History Grade 12 P2 North West June 2024 QP (Eng)

PROVINCIAL ASSESSMENT GRADE 12 HISTORY P2 JUNE 2024 ADDENDUM This addendum consists of 9 pages. Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 2 NW/June 2024 Grade 12 – Addendum QUESTION 1: HOW DID THE UNITED DEMOCRATIC FRONT (UDF) RESPOND TO THE APARTHEID REFORMS INTRODUCED BY PW BOTHA IN 1983? SOURCE 1A The source below explains how the United Democratic Movement (UDF) resisted PW Botha’s reforms in the 1980s. During the 1980s, the apartheid government came under increasing internal pressure. The National Party attempted a political solution to the crisis it faced by creating the cosmetic Tricameral Parliament which included limited representation of South Africans classified 'Coloured' and 'Indian' but excluded Blacks. The principal effect of the Tricameral Parliament was to further entrench the political power of the White section of the South African population, specifically that of the ruling National Party, The reforms had the opposite affect to what the apartheid regime intended. Reforms provided renewed impetus for the resistance movements, and the 1980s was a decade which became a turning point in South African history. Popular protest by masses of ordinary South Africans against the apartheid regime reached its height in the 1980s. The newly formed Liberation Movement, the United Democratic Front (UDF), launched a massive nationwide campaign to dissuade Coloured and Indian voters from participating in the elections for the Houses of Representatives and Delegates. Civil society protest against the Tricameral Parliament showed that the majority of South Africans were opposed to the new structure. Coloured and Indian voter turnout was extremely low. In reaction to these political developments, mass action campaigns swept through the country. These included strikes, mass protests, school boycott, rent and consumer boycotts. Violence erupted on many occasions, and the Government responded by declaring a State of Emergency that lasted for much of the 1980s. [From SAHO@21-south African History] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 3 NW/June 2024 Grade 12 – Addendum SOURCE 1B The extract below is taken from a speech delivered by Dr Allan Boesak, keynote speaker, at the launching meeting of the United Democratic Front (UDF) held on 20 August 1983 in the Rocklands Community Hall, Mitchells Plain, near Cape Town. We are here to say that the government’s constitutional proposals are inadequate, and that they do not express the will of the vast majority of South Africa’s people. But more than that, what we are working towards (aims), is an undivided South Africa which shall belong to all its people, an open democracy from which no single South African shall be excluded and a society in which the human dignity of all its people shall be respected. We are here to say that there are rights that are neither conferred (granted) by, nor derived from the state; you have to go back beyond the dimmest (faintest) of eternity to understand their origin: they are God-given. And so, we are here to claim this. In a sense, the formation of the United Democratic Front (UDF) both highlights and symbolises the crisis of apartheid and what its supporters have created for themselves. After a history of some 331 years of slavery, racial discrimination, dehumanisation (not concerned about human beings) and economic exploitation, what they expected was acceptance of the status quo (position remaining the same). Docility and subservience. Instead they are finding a people, refusing to accept racial injustice and ready to face the challenges of the moment. After more than three decades of apartheid they expected humble submission to the harsh rule of totalitarianism and racial supremacy. Instead they find people ready at every level of society to fight this evil system. [From:https://www.sahistory.org.za/archive/united-democratic-front-national-launch-august-20-1983. Accessed on 13 February 2024.] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 4 NW/June 2024 Grade 12 – Addendum SOURCE 1C The poster below was published by the United Democratic Front (UDF) in the 1980s. It depicts its commitment to resisting oppressive measures of the state. REFORMS BOTHA'S HARASSMENT!!! [From Images of Defiance: South African Resistance Posters of the 1980s] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 5 NW/June 2024 Grade 12 – Addendum SOURCE 1D The source below, taken from a newspaper article titled 'Indian Turnout about 20% in South African Elections', was written by Allister Sparks for the Washington Post on 29 August 1984. It explains why there was a low turn-out from both Indians and Coloureds in the tricameral elections in 1984. About 20 per cent of the registered voters in South Africa's Indian community appeared to have voted today in elections for a new parliament that were marked by sporadic violence between boycotters and police in several cities. The results available tonight indicated that members of the 870 000-strong Indian community stayed away from the polls in even larger numbers than the mixed-race Coloured electorate did in last week's voting for representatives in the racially compartmentalised (classified) tricameral parliament. There was a 30 per cent turnout at the elections for the larger Coloured community. The government declared that figure adequate for pressing ahead with plans to implement its new constitution, but other observers labelled it a rebuff (refusal). Since many people who were eligible to vote did not register, particularly among the Coloureds, leaders of the boycott movement were claiming tonight that the effective vote in the two elections was about 18 per cent out of a joint population of 3, 5 million. The movement said this represented a 'massive rejection' of the white minority government's new constitution, which offers the Coloured and Indian minority groups a form of parliamentary representation for the first time, but continues to exclude the black African majority. White voters endorsed the constitution by a two-thirds majority at a referendum last November, and the United States State Department joined in praising the government of President PW Botha for taking 'a step in the right direction.' [From Washington Post, 29 August 1984] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 6 NW/June 2024 Grade 12 – Addendum QUESTION 2: WAS THE TRUTH AND RECONCILLIATION COMMISSION (TRC) SUCCESSFUL IN RECONCILING SOUTH AFRICA FROM ITS DIVIDED PAST? SOURCE 2A The extract below focuses on the reasons for the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in 1995. The TRC was set up by the post-apartheid government as a way to deal with the past and to see that people’s human rights are not abused again. The Interim Constitution of 1993 spoke of “a need for understanding, but not for vengeance, a need for reparation, but not for retaliation, a need for Ubuntu but not for victimisation.” It also said, “The pursuit of national unity, the well-being of all South African citizens and peace require reconciliation between the people of South Africa and the reconstitution (rebuilding) of society.” Therefore, the first democratic parliament approved legislation that set up the TRC. The TRC was founded with the aims of establishing a restorative, rather than a punitive justice, hear testimony from victims and perpetrators, and to promote national unity and reconciliation. The goal of the TRC was not to prosecute and impose punishment on the perpetrators, but rather to bring closure to the many victims and their families in the form of full disclosure of the truth. The amnesty hearings undertaken by the TRC represents these aims, by offering full amnesty to those who came forward and confessed their crimes. [From history and society –Accessed on 21 February] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 7 NW/June 2024 Grade 12 – Addendum SOURCE 2B The poster below was produced by the TRC. It invites both perpetrators and victims to appear before the TRC and testify about human rights abuses that were committed between 1960 and 1994. [From https://www.saha.org.za/udf/don't_vote_in_apartheid_elections_forward_to_freedom.htm. Accessed on 19 February 2024.] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 8 NW/June 2024 Grade 12 – Addendum SOURCE 2C The following focuses on the evaluation of the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in 1998. One of the greatest limitations to restoring victims’ dignity – and which was largely beyond the control of the commission – was the political tension that prevailed (existed) during its operations. This stemmed from the reluctance of the National Party and some extreme right-wing groups to see the TRC investigating aspects of the past that might damage their political credibility. These parties accused the TRC of being a (witch-hunt) rather than a genuine tool for national reconciliation, and frustrated the Commission’s work [bringing about] frequent legal actions against the TRC. The Commission’s biggest political blunder was the tendency to [give in] to these political groupings in an attempt to keep them committed to the process, ...[the] politically delicate (fragile) task of the TRC worsened its relations with victims who were justifiably frustrated by the lack of proper justice that the position implied. For restorative justice to succeed, victims need to see offenders’ express remorse (regret). That this was not forthcoming from the political party that governed the country under apartheid (National Party), dealt a blow to the process. [From The Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a Model of Restorative Justice by T Maepa,2005] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 9 NW/June 2024 Grade 12 – Addendum SOURCE 2D This extract focuses on the Assessment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Despite these challenges and limitations, the TRC was internationally regarded as successful and showed the importance of public participation in such processes, including the initial decision-making process leading up to the establishment of a truth commission. The hearings of the TRC attracted global attention, as it was the first commission to hold public hearings in which both victims and perpetrators were heard. While amnesties are generally considered inconsistent with international law, the South African TRC provided some basis for considering conditional amnesties as a useful compromise, particularly if they help to secure perpetrator confessions. The South African TRC represented a major departure from the approach taken at the Nurnberg trials. It was hailed as an innovative model for building peace and justice and for holding accountable those guilty of human rights violations. At the same time, it laid the foundation for building reconciliation among all South Africans. Many other countries dealing with post conflict issues have instituted similar methodologies for such commissions, although not always with the same mandate. The South African TRC has provided the world with another tool in the struggle against impunity and the search for justice and peace. [From history and society – Accessed on 21 February] Copyright reserved