
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, August 17, 1993                   TAG: 9311240260
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A5   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: RICHARD SINCERE
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

FEDERALISM VS. REGIONALISM IN SOUTH AFRICA, AN ISSUE OF AUTONOMY

U.S. INVOLVEMENT in the negotiations for South Africa's constitutional future has been appropriately circumscribed. The U.S. government has kept at arms length from the negotiators, trying to deal with all the parties evenhandedly and without prejudice.

This does not mean, however, that U.S. diplomats have been silent. U.S. government has made its views known on only one issue of substance: its support for federalism.

The question of whether South Africa will be a federal or unitary state has been of vital importance. In a country populated by many ethnic and cultural groups, the issue of local autonomy has long loomed large.

Several major players on the South African scene have insisted that federalism be part of the negotiations or else). everal of these organizations have formed the Concerned South Africans Group, which includes the Inkatha Freedom party, led by Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi; the Conservative party; and the government of Bophuthatswana, a homeland granted independencea from South Africa in 1977.

Bophuthatswana recognizes that reincorporation of Bophuthatswana into a larger South African state is inevitable - but wants it to occur on terms favorable to the Tswana people and their neighbors.

As anyone can see, the desire for local autonomy under a federal scheme has illustrated the cliche that "politics makes strange bedfellows,'' for COSAG consists of both white and black members who until a few years ago would have been at each others' throats.

The ANC, which expects to win next April's countrywide elections, has long advocated a unitary state, where power emanates from a central government to which local authorities must answer. In its view, under South Africa's "new dispensation", it is the ANC's turn to take a share of the patronage pie that has been controlled by Afrikaner-dominated governments for the past 45 years.

Thus the ANC has been reluctant to include federalism in the current discussions: Its leaders know that a decentralized, federal government will reduce the power and influence of the party that controls the central government.

To satisfy vocal critics of federalism within its own ranks, the ANC leadership has used the term "regionalism" as an alternative. Conceptually, federalism and regionalism are different in substance and effect. "Regionalism" is top-down government; "federalism" is bottom-up.

Under a "regional" system, a country is divided into "regions" for administrative reasons. Regional officials are appointed by, and answerable to, the central government. Some local governments may be elected but ultimately are responsible to the decisions of the central authority.

In a federal system, by contrast, states or provinces enjoy considerable autonomy and are substantially independent from the central government. Local and regional officials are selected by local voters from among themselves, not appointed by the country's president. Decision-making is in the hands of local governments and not dependent on the wishes of the central government.

This is the system we have in the United States. It is also the system used, in an even looser form, by Switzerland (where the central government is quite weak in comparison to the cantons). States or provinces grant limited authority to the central government (say, in foreign affairs) rather than the other way around.

President Lucas Mangope of Bophuthatswana said in a recent speech: "We believe that in federalism we have the recipe for the only viable solution leading to a lasting and meaningful settlement of the problems of this region. A unitary state is the dream of the foolish, naive, and opportunistic."

To my dismay, a senior U.S. State Department official told me recently that the U.S. government is satisfied that all the parties there have accepted the idea of federalism even if they use the term "regionalism,'' and that there is no conceptual difference between them. It worries me that U.S. government officials may think they are promoting a constitutional system while not understanding the system at all.

To the extent that the U.S. government accepts "regionalism" and "federalism" as synonyms, it ill-serves both South Africans and Americans, because confusion in these concepts erodes the local autonomy and individual liberty federalism is designed to protect.

Unless federalism is seriously and substantively considered as the foundation of South Africa's new constitution, no other system can be made to work. And if U.S. diplomats cannot understand either the difference between regionalism and federalism or the deep-rooted concerns of federalism's advocates, the U.S. role in South Africa will be marginal. That will be no good for the future of U.S.-South African relations in a post-apartheid era.

\ Richard Sincere of Arlington is vice chairman of the Libertarian Party of Virginia.

by CNB