1992 South African apartheid referendum

17 March 1992 (1992-03-17)
Do you support continuation of the reform process which the State President began on 2 February 1990 and which is aimed at a new Constitution through negotiation?
Results
Choice Votes % Yes 1,924,186 68.73% No 875,619 31.27% Valid votes 2,799,805 99.82% Invalid or blank votes 5,142 0.18% Total votes 2,804,947 100.00% Registered voters/turnout 3,296,800 85.08%
Results by region

Part ofa series on
Apartheid
Events 1948 general election Coloured vote constitutional crisis 1956 Treason Trial Sharpeville massacre Rivonia Trial 1971–72 Namibian contract workers strike Soweto uprising Church Street, Pretoria bombing Vaal uprising Trojan Horse Incident Khotso House bombing Cape Town peace march CODESA Assassination of Chris Hani Saint James Church massacre 1994 Bophuthatswana crisis Shell House massacre
Organisations ANC APLA IFP AWB BBB Black Sash CCB Conservative Party DP ECC FOSATU PP RP PFP HNP MK PAC UDF Broederbond National Party COSATU Security Branch SACC SADF SAIC SAMA SAP SACP State Security Council
People Vernon Berrangé P. W. Botha Steve Biko Mangosuthu Buthelezi F. W. de Klerk Ruth First Bram Fischer Arthur Goldreich Chris Hani Bantu Holomisa Joel Joffe Ahmed Kathrada Albert Luthuli Winnie Madikizela-Mandela Mac Maharaj D. F. Malan Nelson Mandela Govan Mbeki Thabo Mbeki Raymond Mhlaba Benjamin Moloise Albertina Sisulu Walter Sisulu J. G. Strijdom Joe Slovo Robert Sobukwe Helen Suzman Adelaide Tambo Oliver Tambo Eugène Terre'Blanche Desmond Tutu H. F. Verwoerd B. J. Vorster Jacob Zuma
Places Bantustan District Six Robben Island Sophiatown South-West Africa Soweto Sun City Vlakplaas
Related topics Afrikaner nationalism Apartheid in popular culture Apartheid legislation Cape Qualified Franchise Disinvestment campaign Freedom Charter Internal resistance to apartheid Kairos Document Music in the movement against apartheid Nostalgia for apartheid Project Coast Sullivan Principles
Category
v t e

External videos
SABC news report about polling day, YouTube video

A referendum on endingapartheid was held inSouth Africa on 17 March 1992. The referendum was limited towhite South African voters,^[1][2] who were asked whether or not they supported the negotiated reforms begun byState PresidentF. W. de Klerk two years earlier, in which he proposed to end theapartheid system that had been implemented since 1948. The result of the election wasa large victory for the "yes" side, which ultimately resulted in apartheid being lifted. This was the last occasion in which only the white electorate took part.Universal suffrage was introduced two years later for thecountry's first non-racial elections.^[1]

This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(March 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

On 2 February 1990, in his opening address to parliament,State PresidentF. W. de Klerk announced that the ban on certain political parties such as theAfrican National Congress and theSouth African Communist Party would be lifted and thatNelson Mandela would be released after 27 years in prison. De Klerk announced thatcapital punishment would be suspended and that thestate of emergency would be lifted. The State President said in his speech to parliament that "the time to negotiate has arrived".

Nelson Mandela was released on 11 February 1990 fromVictor Verster Prison inPaarl nearCape Town. On 21 March 1990South West Africa became independent asNamibia. In May the government began talks with the ANC. In June the state of emergency was lifted and the ANC had agreed to a ceasefire. In 1991 the Acts which restricted land ownership, specified separate living areas and classified people by race were abolished.

Prior to the referendum, the governingNational Party had lost threeby-elections after announcing negotiations to end apartheid two years earlier, and its position was opposed by theConservative Party which was against the negotiations and boycotted theConvention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA). On 24 January 1992 President de Klerk opened parliament and suggested that a referendum would be held, in which the vote of each race group would be counted separately. When the National Party was defeated in thePotchefstroom by-election on 19 February, after calling it a test vote, its credibility was placed in doubt.

In the meantime, negotiations between the government and theAfrican National Congress were making slow progress. Violence was increasing in theSouth African townships, differentright wing groups were becoming more prominent, and there was growing dissatisfaction within the white community. Conditions and the mood in the black townships was worsening as well. The government was thus under domestic and international pressure to make progress in the negotiations.

While the Conservative Party claimed that the government did not have the mandate to negotiate with the ANC after its defeat in Potchefstroom,State PresidentF. W. de Klerk announced 20 February, that a nationalreferendum for the white electorate would be held to test the government's—and his own—support: if the referendum's outcome had been negative, de Klerk would have resigned andgeneral elections held. When de Klerk initially announced the referendum, many were critical of the fact that onlywhites had the right to vote in the referendum.

For the purposes of the referendum South Africa was divided into fifteen areas consisting of groups of House of Assembly electoral divisions.^[3][4]

TheNational Party andDemocratic Party campaigned for a "Yes" vote, while the conservative right wing led by theConservative Party campaigned for a "No" vote. Much of de Klerk's efforts in 1992 were directed toward appeasing and weakening hisright-wing opponents, the conservative defenders of apartheid who had broken away from the National Party during the 1980s. De Klerk attempted to show white South Africans that the government was not giving up power to the ANC, but negotiating on the basis of "power sharing". It warned the white voters that a "No" vote would mean continuation of international sanctions, the danger of civil war and worsening chaos in South Africa.

De Klerk told the press that he would interpret a majority "Yes" vote as a mandate to enter into binding agreements with the ANC and other black leaders, without further approval from white voters. He stated that a second referendum to approve the terms of the constitutional settlement would not be necessary unless they differed "substantially" from the government's promises.^[5][6] These promises included abill of rights,separation of powers between the branches of government, anindependent judiciary, and a Parliament consisting of two houses.^[5][7]

The National Party "Yes" vote campaign was of a kind that had never before been seen in South Africa. The National Party held large political gatherings through the country and published advertisements in many national newspapers and bought commercial time in television. It produced massive election "Yes" posters with the message "Yes! Ja! SA" and a poster showing a picture of anAWB member with a gun and with the text "You can stop this man! Vote YES". The Democratic Party had more traditional posters with the message "Ja vir vrede (Yes for peace)".

The "No" campaign, led byAndries Treurnicht warned of "black majority rule" and "ANC communist rule". The Conservative Party also advocated whiteself-determination and argued that white South Africans had the right to rule themselves. During the campaign, the "No" side also started to advocate an independent homeland, orVolkstaat, for the white minority.

The "Yes" campaign had a significant advantage, as it was backed by the government, the opposition Democratic Party, the media, the international community and the vast majority of commercial and business organisations. According to theCenter for Strategic and International Studies:

In the referendum campaign the National Party had all the advantages. Television and (in many parts of the country) radio are government controlled. The business community raised money, and most newspapers helped by giving discount rates to the "yes" advertisements… The Conservative Party, with no comparable funds and no access to discounts, was effectively locked out of the mass media, relying on posters to get its message across.^[8]

Do you support continuation of the reform process which the State President began on 2 February 1990 and which is aimed at a new Constitution through negotiation?^[9]

InCape Town andDurban 85% voted "yes" and inPretoria over 57% voted "yes". OnlyPietersburg in theNorthern Transvaal, a rural right-wing stronghold, voted "no" with 57%. Even inKroonstad, a conservative stronghold where five out of the seven parliamentary seats were held by "no" campaigners, the "yes" side won with 52%.

The day after the referendum President de Klerk said "Today we have closed the book on apartheid" as he celebrated his 56th birthday.Nelson Mandela said that he was "very happy indeed". TheCape Times news bill was dominated by the large text "IT'S YES".^[11]

The alliance between the Conservative Party (CP) and theAfrikaner Weerstandsbeweging may have harmed the CP and in some cases even scared away voters to the "Yes" side. Some conservative and militant defenders of apartheid boycotted the referendum,^[12] although turnout was at record levels, reaching above 96% in some areas.^[1]

De Klerk and his government could now claim that the whites were in favour of universal suffrage and that they had a clear mandate to negotiate with theAfrican National Congress. The ANC had initially disapproved the referendum, mainly because whites were the only ones allowed to vote. But since a "No" vote would not only risk the negotiations but also increase the political chaos in the country, and since it had no reason to advocate that whites oppose the negotiations, the ANC advocated a "Yes" vote.^[13]

Right-wing groups criticised the referendum and accused the government ofelectoral fraud. They had lost where they had previously been the strongest, in theAfrikaner heartland and in the big cities. However, no evidence has ever been put forward regarding electoral irregularities. Treurnicht claimed that media propaganda, foreign intervention, threats by businesspeople against employees, and electoral fraud had resulted in a "Yes" vote.^[1]

As it was, in percentage terms the referendum outcome closely followed the results of the1989 House of Assembly election, with the "Yes" and "No" sides polling results very similar to the combined regional shares respectively obtained by NP + DP and CP + HNP two and a half years earlier:

On 27 April 1994 South Africa held itsfirst non-racial elections, which resulted in a huge victory for the African National Congress and made Nelson Mandela the first blackPresident of South Africa.

• Convention for a Democratic South Africa
• 1979 Rhodesian constitutional referendum

• Nelson Mandela,Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela; Little Brown & Co;ISBN 0-316-54818-9 (paperback, 1995)

• 20th century in South Africa
• Referendums in South Africa
• 1992 referendums
• Apartheid in South Africa
• 1992 in South Africa
• March 1992 in South Africa

• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Use dmy dates from November 2019
• Use South African English from May 2012
• All Wikipedia articles written in South African English
• Articles needing additional references from March 2013
• All articles needing additional references