural parliamentary districts represent fewer people than the urban ones.  (I wonder if they learned this trick from the gerrymandering tactics of a number of U.S. state legislatures.)  Furthermore, Afrikaner voters perceive the PFP as a party for English-speakers, and the Nats have much of the white electorate buffaloed into thinking that only they can protect the country from the “communist menace” that would ruin the country if non-whites were allowed to vote.  

Jan pointed out that the Nats are masters of propaganda both in South Africa and abroad.  As an example, he pointed out that Foreign Minister Pik Botha will say that South Africa’s government leaders support self-determination for blacks.  Foreign government officials such as Chester Crocker (the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs) have, in the past, taken this to mean that the South African government was moving toward black participation in the government.  But what Botha failed to add was “self-determination for blacks within their homelands” (the pseudo-independent bantustans in poorer parts of South Africa).  The world is finally starting to see through this verbal garbage, but South Africans themselves have been bombarded with this propaganda for more than a generation.

I told Jan and Eunice about some of the subtle but slick propaganda I have seen on SABC-TV.  Back in August when the Commonwealth countries passed economic sanctions against South Africa, SABC carried an interview on the news that night with a local economist saying that sanctions would have no effect.  I remembered that the Indian and Australian Prime Ministers (Rajiv Gandhi and Bob Hawke) were leading the sanctions fight at the Commonwealth meeting.  Following the interview with the economist, SABC ran a report of severe floods in India and Australia.  Now SABC carries very little international news unless it’s front page stuff.  Certainly, floods in India and Australia don’t qualify.  So it was clear to me that there was a not-so-subtle message in the report:  “See how God has punished those heathen Indians and Australians in return for their pushing for sanctions on South Africa.”  And for the non-God fearing: “Serves the bastards right, doesn’t it!”  At the time, I was staying with a politically-liberal communal group in the Transvaal.  I screamed at the TV set and to those within earshot, “How can people in this country listen to such shit?”  They seemed surprised by my anger.  For them, such propaganda is old hat. 

Jan said that SABC seems to deliberately keep a file of such news tidbits which they throw in when appropriate to balance bad news for or about South Africa.  He added that they are masters at engineering the TV news. 

I also mentioned the TV program about the ANC which had been shown a few nights earlier.  It was another slick piece of propaganda but anyone with a critical eye could have seen that it was staged and one-sided.  SABC trotted out several “reformed terrorists” wearing hoods who reported on miserable conditions in ANC training camps and the callous disregard for human life by the ANC commanders.  The “Spear of the Nation” (the military wing of the ANC) was referred to as “the shame of the nation” as photos of damage from terrorist bomb attacks werre shown and dramatic music played in the background.  Photos of various ANC leaders were shown with their positions within the ANC typed out next to each picture.  Then “Communist” was splashed across each photo.  Aerial footage from the northern Transvaal bushveld was shown and it was noted that ANC terrorists were infiltrating into the country from Botswana.

I put forward my theory to Jan and Eunice that South Africa does not have a tradition of a rule of laws which stem from a democratic constitution like we have in the U.S.  Jan agreed and said that the ruling Nat’s concept of good laws are those which serve to keep the government in power.  He went on to say that Afrikaners, as a people, expect to be persecuted from within and without.  Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are seen as anomalies in a world which is against them.  As for the “Constructive Engagement” policy of the Reagan Administration, Jan felt it had damaged the U.S. image among black Africans and was pleased to see that it is now dead.  He also made some snide comments about the natural affinity between Pik Botha and Chester Crocker. 

We had several positive things to say about Afrikaners.  I noted that many of the English-speakers I have met seem to be overly stiff while the Afrikaners are more down-to-earth, more “real”.  Jan agreed but added that Afrikaners often seem only to be able to relax by getting “pissed” (drunk).  They talked about the inherent good of the “platteland” (rural) Afrikaners.  Eunice noted that they are good-hearted, simple people.  She has done political door-knocking near Swellendam, some 150 km east of Cape Town.  She recalled how the local women wanted to get the political business out of the way in a hurry so they could give her coffee and cake and have a friendly conversation.  

Jan noted that the Afrikaners would probably adapt to a black socialist government in South Africa better than the English-speakers because the Afrikaners themselves have created a large socialist segment within the South African economy (e.g., the transportation services, iron and steel industry, power industry, arms manufacturing, etc.)  The English-speakers, on the other hand, tend toward capitalism.  Many of the PFP supporters are English and Jewish business leaders.  I suppose this adds to black suspicion of the PFP.        

A few days after meeting Jan and Eunice, I saw this short piece by Jan in one of Cape Town’s leading newspapers, the Cape Times.

Jan was a member of the Cape Provincial Council before being elected to Parliament a few months ago.  The national government recently abolished the provincial councils, and now all legislation goes through Parliament.  I speculated that this was a ploy to concentrate power and get rid of potentially more liberal legislators in the Cape and Natal provinces.  Jan agreed.

Eunice and Jan are impressed that 100,000 Americans of different races, backgrounds, and political persuasions can all stand up in a sports stadium and sing the national anthem.  In South Africa, every group has its own patriotic songs.  They said it was in the government’s interest to actually discourage a unified patriotic spirit in South Africa – the ol’ “divide and rule” syndrome.

If all this sounds rather pessimistic, Jan says he feels most optimistic after returning from one of his jaunts with the Unrest Monitoring Committee into the townships.  Optimistic because of the very positive and conciliatory spirit of the black people he meets.  While most of the blacks seem to welcome the committee’s presence, there have been a few close calls with angry crowds who have wanted to take out their frustrations on anyone white.  Jan has seen a number of incidents which go unreported in the press because of the emergency restrictions.  Recently he spent a week alone writing up his notes of all he has seen.  It was quite stressful for him to relive it all. 

Jan and Eunice assume their phone is tapped.  Some time ago a tear gas canister was thrown at their house after the Provincial Council had voted to remove President P.W. Botha’s photo from the Council Chambers.  Some Council members got it worse than they did.  Their phone number is listed, but they have received no threatening phone calls so far.  Some Members of Parliament have been threatened by phone.

Jan said that if the severe restrictions continue on the press, the PFP may say “to hell with legislation” in the next session of Parliament.  Instead, they will give speeches on the floor in which they describe various unreported unrest situations.  Then the press will be able to inform the public because they are allowed to quote anything that is said in Parliament, presumably even if it is of a “subversive” nature.

In summary, not only was it an enjoyable evening but I learned considerably about how the PFP does what they can to make their voices heard both in Parliament and by the South African public.   I will always be grateful to Eunice and Jan for the kindness they showed me that night.

 

Addendum, 21 April 2023, Denver, Colorado 

Recently, while trying to find a good photo of Jan for this post, I was saddened to come across several obituaries for him.  He died of a heart attack in 2009 (at age 65) but not before continuing to fight for the rights of all South Africans and later as a peace facilitator working for an end to the civil war between the Hutus and Tutsis in Burundi.

Jan van Eck (left) and four other Members of Parliament who joined the ANC in 1992.  Source: https://digitalcollections.lib.uct.ac.za/collection/islandora-15935

       

Following is a more detailed look at Jan’s life as published in “South African History On-Line”: (https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/jan-van-eck).  There is also a video of speakers at his funeral (including Archbishop Desmond Tutu) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2RAs-uByNM

 

Jan van Eck

Van Eck was born in Holland on 18 December 1943, the first born of five children.  He came to South Africa when he was five years old with his mother and father, a classical piano teacher.

He matriculated at Bonnievale High School in 1961, after which he studied at the University of Stellenbosch, obtaining a BA degree majoring in geography and history in 1964, a secondary teachers' diploma in 1965 and a BA (Hons) in geography in 1965.

It was at university that he started to seriously challenge his National Party upbringing and joined the (then) Progressive Party. When he joined the Progressive Party, Colin Eglin asked him to take the party's views into the Afrikaans areas.  Van Eck concentrated on students. He did this in his capacity as founder-editor of the Progressive Party's Afrikaans journal Deurbraak (meaning "breakthrough").

Until 1985, Van Eck held the positions of national public relations officer, national director of publications and editor of various publications for the then Progressive Reform Party (PRP) and the Progressive Federal Party (PFP).

In 1974 and again in 1977 he stood unsuccessfully as a parliamentary candidate and a provincial council candidate for the Progressive Party. During his time as a party employee, he married Eunice, who was then working as national secretary of the PRP.

He was elected to the Provincial Council for the PFP in Groote Schuur in 1981, and became a PFP MP for Rondebosch in a 1986 by-election. He worked as a city councilor for Cape Town from 1985 to 1988.

In 1987 Van Eck was re-elected unopposed as MP for Claremont.  He resigned from the PFP in August 1987 and remained as an independent in Parliament.

Inside Parliament, Van Eck went straight for the jugular of successive presidents and ministers of law and order. He repeatedly embarrassed, shamed and infuriated the ruling party. It had no answer other than to banish him from Parliament from time to time.

Van Eck’s fearless, strident and relentless pursuit of justice was not fully supported by the Progressive Federal Party (PFP), so he resigned from that party and represented Claremont as an independent from 1987 until 1989. Consequently, his candidacy as a Democratic Party (DP) MP in 1989 was controversial.  In 1992, he represented the DP at the Codesa talks.

In 1992, he joined the ANC together with four other Democratic Party MPs.  As a Member of Parliament, Van Eck was one of the first sitting MPs to join the ANC after the organisation was unbanned in 1990. He left the then-Democratic Party to join the ANC long before the first democratic elections in 1994 and served the ANC until 1999.

Among a group of South African "Whites in a changing South Africa" to visit the then-ANC headquarters in Lusaka, Zambia, in July 1989, Van Eck and the group that included religious leaders, intellectuals, city councilors, trade unionists, students and journalists, were praised by late ANC leader Oliver Tambo for braving arrest to meet the banned organisation. The gathering was convened under the auspices of the Five Freedoms Forum and the ANC.

"There are many among us who deserve a special accolade -- they are parliamentarians, including Parliament's unfading star, the indefatigable Helen Suzman and the go-getting Jan van Eck," Tambo told the gathering.

He entered Parliament as an MP for the Progressive Federal Party, and investigated police brutality. Van Eck was expelled from Parliament for six months after refusing to withdraw his claim that state agents were behind township attacks. At the height of repression, and with the press unable to report on security issues, Van Eck used Parliament to demand answers regarding the disappearance of political activists - most notably Stanza Bopape from the Mamelodi Civic Association. His persistence resulted in even the New York Times reporting on the matter.  The Truth and Reconciliation Commission testimony showed that he was right.

Van Eck left Parliament in 1994 and for the next 12 years worked tirelessly on peace efforts in the Great Lakes region to find a solution to the Tutsi-Hutu civil war that had for years wrecked that country's political and economic stability.  He played a significant role in brokering dialogue, building confidence and breaking down political and ethnic stereotypes in Burundi.

Van Eck won many accolades, including the "Paul Harris Fellow" by the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International "in appreciation of tangible and significant assistance given for the furtherance of better understanding and friendly relations among peoples of the world".

Van Eck, died of a heart attack in Cape Town at the age of 65 on 27 January 2009.

Burundian peace facilitator and former MP, Jan van Eck, was a "peacemaker" and a "son of South Africa and a man who mastered the art of listening", ANC Treasurer-General, Mathews Phosa, said at his funeral.  Not many people were aware of the enormous role that this quiet, but competent Afrikaner and African, played in Burundi.  "He succeeded with other mediators to turn decades of hate and violence into a willingness to talk."

Others who paid tribute to Van Eck included Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, Elie Bagona, chair of the Burundian community in Cape Town, Di Bishop, who was his "benchmate" in the provincial legislature, former MP Colin Eglin and Stel Snel, who worked with Van Eck and in the 1980s [and] helped him at the Umac (Unrest Monitoring and Action Committee).

He is survived by his wife, Eunice and three children.