History Grade 12 Paper 2 NSC June 2022 Addendum (English)

Downloaded from hlayiso.com SENIOR CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS/ NATIONAL SENIOR CERTIFICATE EXAMINATIONS HISTORY P2 2022 ADDENDUM This addendum consists of 14 pages. Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 2 DBE/2022 SC/NSC  Addendum QUESTION 1: HOW DID THE UNITED DEMOCRATIC FRONT (UDF) REACT TO PW BOTHA'S REFORMS IN THE 1980s? SOURCE 1A The source below is an extract from a book by S Dubow, a historian and academic, which focuses on PW Botha's reforms that were proposed by the new constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 110 of 1983). It explains how the tricameral system would be introduced. PW Botha's long-awaited constitutional proposals entailed (required) replacing the Westminster system of government with the 'tricameral' parliament featuring separate chambers for whites, Coloureds and Indians. A President's Council, drawn from the three chambers, would advise the executive State President. The constitutional proposals were eventually passed by a large majority in a whites-only referendum in 1983. This marked a short-term personal victory for Botha, but the cost was that opposition on both ends of the political spectrum (range) was mobilised. It was the vexed (angry) matter of 'power-sharing' that finally provoked Treurnicht's long-expected right-wing split away from the National Party. Of even greater significance was the effect of the new constitution on the vast majority of the population. In attempting to entice (invite) Coloureds and Indians into the political process (with very limited success), the meretricious (false) constitutional arrangements highlighted the exclusion of Africans from South African citizenship. Limited political incorporation for some was no substitute for the loss of full political rights for South Africa's majority. In 1983 it was impossible to guess that the formation of the United Democratic Front (UDF) would transform South African politics, yet it was immediately apparent (obvious) that its formation was a highly significant political development. [From Apartheid, 19481994 by S Dubow] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 3 DBE/2022 SC/NSC – Addendum SOURCE 1B The source below is part of a speech delivered by Rev. Frank Chikane at the launch of the United Democratic Front (UDF) in Rocklands, Mitchells Plain, Cape Town on 20 August 1983. It explains the importance of forming a united front against the 1983 apartheid reforms. Comrades, friends, this day, today, is the culmination (conclusion) of seven months' work to see the launching of the United Democratic Front. We are sure going to go into the record of history as an important event, bolstering (strengthening) the tide (rush) of the struggle, picking up that day when the people shall say, we are free and justice is here, when the people shall live together as brothers and sisters without the exploitation and oppression of the other. However, although this is a unique (special) day, it falls within the spectrum (range) of the history of struggle in South Africa. … The idea of a front is a new concept in the struggle of the people for about the last twenty years, and it was understood to be standing for unity-in-action accepting the fact that all the organisations coming together have got differences. There are also differences of class, differences of ideology, differences of intent, but all of them agree that they reject the reform proposals that are proposed by the Botha regime, and as a result they need a broad front to do this. That necessitates, therefore, the formation of this group, not necessarily as a national political organisation, but as a united front for the sole purpose of opposing the Koornhof Bills* … … And I want to call on you, all peace-loving people of South Africa, to put hands together, to walk side by side to fight against the implementation of these reform proposals so that we can then destroy the system, so that we can put up a government by the people where the people shall govern according to their will. [From A History of the United Democratic Front in South Africa 1983–1991 by J Seekings] *Koornhof Bills: Refers to a piece of legislation named after Piet Koornhof, the National Party Minister of Co-operation and Development in the early 1980s. It hoped to create black local government, tighten influx control and divide African people into rural and urban residents (also for control purposes). Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 4 DBE/2022 SC/NSC – Addendum SOURCE 1C The source below explains various forms of resistance initiated by the United Democratic Front (UDF) against apartheid reforms and the subsequent reaction by the state. The UDF's opposition to apartheid manifested (showed) itself in a number of actions. Shortly after its formation, it launched a successful boycott action against the election of the (Coloured) House of Representatives and (Indian) House of Delegates. The UDF was involved in the organisation of a number of consumer boycotts and stay- aways. In 1983 and 1984, it launched the 'one million signatures' campaigns, in which signatories were asked to voice their opposition to the so-called Koornhof legislation on black local government, as well as to the new constitution. However, the UDF's greatest impact was at grassroots level where it created local structures that played a key role in the political education and mobilisation of the masses. At its second national congress, held in April 1985, it was decided to transform mass support into active participation, under the theme 'From Protest to Challenge: From Mobilisation to Organisation'. Four months later this theme was extended to include a new slogan, 'Forward to People's Power'. The UDF's strategy was to replace decision-making structures created by the government with a system of 'people's power'. It was equivalent to (the same as) the establishment of 'liberated areas' in South Africa. The state headed off this threat and suppressed the general unrest in the country, which reached a peak in 1985, by calling a series of states of emergency. A large number of people were arrested in terms of security legislation. The UDF, in particular, was badly affected. Several key members of the organisation were murdered, including Matthew Goniwe (UDF organiser in the Eastern Cape) and Victoria Mxenge (UDF treasurer in Natal). Almost the entire leadership corps (group) of the UDF was restricted in the period 1985 to 1987. [From https://omalley.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv02424/04lv02730/05lv03188/ 06lv03222.htm. Accessed on 4 September 2021.] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 5 DBE/2022 SC/NSC – Addendum SOURCE 1D 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. [From Images of Defiance: South African Resistance Posters of the 1980s] REFORMS BOTHA'S HARASSMENT!!! Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 6 DBE/2022 SC/NSC – Addendum QUESTION 2: HOW DID THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION (TRC) DEAL WITH THE MURDER OF THE PEBCO THREE? SOURCE 2A The source below highlights the formation and objectives of the Port Elizabeth Black Civic Organisation (PEBCO) in October 1979 and explains how its leadership was abducted by the security police in 1985. The Port Elizabeth Black Civic Organisation (PEBCO) was formed in October of 1979 in Port Elizabeth. The group's main objective was to fight for the rights of the people through mass protest and participation … and focused on trying to help better the living situations of the masses and also end discriminatory laws in the Eastern Cape. PEBCO was an affiliate of the United Democratic Front (UDF) that led to thousands of people rallying and boycotting certain products. PEBCO also adopted the Freedom Charter upon the endorsement (approval) of it by the UDF. The Freedom Charter, created in the 1950s, was the central political doctrine of the ANC that called for equal rights, human rights and government by the people for the people. The PEBCO Three, Champion Galela, Sipho Hashe and Qaqawuli Godolozi, were activists in the struggle against apartheid. Hashe, Godolozi and Galela were the targets of an assassination plot by the security police in 1985. Their prominent roles in PEBCO and affiliation with the UDF caused them to be perceived (seen) as a threat to the government. On 8 May 1985, Sipho Hashe, Qaqawuli Godolozi and Champion Galela were on their way to the airport to meet a person whom they believed to be with the British Consulate who was sympathetic to their cause. However, this phone call was fake (false) and was really just a reason to get the leaders to leave their houses so that they could be abducted. [From https://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/SMU%20%20-Tristan%20Kelly%20- Hist%203377%20 Final%20Paper%20PEBCO%203.pdf. Accessed on 20 October 2021.] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 7 DBE/2022 SC/NSC – Addendum SOURCE 2B The source below, taken from a newspaper article titled 'Search for Missing PEBCO Men', appeared on the front page of the Cape Times on 27 May 1985. It explains how their relatives were committed to searching for the missing men. [From the Cape Times, 27 May 1985] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 8 DBE/2022 SC/NSC – Addendum SOURCE 2C The source below is part of the transcript of evidence that Barend du Plessis, a colonel of the Port Elizabeth Security Branch (a special police unit established by the apartheid regime), gave at the TRC public hearing for amnesty applications, held in Port Elizabeth on 5 November 1997 regarding the murder of the PEBCO Three. MS HARTLE: Do you believe, Mr Du Plessis, that your acts were politically motivated? MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. MS HARTLE: And do you believe that the murder of the PEBCO 3 was warranted? MR DU PLESSIS: At that stage, yes, if you think back to it now, you would say yes. MS HARTLE: Now, you've already heard it said that the higher politicians have said that the abduction and the death of the PEBCO 3 was mala fides (being deceitful) and unauthorised. Can you comment? MR DU PLESSIS: I never said that Mr FW de Klerk knew about it. What I did say, was that there were politicians and high-ranking officers who knew what was happening; perhaps they weren't directly informed but they knew by implication and by implication also the authorisation came through to us. ADV. SANDI: Whilst you are there, why did you think that the statement that said: 'Make a plan'  why do you think that statement necessarily and solely meant that you should devise a plan for these people to be killed? MR DU PLESSIS: That is one word which I used but that is the only inference (conclusion) which I can draw because if there's no other plan, then what remains, because from the morning till the night we were busy making plans to try and restore law and order and if those plans were no longer effective, then that would be the only other plan that remains to be made  that was the only inference that I could draw. [From https://www.justice.gov.za/trc/amntrans/am1997.htm. Accessed on 5 October 2021.] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 9 DBE/2022 SC/NSC – Addendum SOURCE 2D The source below, taken from a book written by O Bubenzer, a doctor of law, outlines the findings of the TRC hearings on amnesty applications for the murders of the PEBCO Three. In 1996 the Amnesty Committee of the TRC received the amnesty applications of Gideon Nieuwoudt, Harold Snyman, Barend du Plessis, Johannes van Zyl and Gerhardus Lotz of the Port Elizabeth Security Branch. Snyman and Du Plessis were not physically involved in the abduction and murder of the PEBCO Three, but the two had authorised the abduction and murder. Snyman, the commanding officer of the then Eastern Cape Security Police had been approached by Du Plessis who suggested that the three activists be killed. In the amnesty hearings, contradictory (opposing) evidence was given. The application of the Port Elizabeth Security Police stated that no torture had taken place during the interrogation, which had been conducted by Van Zyl, Lotz and Nieuwoudt. This evidence was contradicted by the Vlakplaas askaris*, Mogoai, Koole and Mamasela, who claimed to have been present in the interrogation during which the three victims, allegedly, were severely assaulted. The Amnesty Committee of the TRC declared the following: (1) Harold Snyman was granted amnesty for conspiring (plotting) and ordering the abduction and murder of Hashe, Godolozi and Galela. (2) Amnesty was refused to Hermanus Barend du Plessis, Gideon Nieuwoudt, Johannes van Zyl and Gerhardus Lotz for the conspiring and ordering the abduction and murder of the three deceased. (3) Amnesty was granted to Mogoai for the abduction and assault of the PEBCO Three. [From Post-TRC Prosecutions in South Africa by O Bubenzer] *Askari: a freedom fighter (member of either the ANC or PAC) who, through coercion, changed sides by joining the apartheid security forces and turned against their former comrades Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 10 DBE/2022 SC/NSC – Addendum QUESTION 3: WHAT MEASURES DID THE SOUTH AFRICAN GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENT TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES OF THE GLOBAL COVID-19 PANDEMIC? SOURCE 3A The source below was taken from a publication by the London-based Centre for Global Change and Health in 2004. It explains how globalisation contributes to the spread of infectious diseases globally. Despite widespread interest in its emergence, there is limited agreement on precisely what globalisation is. For example, for economists, globalisation concerns the increasingly globalised nature of the emerging world economy. For lawyers, it concerns the threatened changes in legal status of states and their citizens. For environmentalists, it is the changes in the world's climate and other biosystems. And for information technology experts, it is the global spread and integration of information systems. In understanding the links between globalisation and infectious diseases, it is important to be aware of how the term 'globalisation' is used interchangeably with terms such as 'internationalisation', 'liberalisation' and 'westernisation'. A strict definition of globalisation distinguishes between cross-border and trans-border flows. Cross-border concerns the interactions across two or more countries through, for example, official trade of goods and services, or capital flow such as foreign direct investment across national borders. Trans-border, in contrast, concerns flow of people, goods and services, capital, values and ideas in a way that does not recognise national borders. Along with changes to spatial (three-dimensional) boundaries, globalisation is leading to changes in how we experience and perceive time. Globalisation is shaping the time frame in which natural and human-induced phenomena take place, as well as the time available and necessary for responding to these phenomena. For example, the time taken for some infectious disease to spread across territorial space has become much quicker as a result of the increased amount, frequency and speed of population mobility (movement). [From Globalisation and Infectious Diseases: A Review of the Linkages by L Saker] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 11 DBE/2022 SC/NSC – Addendum SOURCE 3B The article below was written by W Roelf, a journalist, and focuses on the national state of disaster declared by President Cyril Ramaphosa on 14 March 2020. Cape Town (Reuters) – South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa, declared a national state of disaster on Sunday as he announced a range of measures to contain a Covid-19 outbreak that has so far infected 61 and showed the first signs of internal transmission. In a live television broadcast after a special cabinet meeting, Ramaphosa said the outbreak, first detected on 5 March 2020, could have a significant and 'potentially lasting' impact on a struggling economy, which is already in recession (economic slump). Measures to be taken include travel bans to countries such as Italy, Germany, China and the United States. The government will also prohibit gatherings of more than 100 people and cancel large events and celebrations, he said. 'It is concerning we are now dealing with internal transmission of the virus. This situation calls for an extraordinary response; there can be no half measures,' Ramaphosa said. He said government has cancelled visas for visitors from high-risk countries as from Sunday, with previously granted visas also revoked (cancelled). 'Any foreign national who has visited high-risk countries in the past 20 days will be denied a visa,' he said, adding that South Africans who visited targeted countries would be subjected to testing and quarantine when returning home. First detected two weeks ago with a single positive result, the number of cases has risen to 61 by Sunday, a mushrooming (growing) rate that mirrors the rapid spread of the virus worldwide. Besides the health impacts, Ramaphosa said the economy would not be spared as exports decline in key markets, including China, and the labour-intensive tourism sector suffers. 'Cabinet is therefore in the process of finalising a comprehensive package of interventions to mitigate (soften) the expected impact of Covid-19 on the economy,' he said. [From Reuter's News Agency, 15 March 2020] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 12 DBE/2022 SC/NSC – Addendum SOURCE 3C The article below highlights how opposition parties reacted to President Ramaphosa's measures to address the economic impact (on South Africa) of the global Covid-19 pandemic. President Cyril Ramaphosa has announced South Africa's biggest spending plan  a once-off stimulus injection into the struggling economy  in response to the Covid-19 pandemic that has led to a lockdown for the last 28 days. Overall, opposition parties reacted favourably to the president's broad range of interventions. Democratic Alliance (DA): 'Much-needed relief encouraging' The Democratic Alliance (DA) welcomed Ramaphosa's announcement. 'This R500- billion package will bring much-needed relief to South Africans through grants, business relief, tax measures, additional healthcare budget and food programmes,' DA leader, John Steenhuisen, said. Many of the measures announced echo those the DA has been calling for to safeguard not only the lives, but also the livelihoods of millions of South Africans hit hard by the lockdown to contain the spread of Covid-19. Steenhuisen said it was encouraging that Ramaphosa spoke of approaching institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank for a portion of the funding for this package, particularly since these institutions have made available low interest, unconditional loans specifically for Covid-19 relief. Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus): 'A step in the right direction' The Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) said Ramaphosa's economic stimulus package was a 'step in the right direction'. 'The FF Plus is of the opinion that the payment of newly designated social grants should be approached with caution as people will quickly become dependent on it and it can then be difficult to remove in the future,' FF Plus leader Pieter Groenewald said. He added that it was important not to create dependence on the state, but rather to create jobs and business development … 'It is important that the country's budget be reprioritised. Important aspects include the allocation to the health budget, relief from hunger and other social problems, assistance and support to businesses and the unlocking of the economy,' Groenewald said. [From News24, 22 April 2020] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 13 DBE/2022 SC/NSC – Addendum SOURCE 3D The cartoon below, drawn by Rico Schacherl, appeared in the Business Maverick on 17 March 2020. It depicts President Ramaphosa with emergency measures that the South African government would implement to protect its citizens from the impending (approaching) global Covid-19 pandemic. [From Business Maverick, 17 March 2020] SOUTH AFRICA CYRIL EMERGENCY MEASURES Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com History/P2 14 DBE/2022 SC/NSC  Addendum ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Visual sources and other historical evidence were taken from the following: Bubenzer, O. 2009. Post-TRC Prosecutions in South Africa by (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Boston) Business Maverick, 17 March 2020 Cape Times, 27 May 1985 Dubow, S. 2014. Apartheid, 1948–1994 (Oxford University Press) https://omalley.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/index.php/site/q/03lv02424/04lv02730/05lv 03188/06lv03222.htm https://www.justice.gov.za/trc/amntrans/am1997.htm https://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/SMU%20%20-Tristan%20Kelly%20- Hist%203377%20Final%20Paper%20PEBCO%203.pdf Images of Defiance: South African Resistance Posters of the 1980s News24, 22 April 2020 Reuter's News Agency, 15 March 2020 Saker, L. et al. 2004. Globalisation and Infectious Diseases: A Review of the Linkages (Centre for Global Change and Health, London) Seekings, J. 2000. A History of the United Democratic Front in South Africa 1983 1991 (David Phillip Publishers, Cape Town) Copyright reserved