Codesa Agreement 1994

September 14, 2021 4:35 pm

[xcix] The CODESA Negotiations, South African History Online, accessed February 2, 2017 We therefore recommend that the agreements relating to this phase be entrusted to a drafting committee responsible for structuring the entire package of the first phase in the form of a single draft, which could even take the form of a draft statute. The agreement horrified most right-wing parties and led the IFP and the CP to join forces with a number of original governments and African parties to form the South African Group (COSAG). They rejected the principles set out in the agreement and called for its abolition. In the months that followed, Buthelezi threatened secession, but the move came under intense diplomatic pressure that revealed his isolation. The agreement also has fault lines within the NP and the ANC, both on tactical principles and on substantive principles, on the terrain of time. The negotiating group within the NP leadership finally managed to win. The ANC conducted consultations with voters and eventually committed to a positive overall negotiating position on the basis of a transitional power-sharing period, thus resolutely moving away from a maximalist zero-sum strategy to immediately eliminate the PN as a political force. In addition to constitutional principles, the process that led to a new constitutional order was an area of debate and disagreement in the construction and during the Codea. These “process questions” were related to the question of who would manage the transition period and how. Four remarkable proposals were made ahead of the first plenary session of Codea: a transitional government (ANC), a transitional authority (PAC and AZAPO), a transitional government (DP) and transitional arrangements (NP). Any proposal would lead to a different outcome. IFP did not propose a proposal, while one member, Walter Felgate, said: “We totally reject the idea of convening a multi-party conference or an all-party conference to form a transitional government.” IFP argued that only a multi-party conference could decide for itself that there should be a transitional government.

[lxiv] Although the public was invited to submit contributions to the working groups on constitutional principles, CODEA made little effort to inform the public about its work or to elicit the opinion of important groups on substantive issues; Delegates and their advisers were the protagonists in developing options and negotiating agreements….