History Grade 12 Paper 2 North West Mock 2025 Addendum

education Department: Education North West Provincial Government REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA HISTORY P2 SEPTEMBER 2025 ADDENDUM This addendum consists of 14 pages. Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 QUESTION 1: = WHAT ROLE DID THE UNITED DEMOCRATIC FRONT (UDF) PLAY TO RESIST PW BOTHA’s REFORMS OF APARTHEID IN THE 1980s? SOURCE 1A The extract below focuses on the origins of the United Democratic Front (UDF) in 1983. From the 1970s and into the early 1980s, people across South Africa began to organise community-based groups to oppose the many hardships that apartheid created in their lives. These groups brought together people with similar concerns — sometimes as residents of the same township, at times as women’s groups, or student groups, or church groups, or as workers in a factory or an industry. The apartheid government continued to repress banned liberation movements, but its efforts to smash these ‘grassroots’ groups were less effective. By focusing on immediate community problems, these groups survived and multiplied. In January 1983, a number of these community-based groups held a conference to oppose the South African Indian Council — the Anti-SAIC Conference. The Anti-SAIC Conference called for a united front to be launched to co-ordinate the mass campaigns against black local authorities and the tri-cameral parliament. The result was the launch of the United Democratic Front (UDF) six months later. The UDF aimed to mobilise people and organisations on a national level, throughout the country, against apartheid injustice. It called for the creation of a united, non-racial, non-sexist, and democratic South Africa. From its birth, the UDF had the support of the banned liberation movement, the African National Congress (ANC). The UDF organisations became a way to link with the ANC’s internal underground structures, and to establish contact with the ANC in exile. But these contacts were illegal — South Africa’s law laid down a five-year jail sentence for anyone found guilty of ‘furthering the aims of a banned organisation’ such as the ANC. [From http://www.saha.org.za/udf/origins.htp, Accessed on 20 August 2024] Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 SOURCE 1B The extract below was taken from a speech that was delivered by Rev. Dr. Allan Boesak at the launch of the United Democratic Front, in Mitchell's Plain, near Cape Town on 20th August 1983. It outlines reasons for the formation of the United Democratic Front. We have arrived at a historic moment. We have brought together under the aegis (support) of the United Democratic Front the broadest and most significant coalition of groups and organisations struggling against apartheid, racism and injustices since the early nineteen fifties. We are here to say that the government's constitutional proposals are inadequate (not enough), and that they do not express the will of the vast majority of South Africa’s people. But more than that, we are here to say that what we are working for is one, undivided South Africa, which shall belong to all of its people, an open democracy from which no single South African shall be excluded, a society in which the human dignity of its people shall be respected. In a sense, the formation of the United Democratic Front both highlights and symbolises the crisis apartheid and its supporters have created for themselves. Those in power in this country have made the fundamental mistake of all totalitarian regimes who do not depend on the loyalty of the people but on the power of the gun: they have not reckoned with the determination of a people to be free. Because they depend on propaganda, deceit and coercion, they have forgotten that no lie can live forever and that the fear of the gun is always overcome by the longing for freedom. In the meantime, let me remind you of three little words, words that express so eloquently our seriousness in this struggle; ‘all, here and now ... We want all our rights, we want them here and we want them now.’ We have been waiting so long; we have been struggling so long. We have been jailed, exiled, killed for too long. Now is the time. [From Boesak, A. (2009) Running with the horses — Reflections of a coincidental politician (Joho publishers, JHB)] Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 SOURCE 1C The poster below was designed by the UDF. It called on Whites, Coloured and Indians South Africans to boycott the tricameral elections that were to be held by the apartheid government in January 1984. ) ond Gi 2] = S.. es [From https://www.saha.org.za/udf/dont_vote in apartheid elections forward _to_freedom.htm, Accessed on 21 August 2024] Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 SOURCE 1D This extract below focuses on internal and non-violent pressure that the anti-apartheid alliance put on the apartheid regime in the 1980s. One of the UDF’s most prominent leaders was Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and it gained considerable support in the white community as well as from the South African Council of Churches. In 1985, non-violent pressure continued to build, with 27 year-old Mkhuseli Jack organising boycotts of white-owned businesses in Port Elizabeth. The boycotters presented a series of demands: « The integration (blending) of public schools ¢ The removal of troops from black townships e The end to workplace discrimination (unfairness) The boycotts were so powerful that the regime responded with the first declaration of a State of Emergency in 23 years in an effort to stop the movement's momentum, but with little effect. A three-day general strike in June 1988 mobilised more than three million workers and students, paralysing industry, followed by an even larger general strike in August 1989. By 1989, however, the reviving UDF attempted to broaden its alliance beyond charterists. Avoiding the phrase, “non-racial”, it initiated the Conference for a Democratic Future. [From http://.nonviolent-conflict.org/index.php/movements=and-campaigns/-ummaries)Sobi2Task= _sobi2details] Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 QUESTION 2: HOW SUCCESSFUL WAS THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION (TRC) IN ADDRESSING CRAIG WILLIAMSON'S APPLICATION FOR AMNESTY? SOURCE 2A The extract below outlines the reasons for the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) that emerged in 1995 was born inevitably (evidently) out of compromise. The remit (responsibility) it was given by parliament was relatively narrow. The commission's main focus was to investigate gross human rights violations, break the silence on the past, create a culture of accountability and provide a safe space for victims to tell their personal stories in the thirty-four-year period from 1960 onwards. The violations were defined as the killing, abduction, torture, or severe ill-treatment of any person, or any attempt, conspiracy (plan), incitement (provocation), instigation (influencing), command, or procurement (order) to commit those acts. Thus, the wider injustices of the apartheid system, such as the forced removal of some 3 million people from their homes, the imprisonment of millions of pass- law offenders, and the widespread use of detention without trial, would not be addressed. ... The most contentious (controversial) part of the TRC's remit (responsibility) involved the amnesty clauses. During the final stages of the negotiations that ended white rule, De Klerk had insisted that a guarantee of amnesty be written into the new constitution; Mandela was obliged (forced) to concede (accept). Without amnesty, the white establishment might not have agreed to give up power. Amnesty therefore became the price for peace. [From Coming To Terms: South Africa's Search For Truth by M Meredith et al] Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 SOURCE 2B The source below is an extract from the TRC Final Report and focuses on Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s decision to grant Craig Williamson Amnesty. lt was a common cause that Ruth First, Jeanette and Katryn Schoon were killed by bombs concealed in parcels that were addressed to them. Both Williamson and Raven were members of the Security Branch. The assassinations of the deceased were ordered, advised, planned and/or directed within the Republic of South Africa, while the explosion and resulting deaths occurred outside the borders of the Republic ... After a protracted hearing, the Committee was satisfied that the following applied: The killings of Ruth First and Jeannette and Katryn Schoon were offences committed in the course of the conflicts of the past. The applicants were members of the Security Police and, as such, were employees of the state. They had acted within the course and scope of their duties and within the scope of their express or implied authority. The offences were directed against publicly known political organisations or liberation movements, namely the ANC and SACP and/or members or supporters of those organisations, and were committed bona fide to the objective of countering or resisting the struggle... The evidence indicated that, although Schoon and Ruth First were lecturing at their respective universities, they had not totally withdrawn from politics and were still involved in the liberation struggle waged by the ANC/SACP. There was no evidence to support the allegation that Williamson acted out of malice towards the deceased. The Committee held that there was evidence that Williamson had received orders from his superiors to proceed with the letter bombs. The killings of Jeannette and Katryn Schoon and Ruth First achieved their objective to shock, destabilise and demoralise the ANC/SACP. The acts were accordingly not disproportionate to their objectives. The applicants had made a full disclosure of all relevant facts. Following the granting of amnesty to both applicants, the Schoon and Slovo families launched review proceedings against the granting of amnesty. [From TRC Final Report: VOLUME 6: SECTION 1, CHAPTER 4, SUBSECTION 12 https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/reportpage.php?id=12049&t=craig+williamson&tab=report Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 SOURCE 2C The cartoon below, by Zapiro, (2.3.3) depicts Craig Williamson swearing an oath to tell the truth at his amnesty hearing. It was published in the Sowetan on 17 September 1998. | SWEAR, TO TELL JUST ENOUGH TRUTH AS | THINK WILL BE REQUIRED TO BUY ME AMNESTY. | 2| | [From http://mail.englishexperience.co.za/sample-sections/bens/Enrichment-Tasks. pdf, \ Accessed on 18 March 2024] Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 SOURCE 2D The source below is an extract from the British Newspaper, The Guardian, published on 13 June 2000. It expresses outrage over the granting of amnesty to Craig Williamson. OUTRAGE OVER AMNESTY FOR APARTHEID KILLER Craig Williamson, the former police spy, was given amnesty last week for the murders of Ruth First, Jeanette Schoon and her six-year-old daughter, Katryn. The judicial review is being sought on behalf of the Schoon family and will allow for the reopening of a civil case for damages brought against Williamson on behalf of Schoon's son, Fritz, who witnessed the death of his mother and sister. Yesterday, Robyn Slovo, one of First's three daughters, said: "We were deeply shocked by the amnesties which are completely unwarranted and unfair — but we have not decided whether we can take the pain of going through another judicial process, and we're still consulting our lawyers." The central point of Williamson's amnesty request in the First case was that he did not see the name on the envelope containing the letter bomb — the implication was that perhaps he thought the letter had been addressed to First's husband, Joe Slovo. Mr Slovo, as the key figure in the African National Congress's (ANC) military strategy, could be considered a legitimate target for the apartheid regime; whereas First, an academic in Mozambique, though still a member of the ANC and the Communist party, was not. During the TRC amnesty hearings, the three judges appeared extremely sceptical of this evidence and under the law, amnesty requires full disclosure, which brings into question the decision of amnesty. Under South Africa's TRC, Williamson and Raven would have walked free without controversy if they had been seen to have told the truth. They have not been. Within hours of the announcement of amnesty, local radio station presenters were crying, and songs were being dedicated to the victims' families. [From https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/13/victoriabrittain, Accessed on 26 March 2024] Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 QUESTION 3: HOW DID STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMMES (SAPs) AFFECT THE ECONOMIES OF DEVELOPING NATIONS? SOURCE 3A The following is extracted from the speech, ‘Working for a Better Globalisation’, delivered by Horst Kohler, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington DC on 28 January 2002. Globalisation is the process through which an increasingly free flow of ideas, people, goods, services and capital leads to the integration of economics and societies. It is often viewed as an irreversible (permanent) force, which is imposed upon the world by some countries and institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. However, that is not so. Globalisation represents a political choice in favour of international economic integration, which for the most part has gone hand-in-hand with the consolidation of democracy. Precisely because it is a choice, it may be challenged, and even reversed but only at great cost to humanity. The IMF believes that globalisation has great potential to contribute to the growth that is essential to achieve a sustained reduction of global poverty. ato Trade liberation is the best form of help for self-help, both because it offers an escape from aid dependency and because it is a win-win game; all countries stand to benefit from freer trade. The true test of the credibility of rich countries’ efforts to combat poverty lies in their willingness to open up their markets and phase out trade subsidies in areas where developing countries have a comparative advantage as in agriculture, processed food, textiles and clothing, and light manufacturers. [From http://www. imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2002/031502.htm!, J7 Accessed on 20 August 2024] Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 SOURCE 3B This source is an extract from an article by R Naiman and N Watkins entitled “Has Africa ‘Turned the Corner’ in Recent Years?” It focuses on the impact that structural adjustment programs had on South Africa. STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT — A MAJOR CAUSE OF POVERTY Following an ideology known as neo-liberalism, and spearheaded (led) by these and other institutions known as the ‘Washington Consensus’ (based in Washington DC). Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) have been imposed to ensure debt repayment and economic restructuring, but the way it has happened has required poor countries to reduce spending on things like health, education, and development, while debt repayment and other economic policies have been made the priority. In effect, The IMF and World Bank have demanded that poor nations lower the standard of living of their people. As detailed further below, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank provide financial assistance to countries seeking it but apply a neo-liberal economic ideology (favouring free-market capitalism) or agenda as a precondition to receiving the money. For example: One of the many things that powerful nations (through the IMF, World Bank, etc.) prescribe is that the developing nation should open to allow more imports in and export more of their commodities. However, this is precisely what contributes to poverty and dependency. Developed countries grow rich by selling capital-intensive (thus cheap) products for a high price and buying labour-intensive (thus expensive) products for a low price. This imbalance of trade expands the gap between rich and poor. This maintains the monopolisation of the tools of production and assures a continued market for the product. (Such control of tools of production is a strategy of a mercantilist (capitalist/business) process. That control often requires military might. [From http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty, Accessed on August 2024] Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 SOURCE 3C The cartoon below depicts the IMF as a multi-headed monster dictating the Six Commandments that developing countries should follow if they wanted to borrow money. INCREASE THY THOU SHALT privatize || CUTWAGES + REMOVE DEVALUE THY COSTS IN FOOD + FUEL EXPORTS ... THY PUBLIC WHAT IS CURRENCY ... SECTOR... pla SUBSIDIES ... AND OPEN [From Workersworld No. 6 6 March-April 19 UP THY THE MARKETS TO THEN THOU SHALT six ALL... HAVE MONEY COMMANDMENTS Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 SOURCE 3D This source below is an extract from an article by R Naiman and N Watkins entitled “Has Africa ‘Turned the Corner’ in Recent Years?” It focuses on the impact that structural adjustment programmes had on South Africa. According to the World Bank, real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita grew by 1, 4% in 1996, but by 1997 growth slowed to 0,4 and in 1998 per capita incomes fell by 0,8%. [The World Bank projects a further decline of 0,4% in 1999. In short, if there was an /economic renaissance’ for Africa it appears over. The data reviewed in this study suggests that the IMF has failed in Africa, in terms of its lown stated objectives and according to its own data. Increasing debt burdens, poor growth performance and the failure of the majority of the population to improve their access to leducation, healthcare or other basic needs has been the general pattern in countries subject to IMF programmes. The core elements of IMF Structural Adjustment Programmes have remained remarkably consistent since the early 1980s. Although there has been mounting criticism and calls for reform over the last year and a half, no reforms of the IMF or its policies have been forthcoming ... In the absence of any reform at the IMF for the near future, the need for debt cancellation for Africa is all the more urgent. The enormous debt burden consumed 4.3% of sub-Saharan Africa’s Gross National Product (GNP) in 1997. If these resources had been devoted to investment, the region could have increased its economic growth for that year. However, the debt burden extracts another price, which may even be higher than the drain of resource lout of the country: it provides the means by which the IMF is bale to impose the conditions lof its Structural Adjustment Programmes on these desperately poor countries. [From http://www.cerpr.net/documents/publications/debt_1994 04.html, Accessed on 11 July 2024] Copyright reserved Please turn over

NW/September 2025 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Visual sources and other historical evidence were taken from the following: Boesak, A. (2009) Running with Horses — Reflections of an accidental politician (Joho publishers, JHB) http://.nonviolent-conflict.org/index.php/movements=and-campaigns/-summaries)Sobi2 Task=sobi2details&catd=17&sobi2=29 http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/browse/cartoon_item/anytext=angola%20war?page=4 http://www.cerpr.net/documents/publications/debt_1994 04.htm http://www.globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty http://www. imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2002/031502.htm http://www.saha.org.za/udf/origins.htp https://www.saha.org.za/udf/dont_vote in apartheid elections forward to _freedom.htm justice.gov.za/trc/media/1997/970924c.htm Coming To Terms: South Africa's Search For Truth by M Meredith TRC FINAL Report: Volume 6: SECTION 1 CHAPTER 4, SUBSECTION 12: https://sabctrc.saha.org/reportpage.php?id=120498t=craigt williamson&tab=report http://mail.englishexperience.co.za/sample-sections/bens/Enrichment-Tasks.pdf Accessed on 18 March 2024 Copyright reserved