Mbeki Calls for Rebirth of South Africa

Thabo Mbeki became South Africa's second post-apartheid President today, taking over this still racially divided country from Nelson Mandela, the man who, with unerring grace, steered it through a peaceful transition out of white supremacy. Moments after Mr. Mbeki took the oath of office in Tswana, English and Afrikaans, the 80-year-old Mr. Mandela embraced his successor and then both men turned and clasped hands high over their heads as the crowd roared its approval.

In his speech, Mr. Mbeki, 56, sounded many of the themes he has become known for, promising that change would come faster now for the millions of South Africans who live in dire poverty. But he also paid tribute to the freedom fighters who came before him, including Mr. Mandela, who spent 27 years in prison for his belief that he and other black South Africans should have the right to vote. Mr. Mbeki called on all South Africans, black and white, to continue to work together for the rebirth of the country, made possible by ''the realization that we share a common destiny, regardless of the shapes of our noses.'' ''Our nights cannot but be nights of nightmares while millions of our people live in degrading poverty,'' he said. ''Sleep cannot come easily when children get permanently disabled, both physically and mentally, because of a lack of food.''

The transition from Mr. Mandela to Mr. Mbeki has lacked the giddy excitement of the 1994 election. But South Africans are reveling in its ordinariness. In 1994 many whites stocked up on canned foods or took ''strategic vacations.'' By contrast, today's ceremonies competed for attention with a soccer match and the national marathon. The inauguration ceremony, attended by hundreds of foreign dignitaries, was in some ways austere, taking only about an hour. But it was not without its glitches.

After Mr. Mbeki took the oath of office, five jets flew overhead, leaving a rainbow-colored smoke trail. Then three helicopters passed by, pulling huge South African flags. Then a Mirage fighter roared past, painted as the South African flag. When nothing further appeared, the master of ceremonies invited Mr. Mbeki to begin his speech. He protested, saying there were more planes to come. But the emcee insisted. When he was well into his address, three 747's finally thundered over, low and slow, drowning him out. The two outer planes bore messages painted under their wings. One said, ''President Thabo Mbeki.'' The other said, ''Thank you, Madiba,'' using Mr. Mandela's clan name.

Mr. Mandela, who did not speak during the ceremony, has said he is looking forward to retirement and in particular to spending more time with his grandchildren. But his wife, Graca Machel, said recently that she doubted he could sit still for long. The South Africa that Mr. Mbeki will inherit has changed a great deal in the last five years. More than 500,000 new houses were built, and electricity, telephone lines and water taps have been installed in millions of homes. But some critics have said that Mr. Mandela was more of a hero figure, focusing on reconciliation, than an administrator, focusing on rebuilding a country that systematically kept the black majority in poverty. The country is still plagued by high crime, joblessness, poor schools and a climbing AIDS rate. Nor has racial reconciliation been easy. Some South Africans believe that the country is more polarized then ever, as whites see their privileges diminishing and blacks say change is not coming fast enough for them.

Mr. Mbeki, who has an economics degree from Sussex University in England, has made it clear that he will turn his attention to uplifting the poor. He is seen as an able administrator -- far less forgiving than Mr. Mandela, who some said tended to console ministers who had failed in a job rather than tell them off.

The ceremony today did not include the swearing-in of a deputy president, as it did in 1994, because one has not been chosen. The job appears to have been offered to the leader of the Zulu-nationalist Inkatha Freedom Party, Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. The move is intended to promote peace between Inkatha and the governing African National Congress. But Chief Buthelezi is said to be unhappy with changes that Mr. Mbeki announced last week, which will greatly reduce the powers of the job. Negotiations are continuing. South Africans are also waiting to see whom Mr. Mbeki will include in his Cabinet, which he is expected to announce on Thursday. While Mr. Mandela's Cabinet was a carefully chosen quilt of diverse South Africans, meant to unify a country that has 11 languages and an often violent history, Mr. Mbeki has said he will put far more emphasis on competence.

Today's ceremonies were not without controversy. Statues of apartheid-era heroes that are scattered on the lawn of the Union Building, where the ceremonies were held, were draped in green sackcloth. Officials have given various reasons, at one point saying the statues were being hidden so as not to detract from the ''ecstasy'' of the occasion. The subject has kept radio talk shows in business for days, with callers either applauding the idea or saying that the country should never forget its history. There has also been some debate about the $8 million price tag for the ceremony and free concert lasting all afternoon and into the night on the lawn in front of the buildings. ''They shouldn't have spent the money,'' said Ernest Nhlapo, 17, who nevertheless was in attendance. ''They should build homes and create more jobs.'' But his friend Claudio Bowker, 16, disagreed. ''We deserve it,'' he said. ''This doesn't happen often. It's only the second time we had such a ceremony.'' Samson Malaka, 24, a student at the University of Pretoria, said the money had been well spent because the world was watching, so it was good marketing. ''It's an occasion of great magnitude,'' he said. ''We should portray to the world that we are capable of such an occasion.''

Almost the entire celebratory crowd on the Union Building lawn was black, which troubled Stanley Sidimela, 25, a welfare worker there. ''We want to live with the whites, Indians and Coloreds, but to our surprise they are not appreciating the new Government,'' he said. ''We don't know how to draw them in so we can celebrate with them. They built these buildings, which helped us. But we don't like their leaving the country -- we want to share its wealth together.'' Part of the reason for the crowd's makeup was the music, which included South Africa's best jazz, gospel, kwaito and township jive acts, including Hugh Masekela, Brenda Fassie, Rebecca Malope, Bonga'maffin and Boom Shaka. As part of Mr. Mbeki's African Renaissance theme, the organizers also invited many of Africa's best musicians, like Angelique Kidjo and Papa Wemba. Local acts that draw white audiences, like Springbok Nude Girls or Nico Carstens, were not on the stage.

A group of young women, all studying to be paralegals at the Pretoria Technikon, led the center of the crowd in a circular dance. ''We're here to party and to meet people,'' said Thandi Nkomo, 18, ''But I liked Mbeki's speech. It was short, but it had meaning.'' Mathabo Kgolumo, 21, said seeing the bookish new President speak ''gives us self-confidence, and it also improves our vocabulary.''

The only icon that was more ubiquitous in the crowd than African National Congress T-shirts was a pink sticker saying, ''Safe Sex Save Lives -- Use a Condom.'' Tina Magongwa and Gladys Mamosadi of the Mohau Children's Care Center were slapping the stickers as fast as they could on anyone who walked by. South Africa has the world's fastest-growing AIDS epidemic, largely because it was fatally slow to begin serious AIDS education programs. ''Almost no one says no,'' Mrs. Magongwa, 38, said. '''A few say, 'No, don't give me that; I will get AIDS from it,' but they are just ignorant.'' The women were also handing out condoms -- just about the only thing being given out free at the concert.

Source: New York Times

In South Africa, Winner Almost Takes All

Final election results in South Africa showed today that the ruling African National Congress was returned to power with even more votes than it won in 1994. But it fell just one seat short of a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Five days after the country held its second post-apartheid elections, its Independent Election Commission announced that it had finished counting and verifying the nearly 16 million votes cast last Wednesday.

According to commission figures, the party won 266 of Parliament's 400 seats. The liberal Democratic Party had the next-highest total, with 38 seats, followed by the Zulu-nationalist Inkatha Freedom Party, with 34 seats, and the Afrikaner-led New National Party, with 28 seats. The newly formed United Democratic Movement, headed by Bantu Holomisa, a former A.N.C. official who was ejected from the party for insubordination, got 14 seats. All told, 13 parties are to have seats in South Africa's next Parliament, about twice as many as in 1994, though they will have 14 fewer seats between them.

At the ceremony announcing the final count, South Africa's next President, Thabo Mbeki, pledged that democracy was ''here to stay'' in South Africa. Mr. Mbeki, 56, currently Deputy President, who was the A.N.C.'s only candidate for President, borrowed from Yeats, saying: ''There were many in our country and elsewhere who thought that things would fall apart, that the center could not hold.'' But Mr. Mbeki, who is expected to take office on June 16, added that it did hold. ''It has held in favor of democracy and of the people of South Africa,'' he said.

African National Congress officials started off the campaign season saying they wanted a two-thirds majority so they could consider changing some aspects of the Constitution. But when opposition parties focused their campaigns on warning the electorate of the A.N.C.'s plans, the party's officials began downplaying the goal. In recent weeks, Mr. Mbeki has dismissed its importance, saying he had no plans to change the Constitution. Some political analysts said that the failure to win two-thirds of the Parliament's seats might be a blessing in disguise for the party. ''They are saved from the internal struggles that might have cropped up if they had the two-thirds majority,'' said Shaun Mackay, a researcher with the nonprofit Center for Policy Studies.

The A.N.C.'s victory was overwhelming, not only in the national election, but in the nine provincial elections as well. It failed to win a clear majority in only two provinces, the Western Cape, which includes Cape Town, and KwaZulu/Natal, which includes Durban and is the heartland of the Inkatha Freedom Party. Negotiations over coalitions between various parties have already begun. Several newspapers have reported that the A.N.C. is offering Inkatha's leader, Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the job of Deputy President in exchange for control over who will be the premier of the KwaZulu/Natal province.

Mr. Mbeki seemed to give his strongest public signal yet that he would appoint Mr. Buthelezi in his Cabinet to be announced next week. He called Mr. Buthelezi up to the stage from where he was sitting with his Inkatha colleagues, saying jokingly, ''I want to take him out of the I.F.P. and put him in government.'' According to the South African Press Association, Mr. Buthelezi tonight denied that he had been offered the deputy position. On whether he would accept the post if it was offered, he replied: ''That is like saying if you were offered a box of chocolates, would you eat them?''

The African National Congress and Inkatha have been rivals for more than a decade. Before the 1994 elections more than 10,000 people died in fighting between the two sides. But in recent years, the two parties have been trying to work together and Mr. Buthelezi has filled in as President whenever President Nelson Mandela and Mr. Mbeki were out of the country at the same time. Although some areas of Kwazulu/ Natal were tense during the election campaign, violence was minimal.

Source: New Ypork Times

Film Violence: No Hollywood Defense

For years, Hollywood moguls and studio chiefs have sought to use their influence, voices and money for numerous political and social causes, from apartheid, AIDS and migrant farm workers to Democratic candidates for state and national office.

But the one issue over which the Hollywood hierarchy has direct control and responsibility -- violence in films -- has left industry executives uncharacteristically silent. In fact, the moguls and studio chiefs whose violent films are even more popular abroad than in the United States, seem like a herd of deer caught in the headlights of Washington's focus.

Left unspoken is a tenet that Hollywood executives are almost reluctant to acknowledge: violence sells.

In the aftermath of the killings at a Colorado high school in April, angry criticism among lawmakers in Washington has included accusations of Hollywood's irresponsibility and demands for controls over the marketing practices of the film, recording and video game industries.

President Clinton, who has raised tens of millions of dollars for the Democratic Party among the Hollywood elite, unexpectedly announced on Tuesday that he had asked the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission to study whether the entertainment industry was implicitly luring children to watch violent films, listen to sexually explicit music lyrics and play video games that depict mayhem and murder.

Producers and studio executives here insist that Hollywood is an easy target, especially for lawmakers who are loath to take on the gun lobby. Moreover, executives say, holding the entertainment industry responsible for youth violence -- especially after the high school killings that took 15 lives in Littleton, Colo. -- is not just unfair but wrong.

''When people become outraged, they look for someone to blame it on,'' said Jack Valenti, chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, the studio's lobbying arm, in Washington. ''And movies, being so high-profile, become an inviting target.''

But this hardly explains the resolute, and surprising, silence of most top executives in town. Mr. Clinton's most vocal supporters in Hollywood, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg, who run Dreamworks, declined to talk about violence. A spokeswoman at Warner Brothers, which has produced films like Oliver Stone's ''Natural Born Killers,'' with its brutal and horrific murders, and the jokey but violent ''Lethal Weapon'' series, said Mr. Valenti would handle all questions about violence.

Similarly, executives at several other major studios said, through associates, that they would not discuss the issue.

One top producer, who makes his share of violent films and who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said simply: ''By going after the movie business, it's like taking a high-powered rifle into a field and shooting a cow. The cow is standing there. It's the easiest target in the world. It's as simple as that. What do we do? We make movies. We make excitement. We don't make movies to create killers.''

Although their underlings are silent, corporate titans like Time Warner's chief executive, Gerald Levin, and Seagram's chief executive, Edgar Bronfman Jr., have briefly spoken out and accused Washington of trying to use Hollywood as a scapegoat, and indicated that the entertainment industry's output is not an important factor in the violent behavior of children.

Mr. Levin, whose conglomerate includes Warner Brothers and the WB network, criticized the political opportunism and moral arrogance of Washington for faulting Hollywood but failing to deal in any major way with the gun issue. And Mr. Bronfman, who owns Universal Studios, has accused Washington of finger-pointing and chest-pounding on violence issues.

But, within Hollywood itself, the issue among those who actually green-light films seems more complicated. For one, the movie business, and perhaps the nation itself, has an ambivalent attitude toward violent films in contrast to movies that deal with sexual issues. It is commonly known in Hollywood, for example, that movies dealing with sex have a far more difficult time with the the Motion Picture Association's ratings board than those that are extremely violent.

Just recently the creators of ''American Pie,'' a light-hearted comedy that opens next month, about Midwestern teen-agers struggling with sex, were compelled to go four times before the Motion Picture Association's rating board to finally get an R-rating as opposed to a prohibitive NC-17, which would have effectively killed the movie commercially.

By contrast, the ratings board fails to raise substantive questions about extremely violent films like ''Natural Born Killers'' and ''The Basketball Diaries'' and, more recently, ''Pulp Fiction,'' ''Con Air,'' ''Payback,'' ''8 MM,'' ''Scream'' and numerous others. All were awarded R-ratings.

Why are films dealing with sex given more rigorous treatment by the ratings board than those that are violent?

''We're dealing with subjectivity here,'' Mr. Valenti said. ''Sex is easier to define. There are only so many ways to couple. Language is easier to define, too. But what is too much violence? The ratings board has to decide. Is 'Schindler's List' too violent? Is 'Saving Private Ryan' too violent? What about 'The Wild Bunch'? There are so many ways that violence can be committed.''

But Irwin Winkler, a veteran producer of films like ''Rocky'' and the four other ''Rocky'' movies, and classics like ''Raging Bull'', ''The Right Stuff'' and ''Goodfellas'' , said pointedly that the ratings system had failed to deal with the violence issue.

''I don't understand the ratings board,'' he said. ''If you cut off a woman's breast, it's probably not as terrible as showing her nipple. They're very free about violence and puritanical about sex.''

So far television has responded a bit to Washington's accusations. At the WB network, executives recently pulled the series finale of ''Buffy, the Vampire Slayer,'' because it dealt with a high school graduation ceremony that exploded into violence. The episode will be shown later this summer.

At the same time, CBS decided not to pick up ''Falcone,'' a Mafia series, for its fall lineup but held out the possibility that it could be shown later in the year. Leslie Moonves, the CBS network president, said: ''We felt a responsibility not to put it on now. It just didn't feel right.'' The network has, however, several action shows with violence on the air.

What impact the current debate will have in Hollywood is, of course, unclear. No one expects studios to stop making violent films as long as many of them are so successful, especially overseas. (The recent ''Lethal Weapon 4,'' for example, took in $130 million at the domestic box office, barely making back its cost. It also took in $155 million abroad.)

''I do sense that there is an unusual sensitivity now to this issue -- and I hope it's more than lip service,'' said Steve Tisch, a producer of movies like ''Forrest Gump'' and ''American History X.''

Mr. Winkler echoed Mr. Tisch. ''I think people are taking it seriously now, partly because they're being attacked.'' But he added, ''I don't think people took it seriously in the past.''

Source: New York Times

African National Congress Re-elected in Landslide

The African National Congress won a second term today in a landslide victory that will probably give South Africa's next President, Thabo Mbeki, control of more than two-thirds of Parliament. The party won even more votes than it did five years ago, when it first swept to power in South Africa's historic apartheid-ending election with just under 63 percent of the ballot. Late evening returns suggested the A.N.C. may have won more than 65 percent this time, and analysts with the state-owned television were predicting the final share would be 67 percent.

Mr. Mbeki, the party's only candidate to replace President Nelson Mandela when he retires on June 16, claimed victory early in the afternoon, promising to build a multiracial society and to speed the pace of change. ''In their millions, and without equivocation, without hesitation, the people of South Africa have renewed the mandate of the A.N.C. to run this country,'' a serious Mr. Mbeki told hundreds of supporters who danced and ululated in front of him at the party's headquarters here. He promised to govern with humility and ''a deep sense of responsibility'' and to insure that ''we act together to build a South Africa which truly belongs to all who live in it, both black and white.''

Throughout the campaign the 80-year-old Mr. Mandela has taken a back seat to the reserved Mr. Mbeki. Though Mr. Mbeki has none of Mr. Mandela's ease with people, he has surprised many analysts by throwing himself into the handshaking and baby-kissing, sometimes even shedding the suits he favors for sports shirts. Mr. Mandela went on vacation after casting his vote on Wednesday and was not present when Mr. Mbeki made his speech today. In fact, the victory rally seemed to confirm a new era, with the focus completely on Mr. Mbeki. Supporters chanted his name, and posters with his picture filled the backdrop.

Mr. Mbeki referred to his predecessor, who served 27 years in prison for believing that all South Africans should have equal rights, only at the end of his speech as he thanked him and other A.N.C. officials for their election effort. Despite the end of South Africa's apartheid system in 1994, the country remains deeply divided along racial lines, with most of the country's wealth still in white hands. The elections only highlighted the divisions, as most of the country's blacks -- about 77 percent of the population -- supported the A.N.C. while most of the country's white, mixed-race and Indian citizens supported white-led parties. The African National Congress had set a two-thirds share of Parliament as its goal, but that deepened fears in the minority communities. With such a majority the party would have the power to change some aspects of the Constitution, though in recent weeks Mr. Mbeki has said repeatedly that he had no intention of doing so.

Mr. Mbeki, 56, has been a powerful behind-the-scenes force here. A British-educated economist, he is considered an able administrator and one of the architects of the country's conservative economic policies. Mr. Mandela has said for years now that Mr. Mbeki has been effectively running the country on a day to day basis in his role as Deputy President. Many supporters of the A.N.C. believe that he will be better able to govern with more rigor than Mr. Mandela, who is sometimes seen here as too soft. But his critics worry that he is too sensitive to criticism, and they point out that his political rivals have found themselves quickly sidelined.

The country that Mr. Mbeki will inherit has already changed a great deal since apartheid ended. In those five years, it has adopted one of the world's most liberal Constitutions and passed more than 500 laws revamping the legal system, which had classified everyone by race and prevented nonwhites from voting. Much has been done to improve living conditions as well. More than 500,000 houses have been built and millions of South African now have electricity, telephones and running water, which they did not have before. But the country is beset by crime and an unemployment rate that approaches 40 percent. Many of those who have new houses, water and electricity are unable to pay for their services. The education system is in shambles and the country has one of the fastest growing AIDS rates in the world. Corruption and incompetence, particularly in provincial governments, are major issues.

Polls indicated that support for the A.N.C. had dipped in late 1998 by about 10 percentage points. But election results suggest that the party was able to recapture disillusioned supporters by evoking its history as a liberation movement and casting the next five years as a continuation of that struggle. ''We lived with apartheid for 40 years,'' said Themba Ndlovu, 27, who lives in Soweto and sometimes gets work on construction sites. ''The A.N.C. needs more than five to make things right.''

Mr. Mbeki also stayed far above daily political squabbles, managing to look presidential wherever he went. He rarely asked for votes, choosing instead to highlight the party's accomplishments by visiting successful projects. Some analysts had predicted widespread voter apathy, but South Africans began lining up to vote on Wednesday even before the sun was up, and some voting stations were still open this morning to accommodate voters who had been on line since 9 P.M. the night before. The election commission was still counting votes late into the evening, slowed by some computer problems. But even before the final results were available, some trends seemed discernable.

The New National Party, whose predecessor ruled during the four decades of apartheid, was in danger of losing its status as the largest opposition party, with only about 8 percent of the votes. Unfamiliar with the role of an opposition party, it has been largely ineffective in Parliament and many of its voters have turned to the once tiny liberal Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party won less than 2 percent of the vote last time and had only 7 members in Parliament, but they were vocal and effective critics of the A.N.C. and, judging by this evening's returns, seemed to be winning a 10 percent share this time. ''Minorities have been saying, 'Who is going to protect their interests?' '' said Shaun Mackay, a researcher with the Institute for Race Relations. ''And the Democratic Party has come out on top as the one that can lead in this area.'' But the battle between the two parties has been bitter, with the leader of the New National Party, Martinus van Schalkwyk, accusing the Democratic Party of exploiting racial fears with its ''Fight Back'' campaign slogan. Today, Mr. Van Schalkwyk said he was disappointed in his showing, adding that he had ''paid the price'' for talking about cooperation rather than opposition. Tony Leon, the head of the Democrats, did not hesitate to claim victory. ''I don't think any party has suffered as official meltdown'' like the New National Party, he said. ''They were pretty hopeless as a Government and they got their just deserts.''

The Zulu-nationalist Inkatha Freedom Party, a long-time rival of the African National Congress, seemed to be doing about as well as in 1994, with 8 percent. This was something of a surprise, because pollsters had predicted the party's support would shrink by half. Apparently the pollsters overlooked the strength of Inkatha's support among rural voters.

The next President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, celebrated yesterday.

Source: New York Times

South Africa: the fraud of "black empowerment"

With less than two weeks before elections take place in South Africa, a share option scandal has broken out involving the country's biggest black-owned company, New African Investments Ltd (Nail), which has interests in financial services and the media.

The scandal has brought into sharp focus the African National Congress (ANC) government's policy of "black empowerment", which has enriched a tiny minority of black businessmen and government officials over the past five years.

Along with many companies in South Africa, Nail is in financial difficulties. Institutional shareholders objected when four company directors, who control almost all the voting shares, attempted to award themselves more than R130 million (£13 million) of share options in a subsidiary company. Two of the directors, Nthato Motlana, a Soweto doctor and one-time anti-apartheid activist, and Jonty Sandler, a white entrepreneur, were forced to resign. Motlana accused "white shareholders" of fomenting the revolt. Black financial commentators sprang to the directors' defence, arguing that lucrative option deals were normal in white businesses.

The two other directors involved, Dikgang Moseneke and Zwelakhe Sisulu, extricated themselves by making abject apologies. They have been discussing with financial institutions about how to turn around the company, which has a market capitalisation of R7 billion (£693 million). They both declared that severe cutbacks were necessary: "It will have to be surgery, not bandages and ointment."

The scandal follows the departure last month of Cyril Ramaphosa, Nail's deputy chairman, who was forced to resign by fellow directors for reasons not yet explained. Ramaphosa was the founder and former leader of the National Union of Mineworkers and general secretary of the ANC, who negotiated the end of white minority rule on its behalf. Today, he is one of the country's foremost super-rich black businessmen and is chairman of Anglo-American and South African Breweries.

On coming to power in 1994, the ANC government abandoned the "socialist" rhetoric it had used to mobilise the South African masses against apartheid. Instead, it insisted that "political liberation" should be followed by "economic liberation", i.e., that blacks should benefit from "affirmative action" in employment, government contracts and privatisations. The government programme of "black empowerment" was aimed at facilitating the "creation of large black-owned businesses". Hundreds of new companies have been launched in the past five years.

At least nine black-controlled investment consortia, or black empowerment groups, have been established. They have gained a stake in several of South Africa's biggest corporations: South African Breweries, Times Media, PO Holdings (information technology) and Metropolitan Life (insurance). Black boardroom involvement is a virtual necessity for bidding on big government contracts.

The government also recently passed quota-based affirmative action legislation in the awarding of government contracts, licenses and privatisation schemes. Companies deemed to have a substantial black ownership are awarded a 15 percent price advantage when bidding for public contracts. A condition for the new license to be issued in July to a cellular telephone company is that a black empowerment group must maintain a shareholding in the company making the bid.

Several local authorities are organising private sector partnerships with international companies like Saur International of France and Biwater of the UK, to help run water, sewage and other services. This means that black empowerment groups will be participating in the commercial supply of water in the townships, under conditions where many consumers cannot afford to pay water bills and are returning to traditional sources of water. The national transport department is also drawing up plans to bring private companies in to run the municipal airport and bus services.

In September 1995 only 1 percent of the market capitalisation on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange was under black control. Today, the figure has risen to 16.3 percent. Last year, black companies made 130 major investments worth R21 billion (£2.1 billion) compared with R5 billion (£0.5 billion) in 1997 and R1.6 billion (£0.16 billion) in 1996. A new generation of black tycoons has been created, including Ramaphosa, Moseneke and Sisulu, Nail's directors.

This has the backing of the most farsighted representatives of big business. In a Financial Times review of the book Empowered but not yet enriched Philip Gawith wrote of the importance of having more "comrades in business". "When the bright young blacks have turned their backs on politics and are intent instead on making a fortune, that will be the signal that South Africa has grown up," Gawith writes.

Harry Oppenheimer, a major shareholder in Anglo-American, a mining company that dominates the South African economy, said recently, "It was vital to make it possible for black people to control some of the big companies in South Africa. It was the right thing to do—part of a necessary response to the efforts for peace made by Mandela and his colleagues. You felt business had to match their efforts.... We owe an immense amount to Mandela. If it had not been for him, we would not have had the peaceful transition."

Anglo-American organised the finance for a spin-off company, Johnnies Industrial Corporation (Johnnic). The National Empowerment Consortium (NEC) purchased it, with Ramaphosa as chairman. Some companies operate as joint ventures with white businesses. Others fulfil government requirements by appointing one or two blacks to the board, allotting a slice of equity to a fledgling empowerment group and appointing a few black managers.

Global crisis upsets black empowerment

Few black South Africans have money of their own to buy into such equity, so almost every empowerment deal has been built on debt. The banks made arrangements for these "capitalists without capital" by setting up a "Special Purpose Vehicle" (SPV) and issuing shares with a life of three to five years. The shares are pledged as security for the loans used to buy them. This means that the SPVs depend for their success on continually rising share prices and moderate interest rates. In the context of the present economic instability, the banks are the real beneficiaries of black empowerment.

The economic outlook for South Africa is bleak. The economy has been hit by a collapse in the world price of gold, a commodity that plays a crucial role in the country. In 1980 the price of gold was $850 an ounce; last week it fell to a 20-year low of less than $280. Gold has traditionally been held as a hedge against inflation and a safe haven from turbulent stock markets. But the IMF is proposing to sell off 150 tonnes of gold, 10 percent of its gold reserves. The Bank of England has also announced plans to auction off half the UK gold reserves in July. Anglo-American, which controls the world's diamond industry and is the largest gold and platinum producer, is leaving the Johannesburg Stock Exchange next week and will move its primary listing to London.

Last October share prices collapsed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. The JSE's all-share index fell by 40 percent from its high point only six month earlier. The banks and financial services index lost almost 60 percent in the same six-month period, threatening many black empowerment companies like Johnnic, where shares values have fallen by 50 percent. Funding arrangements for its black investors expire in less than a year. If the share price does not rise rapidly the lenders could reclaim their security and the empowered black owners would get nothing, wiping out black ownership on the JSE.

The ANC government has appointed Ramaphosa to head a newly appointed commission to look into ways of "putting the movement on more solid foundations". One proposal is for more active participation by black-owned companies in the mining industry. At present, about two-thirds of mineral rights are privately owned and one third belong to the state. The government is planning to vest all mineral rights in the state so that black-owned companies can be given access to South Africa's plentiful minerals. Deep gold mines will not be affected by the plans because they require extensive investment in capital equipment beyond the means of small black-owned companies.

Anglogold, the world's largest mining company, has announced it is shedding its high cost operations to focus on its core assets. A year ago it sold off seven loss-making shafts from the Vaal Reefs gold mine to African Rainbow Minerals (ARM), a small black empowerment company. Last week ARM bought another six shafts. Other mineral reserves, like scattered deposits of shallow coal, are also being transferred to small black-owned companies. The only way these companies can survive on the world market is by increasing the exploitation of the predominantly black labour force. The massive speed-up will have terrible consequences for workers in an industry that already has one of the highest accident rates in the world.

The ANC and the "fat cats"

The ANC election manifesto calls for "A better life for business people", stating: "The ANC recognises that South Africa's business people are critical partners in the development of our country." The manifesto cites one of the achievements of the past five years as "the removal of apartheid barriers hampering economic growth and development and the introduction of better conditions for investment." Another is the creation of "conditions for the participation of black people and women in the economy as entrepreneurs and owners of wealth and the encouragement and growth of small and medium business."

Peter Vundla, an advisor to Thabo Mbeki, who is set to succeed Nelson Mandela as South African president, recently told Victor Mallet of the Financial Times that he has "no problem with fat cats".

Government claims that its policy of black empowerment provides an escape route from the squalor and misery of the townships are completely hollow. This programme is used to divert attention from the desperate problems confronting the working class, by transforming every social issue into a question of race. It enables a narrow layer of super-rich black entrepreneurs to enter South Africa's capitalist class, whilst the vast majority of the population remain deprived of their rights to education, a healthy life and employment.

Mbeki and the ANC are committed to implementing IMF austerity polices. In an attempt to attract greater investment from the transnational corporations they are offering a partnership with black consortia as a means of controlling the working class and imposing the necessary draconian conditions.

Source: World Socialist Web Site

South Africa's emergence from global isolation

South Africa's emergence from global isolation in the 1990s parallels its political and economic reorganization, as it works to eliminate vestiges of the notorious system of apartheid. That system provoked international condemnation and deprived society of much of its human potential, and coping with its legacies has complicated the process of establishing a new system based on nonracial norms. An interim constitution, first implemented in April 1994 to govern the political transition, is being replaced by a new constitution, intended to protect legal equality for individuals regardless of racial identity after 1999. The transition has just passed the halfway mark as this book goes to press, and this volume reflects the fact that many political and social issues remain unresolved.

This book replaces South Africa: A Country Study, also produced in a time of turmoil in 1981, as the country began to recognize some of the demands for broader political participation by all racial groups. Like its predecessor, this study is an attempt to treat in a concise and objective manner the dominant historical, social, economic, political, and national security aspects of contemporary South Africa. Sources of information included scholarly books, journal articles, and monographs; official reports of governments and international organizations; foreign and domestic newspapers; the authors' previous research and observations; and numerous periodicals. Chapter bibliographies appear at the end of the book; brief comments on particularly valuable sources appear at the end of each chapter.

Place-names follow the system adopted by the United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN), wherever possible. Nine new provinces have been designated to replace the four provinces and ten homelands of the apartheid era. Some other desigations--for historical landmarks, public holidays, as well as some public buildings and government offices--are still being changed in the mid-1990s in recognition of the country's new political dispensation. New names have been included as available. As of early 1997, the provincial capital of KwaZulu-Natal is still to be decided between Ulundi and Pietermaritzburg. The apartheid-era designation for the racial category known as "coloured" is retained in this volume for historical accuracy.

The country has eleven official languages, which include nine Bantu languages, selected to recognize the first language of almost all South Africans. The two previous official languages, Afrikaans and English, remain important, but the former no longer dominates the public media and is being phased out in some official contexts, such as military training. Some provincial legislatures are considering language policies to be incorporated into provincial constitutions in the late 1990s.

All measurements in this book rely on the metric system; a conversion table is provided to assist those readers who are unfamiliar with metric measurements (see table 1, Appendix). A glossary is also included to explain terms with which the reader may not be familiar. The use of the term billion follows the American system; for example, one billion means 1,000,000,000.

The body of the text reflects information available as of May 1996. Certain other portions of the text, however, have been updated. The Bibliography lists published sources thought to be particularly helpful to the reader.


Rita M. Byrnes, ed. South Africa: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1996.

Heath Commission to Recover Money Stolen from Victims of Road Crashes

The President has issued a proclamation requiring the Heath Commission’s Special Investigating Unit to investigate the defrauding of road crash victims by members of the legal profession.

The establishment of the investigation follows a Memorandum from the Minister of Transport Mac Maharaj to the Minister of Justice that certain legal practises be investigation by Judge Heath’s unit where road crash victims have been defrauded by their legal representatives. The proclamation will be published in the Government Gazette soon.

Maharaj said that the Road Accident Fund, of which he is the shareholding minister, has been aware of unethical and illegal behaviour by some members of the legal fraternity for a while after numerous complaints to both his office and the RAF. Of 143 cases investigated by the RAF and the Department of Transport, on average 56% of what was supposed to be paid to victims was kept by their lawyers and in six instances is appears that 100% of the amount the claimants were awarded was kept by their lawyers.

Source: Minister of Transport

Reasons: A discipline which curbs arbitrary judicial decisions

"There is no express constitutional provision which requires judges to furnish reasons for their decisions. Nonetheless, in terms of section 1 of the Constitution, the rule of law is one of the founding values of our democratic state, and the judiciary is bound by it. The rule of law undoubtedly requires judges not to act arbitrarily and to be accountable. The manner in which they ordinarily account for their decisions is by furnishing reasons. This serves a number of purposes. It explains to the parties, and to the public at large which has an interest in courts being open and transparent, why a case is decided as it is. It is a discipline which curbs arbitrary judicial decisions."

– Justice Richard Goldstone in Mphahlele v First National Bank of South Africa Ltd

Hussein of Jordan, Voice for Peace, Dies

Jordan crowned a new King today after Hussein, ruler of the Hashemite Kingdom since 1952 and a man admired around the world as a champion of peace, succumbed at age 63 to the cancer that had ravaged him in his final days.

King Hussein died as his heart failed in an Amman hospital at 11:43 A.M., 48 hours after he was flown home unconscious from a clinic in the United States. The palace said it had been his ''persistent wish'' to die on Jordanian soil.

Within two hours, in a somber yet seamless succession, the late King's eldest son, now King Abdullah II, appeared on television in his debut as Jordan's ruler to console a nation already in tears.

Source: New York Times

MEDICAL SCHEMES ACT 131 OF 1998

The purpose of the Medical Schemes Act is to consolidate the laws relating to registered medical schemes; to provide for the establishment of the Council for Medical Schemes as a juristic person; to provide for the appointment of the Registrar of Medical Schemes; to make provision for the registration and control of certain activities of medical schemes; to protect the interests of members of medical schemes; to provide for measures for the coordination of medical schemes; and to provide for incidental matters.

Establishment of Council for Medical Schemes

(1) There is hereby established a juristic person called the Council for Medical Schemes.
(2) The Council shall be entitled to sue and be sued, to acquire, possess and alienate moveable and immovable property and to acquire rights and incur liabilities.
(3) The registered office of the Council shall be situated in Pretoria or such other address as the Council may from time to time determine.
(4) The Council shall, at all times, function in a transparent, responsive and efficient manner.

Functions of Council

The functions of the Council shall be to -
(a) protect the interests of the beneficiaries at all times;
(b) control and coordinate the functioning of medical schemes in a manner that is complementary with the national health policy;
(c) make recommendations to the Minister on criteria for the measurement of quality and outcomes of the relevant health services provided for by medical schemes, and such other services as the Council may from time to time determine;
(d) investigate complaints and settle disputes in relation to the affairs of medical schemes as provided for in this Act;
(e) collect and disseminate information about private health care;
(f) make rules, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act for the purpose of the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers;
(g) advise the Minister on any matter concerning medical schemes; and
(h) perform any other functions conferred on the Council by the Minister or by this Act.

Source: SABINET

PREVENTION OF ORGANISED CRIME

PREVENTION OF ORGANISED CRIME ACT 121 OF 1998
Commencement Date of Act: 21 January 1999
Date Modified by Sabinet: 20080925
Category: Procedures - Criminal Law
Note: Decided cases updated
Description: To introduce measures to combat organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities; to prohibit certain activities relating to racketeering activities; to provide for the prohibition of money laundering and for an obligation to report certain information; to criminalise certain activities associated with gangs; to provide for the recovery of the proceeds of unlawful activity; for the civil forfeiture of criminal property that has been used to commit an offence, property that is the proceeds of unlawful activity or property that is owned or controlled by, or on behalf of, an entity involved in terrorist and related activities; to provide for the establishment of a Criminal Assets Recovery Account; to amend the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, 1992; to amend the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act, 1996; to repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996; to incorporate the provisions contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
Database: Netlaw: SA Legislation

A copy of the act can be found here, on the website of The National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa

PREVENTION OF ORGANISED CRIME ACT 121 OF 1998

The purpose of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act is to introduce measures to combat organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities; to prohibit certain activities relating to racketeering activities; to provide for the prohibition of money laundering and for an obligation to report certain information; to criminalise certain activities associated with gangs; to provide for the recovery of the proceeds of unlawful activity; for the civil forfeiture of criminal property that has been used to commit an offence, property that is the proceeds of unlawful activity or property that is owned or controlled by, or on behalf of, an entity involved in terrorist and related activities; to provide for the establishment of a Criminal Assets Recovery Account; to amend the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, 1992; to amend the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act, 1996; to repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996; to incorporate the provisions contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act, 1996; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

WHEREAS the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No. 108 of 1996), enshrines the rights of all people in the Republic and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom;

AND WHEREAS the Constitution places a duty on the State to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights;

AND WHEREAS there is a rapid growth of organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities nationally and internationally and since organised crime has internationally been identified as an international security threat;

AND WHEREAS organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities infringe on the rights of the people as enshrined in the Bill of Rights;

AND WHEREAS it is the right of every person to be protected from fear, intimidation and physical harm caused by the criminal activities of violent gangs and individuals;

AND WHEREAS organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities, both individually and collectively, present a danger to public order and safety and economic stability, and have the potential to inflict social damage;

AND WHEREAS the South African common law and statutory law fail to deal effectively with organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities, and also fail to keep pace with international measures aimed at dealing effectively with organised crime, money laundering and criminal gang activities;

AND BEARING IN MIND that it is usually very difficult to prove the direct involvement of organised crime leaders in particular cases, because they do not perform the actual criminal activities themselves, it is necessary to criminalise the management of, and related conduct in connection with enterprises which are involved in a pattern of racketeering activity;

AND WHEREAS no person convicted of an offence should benefit from the fruits of that or any related offence, whether such offence took place before or after the commencement of this Act, legislation is necessary to provide for a civil remedy for the restraint and seizure, and confiscation of property which forms the benefits derived from such offence;

AND WHEREAS no person should benefit from the fruits of unlawful activities, nor is any person entitled to use property for the commission of an offence, whether such activities or offence took place before or after the commencement of this Act, legislation is necessary to provide for a civil remedy for the preservation and seizure, and forfeiture of property which is derived from unlawful activities or is concerned in the commission or suspected commission of an offence;

AND WHEREAS effective legislative measures are necessary to prevent and combat the financing of terrorist and related activities and to effect the preservation, seizure and forfeiture of property owned or controlled by, or on behalf of, an entity involved in terrorist and related activities;

AND WHEREAS there is a need to devote such forfeited assets and proceeds to the combating of organised crime, money laundering and the financing of terrorist and related activities;

AND WHEREAS the pervasive presence of criminal gangs in many communities is harmful to the well being of those communities, it is necessary to criminalise participation in or promotion of criminal gang activities:

Source: SABINET

Social inequality, bureaucracy and the betrayal of socialism in the Soviet Union

This lecture was delivered by Professor Vadim Rogovin at the Ruhr University in Germany in December 1996.

Today when many speak of the collapse of socialism, it is appropriate to pose the following question: what has collapsed with the ruling regimes in the Soviet Union and other countries? What were the aims of socialism and to what extent were they realised in the so-called socialist countries? Why was socialism in the Soviet Union twice betrayed, first by Stalin and the Stalinists and a second time by Gorbachev and his clique?

When we consider these questions, we arrive at the conclusion that the aim of socialism is the establishment of social equality among men.

It is no accident that official public opinion has always judged the conditions in those countries with nationalised property from the standpoint of the extent to which the principles of social equality were upheld. In this regard one sometimes comes across interesting examples.

One of my colleagues, who is frequently in Spain, related the following story: a well-known singer, a dissident from Cuba, recently appeared on Spanish television. With tears in her eyes she spoke of the privileges which existed in Cuba. She reported that party bureaucrats who were sick got single rooms in the hospitals, i.e., enjoyed privileges. All those who heard the program could only think "look at the privileges they have in Cuba!"

No one noticed that on the same day, a Madrid newspaper reported that the president of a leading stock company didn't attend a major shareholders' meeting because he had flown to his doctor in America, in a private aeroplane, for a consultation. The incident didn't provoke any particular attention. After all who could expect any sort of social equality and justice under capitalism?

Although such facts have been often used for openly demagogic purposes, ordinary people using their moral and social instincts have regarded the privileges which existed in the Soviet Union and the other nominally socialist countries as something which has distorted their picture and ideal of socialism.

Marxism has repeatedly raised the question of social equality and attempted to resolve it, in both a practical and theoretical sense. In their estimation of the Paris Commune, Marx and Engels regarded the fact that the wage of an official was not to exceed that of a worker to be of great significance. They regarded this measure as an effective way of preventing the state from being transformed from an instrument which serves society into an institution which stands above society.

Lenin developed this idea in his book The State and Revolution. He wrote that the masses yearned for a government which guaranteed low prices and fair wages and which itself did not consume too much money. Such a government is in principle impossible under capitalism.

Lenin emphasised that in the Second International at that time there was a tendency to pass over these Marxist ideas in silence, treating them as naive conceptions out of sync with the times, rather like those ideologues of Christianity who, following the transformation of the church into a state institution, forgot that Christianity was originally revolutionary.

Shortly after the October Revolution a number of measures were adopted with the aim of reducing the social differences between specific groups. In order to preclude privileges for the functionaries, a so-called party maximum was introduced, i.e., an upper limit for the incomes of party officials. In the 1920s, for example, the following was standard practice: a factory director who was a party member received 300 rubles for his work. The director of a similar factory who was not a party member could expect an income of 500 rubles.

In the 1920s there were workers who for a time occupied the position of town party secretary and then returned to their original place at the work bench. This didn't occur because of any blot on the record of the worker/party secretary. Rather it was a perfectly normal transition.

The situation changed in 1923 when Lenin, as a result of his illness, withdrew from leading positions. Now the emerging bureaucracy worked towards securing definite privileges.

It was no accident that the Left Opposition came into being in 1923 and attracted many of the old Bolsheviks. From the beginning it sounded the alarm regarding the development of bureaucratic methods inside the party and the workers state.

At the time, in the conflict between the ruling faction and the Left Opposition, relatively little was said about the question of privileges. But the social essence of the acute struggle between the two wings can only be understood in connection with the opposing positions taken regarding social equality and justice.

In 1925 a leader of the Opposition, Zinoviev, wrote that the working class strove for more social equality. It was just a brief comment in a long article. Zinoviev was not objecting in principle to the difference in wages for skilled and unskilled work. Stalin, however, concentrated his report to the 14th party conference on this small passage.

He maintained that Zinoviev was rejecting the thesis put forward in the Critique of the Gotha Program, where Marx maintains that in the transitional period between socialism and communism differences with regard to wages would continue to exist. The Opposition, according to Stalin, was attacking the income of the skilled worker as well as the meagre wages of the hard-working peasant. In reality, behind these demagogic words lay the attempt to defend those privileges which the bureaucracy had begun to accumulate.

Looking back, Trotsky remarked that Stalin's supporters, like those of the Left Opposition, belonged to the same social milieu. But the latter consciously broke away from their social interests and defended the interests of the sans-culottes -- the workers and peasants.

Following his victory over the Left Opposition, Stalin introduced decisive changes into the ideology of the ruling party. He put forward the thesis that the main principle of socialism was that everyone should be paid in accordance with his performance. In an attempt to elaborate on the content of this principle, none of the Soviet economic experts were able to explain how it was possible to compare the work of a miner with that of a doctor, the activities of a ballerina with those of a steel worker.

After Stalin's death, despite criticism of his political rule, none of his successors questioned this principle. All of them vigorously opposed what they called "levelling."

In reality the principle of payment for performance is a bourgeois principle. It only has significance when one interprets it in a liberal fashion: everyone is rewarded according to the results of his or her work, and this is realised on the free market in the interaction of supply and demand. It is clear that an immediate consequence of such market economy principles is the growth of inequality. The function of the bourgeois state is precisely to maintain this inequality.

Marx and Lenin predicted that every state arising from a socialist revolution would have a dual character: on the one hand a socialist character which defends socialised property against capitalist restoration, and on the other hand a bourgeois character, in so far as the state is obliged for a period to maintain certain privileges for a minority and preside over inequality. They therefore described the transitional state as a "bourgeois" workers state, even though there would be no bourgeoisie. According to Marxist doctrine this inequality must recede the more society develops in a socialist direction and the state correspondingly begins to wither away.

Since the middle of the 1920s, the situation in the Soviet Union developed in an opposite direction. The ruling bureaucracy excluded the workers from any sort of participation in the distribution of material goods and transformed itself into a powerful caste of those controlling the distribution of these goods. By the mid-1930s the disproportion with regard to inequality and the lack of social justice in the Soviet Union exceeded that which existed in the developed capitalist countries.

When we speak of the privileges in the Soviet Union, we must bear in mind that in the 1920s and 1930s the country was very poor and backward. That is why for us today the privileges at that time can appear inconsequential in comparison with modern-day Germany. But for the consciousness of the ordinary people, they had enormous significance. A new atmosphere developed in society. Whereas in earlier periods wealthier citizens were somewhat ashamed of their wealth, now they were proud of it.

The wife of the well-known Soviet poet Ossip Mandelstam, Nadezhda Mandelstam, wrote in her memoirs: "With us it was often the case that even a piece of bread was reckoned as a privilege." She related the case of a young man in a distribution station where the privileged received special food rations. The young man was eating a piece of beefsteak which had been allocated for his father-in-law and commented: "It tastes so good and pleasant because no one else has it."

Mandelstam added that medicine was also distributed in this way. Better medicine was reserved for the social elite. On one occasion she was admonishing a pensioned functionary when the latter retorted in an astonished voice: "What are you thinking of? Should I be treated like a cleaning woman?" Mandelstam added that this official was in reality a very decent and good-natured man, but that such attitudes had become widespread at the high-point of the struggle against levelling.

In attempting to overcome its isolation, the bureaucracy allowed other sections of the population to share in the privileges: the aristocracy of the working class, the kolkhoz (collective farm) aristocracy and, above all, the top layers of the intelligentsia. The securing of privileges could not be carried through without arousing resistance from a large part of the Communist Party. In this respect Trotsky wrote: "In a country which has undergone the October Revolution, it is not possible to cultivate inequality other than by resorting to ever more severe measures of repression."

Trotsky traced the totalitarian character of the state and its resort to mass terror to the drive of the bureaucracy to secure and retain its privileges. It could not permit social protest to spill over into open forms of class struggle.

Following Stalin's death, the social development of the Soviet Union did not follow a straight line. After the loss of its main lever of totalitarian power, the bureaucracy was forced to make certain concessions to the masses' strivings for equality.

Immediately after Stalin's death, various social reforms and social programs were introduced to improve the situation of the poorly paid and less fortunate layers of the population. In the following decade their standard of living improved, while the situation of the ruling bureaucracy, and also the better-off sections of the intelligentsia, worsened in a relative sense.

The concealed conflict between these layers of the intelligentsia and the bureaucracy, which broke out into the open in the 1960s and '70s, was rooted in this development. The external expression of this conflict was, on the one hand, the dissident movement, and, on the other, emigration.

The source of this conflict was not only the intelligentsia's striving for greater intellectual and spiritual freedom and access to power. It was also a reaction to the loss of privileges and material advantages which this layer had enjoyed under Stalin. As for the bureaucracy, it responded to the loss of privileges with an unprecedented level of corruption.

Despite the general improvement in living standards in the 1960s, one could describe the social conditions with Trotsky's words: although there was no exploitation in the classic sense of the word, the conditions of life for working people in the Soviet Union were still worse than those of workers suffering exploitation in the capitalist countries. Because it did not possess its own forms of property, the bureaucracy did not represent a propertied class in the real sense of the word. Nevertheless, it exhibited all the negative attributes of the previous ruling class.

In the consciousness of the popular masses, the formation of deep-going social differences devalued the great social achievements of the October Revolution -- the socialisation of the means of production and of the land. In the eyes of working people and the peasantry, the bureaucracy brought socialism into disrepute. It drove them, to a certain extent, to seek a solution other than socialism.

Trotsky had shown that the contradiction between the forms of property and the forms of distribution could not continue to develop indefinitely. The contradiction would have to be resolved one way or another. Either the forms of distribution would have to accommodate themselves to the socialist property relations, i.e., they would have to become more egalitarian, or the bourgeois principle would reach beyond distribution and consume the forms of property.

Proceeding from this thesis, Trotsky developed many prognoses which contained two possible variants. The first might be called revolutionary, the second, counter-revolutionary. Unfortunately the second, counter-revolutionary alternative was realised. And it was realised to an astonishing degree in conformity with Trotsky's warnings, albeit with some delay. (If even the most brilliant prognoses were realised to the letter, i.e., exactly as their authors had imagined, then we would be talking about prophecy, and history would have a mystical character.)

As Trotsky had foreseen, the first serious convulsion led to the social antagonisms rising to the surface. In the first years of perestroika, nothing indicated that things would end with the restoration of capitalism. On the contrary, in 1985, '86 and '87 Gorbachev called for more socialism and the restoration of the Leninist vision of Bolshevism.

In this context, it is interesting to note that the only politician of significance who attacked Gorbachev from the left was Yeltsin. As you are all familiar with the present-day politician Yeltsin, it is interesting to hear a few of his political utterances from earlier times.

At the 1986 party conference, Yeltsin enthusiastically and approvingly quoted Lenin's words: "Social inequality destroys democracy, leads to the decay of the party and diminishes the reputation of the party."

Three years later, he posed the rhetorical question in parliament: "Why do millions of people in our society live below the poverty line, while others literally live like lords and wallow in luxury?"

In his book, which appeared in 1991, one can read the following passage: "I cannot eat sturgeon when I know that my neighbours are not even able to buy milk for their children. I am ashamed to use expensive medicine because I know that many of my fellow citizens are not even able to afford aspirin."

And in his election campaign he promised that his policies would, in the first instance, serve the people whose incomes fell below the average. It was only due to this slogan, which appealed to the popular sense of justice, that Yeltsin was able to come to power.

The development of perestroika since 1988 has confirmed that the dismantling of the socialist foundations of society culminated in a capitalist order, or more precisely, in a capitalist chaos. This process has been accompanied by a catastrophic decline of culture and the economy.

The capitalism which is now emerging will not be a new edition of pre-revolutionary Russian capitalism, because the world has moved closer together since 1917. International finance capital is incomparably more powerful. For this reason, Russia's return to a state of semi-colonial exploitation is the only possibility. In achieving this, the forces of capitalist restoration can only realise their aims through years of civil war and the plundering of the country which Soviet power built up.

Conditions in the country over the last five years can be described in a phrase which has become quite popular in Russia of late, "creeping civil war." This creeping civil war discharges itself from time to time in a shooting war, for example with the bombarding of parliament in 1993, or the war in Chechnya which cannot be brought to an end, despite all the promises emanating from ruling circles.

As far as the country's devastation is concerned, history has never witnessed such destruction of the productive forces in peacetime as has taken place in Russia and the other former republics of the USSR over the last five years. A certain continuity between the earlier and present regimes can be observed. One could say that the present regime has taken over the bad sides of the former Soviet regime and has multiplied the evil with the addition of the bad sides of capitalist society.

Trotsky said: "The secret income of the bureaucracy is nothing other than theft, and outside this relatively legal theft exists an illegal ultra-theft to which Stalin" -- and today Yeltsin -- "closes his eyes because these thieves are his closest social support." The ruling bureaucracy cannot react in any other way than to resort to systematic thievery. This creates a system of bureaucratic gangsterism.

When one considers the tragic fate of our country, one can justifiably say that the October Revolution brought much more for the workers in other countries than for the workers of the Soviet Union. The challenge of socialism forced the capitalist countries to make quite large social concessions to their working classes. The intervention of the state into the relations of production, distribution and exchange in order to resolve social problems is a general law of this century which present day capitalism still has to take into account.

In all the capitalist countries in the second half of the 20th century there was a certain limitation of capitalist freedom. This included, for example, a minimum wage and other guarantees for working people in the advanced capitalist countries. Over decades an active redistribution took place: on one side, the development of social programs for those possessing little, on the other side, a strict control over income, and based on this a strict taxation policy. These measures not only influenced the social situation, but also the economic. They increased demand in the population and were a countervailing tendency to overproduction in the developed capitalist countries.

However, capitalism has still not been able to abolish social inequality. This inequality can be seen in every country, and also between developed and less developed countries -- in the current terminology, between North and South.

It is important to note that the break-up of the Soviet Union into a series of second-rate states has presaged the destruction of the welfare state in the advanced capitalist countries. The attempt is being made to eliminate social gains which were achieved over decades.

At the same time, I would like to stress that up until now no real socialist path has been attempted in any country which called itself socialist. The socialist alternative, which was developed by the Left Opposition in the 1920s and '30s, consists in containing inequality by strict economic measures and, with the increasing development of society, ensuring that the different social groups become more and more equal.

As long as the contradiction between the privileged and the poor exists in the world, the basis remains for the development of new social and political movements. The success of these movements will depend on the degree to which they draw lessons from the negative and positive experiences of socialist construction.

Source: World Socialist Web Site

Soros warns of "market fundamentalism"

The growing realization over the past 12 months that the so-called "Asian meltdown" is in fact a crisis of the world capitalist system has brought a series of warnings from within ruling circles about the dangers posed by the unrestricted operations of financial markets.

The World Bank, for example, has implicitly criticized the prescriptions of its sister organization the International Monetary Fund insisting that the primary role of fiscal and monetary policy must be to shore up aggregate demand and "expand the social safety net."

The London-based newspaper the Financial Times has published numerous articles and comment pieces over the past months warning that unless central banks take corrective action there is a danger that the world can plunge into a 1930s-type depression. Likewise, The Economist magazine has issued several warnings over the past 12 months that the rise in share values on Wall Street signifies the development of a "bubble economy" the collapse of which could have far-reaching consequences.

Some of the most strident warnings about the state of global financial markets have come from the international financier George Soros, who achieved international notoriety after his Quantum Fund made around $2 billion at the expense of the Bank of England during the sterling currency crisis of 1992.

Soros began the year with an article in the Financial Times warning that the Asian financial crisis--at that stage dismissed by US president Clinton as a "glitch" along the road--could set off a world deflation tendency unless action were taken to counter it.

When the financial crisis spread to Russia in August, Soros published a letter declaring that its banking system was on the point of collapse. The following month, during testimony to the US Congress, he pointed to wider implications of the Russian events, warning that the global capitalist system was "coming apart at the seams."

He told the Congress there was a need to "rethink and reform" the global capitalist system and that as the Russian experience had shown "the problems will become progressively more intractable the longer they are allowed to fester."

Rethinking the capitalist system, Soros insisted, had to begin with the recognition that financial markets are inherently unstable. The global capitalist system was based on the belief that markets, if left to their own devices, would tend to return to an equilibrium position. But this view was false and "instead of acting like a pendulum financial markets have recently acted more like a wrecking ball, knocking over one economy after another."

Now Soros has brought together his fears about the operations of the international financial markets in a new book entitled The Crisis of the Global Capitalism. The book itself does not contain any significant new insights into the operations of world capitalism, much less any solutions to the crisis. But it is not without interest that a major participant in the international financial markets should voice his concern that the entire world capitalist system is heading for a disaster.

Soros sets out his concerns in the opening paragraph: "We live in a global economy, but the political organization of our global society is woefully inadequate. We are bereft of the capacity to preserve peace and to counteract the excesses of the financial markets. Without these controls, the global economy, is liable to break down."

And on the next page Soros continues this theme: "The development of a global economy has not been matched by the development of a global society. The basic unit for political and social life remains the nation-state. International law and international institutions, insofar as they exist, are not strong enough to prevent war or the large-scale abuse of human rights in individual countries. Ecological threats are not adequately dealt with. Global financial markets are largely beyond the control of national or international authorities."

There is nothing particularly original in these thoughts. Soros has merely pointed to the central contradiction of world capitalism identified by Marxists throughout this century--that between the development of a global economy and the division of the world into rival competing nation-states.

According to Soros, the chief danger to stability is the emergence of what he calls "market fundamentalism"-- the belief that the common interest is best served by individual decision-making and that attempts to maintain the common interest by collective action distort the market mechanism. "It is market fundamentalism," he insists, "that has rendered the global capitalist system unsound and unsustainable."

Soros notes that the present situation is not the first time that a global capitalist economy has developed. The first version of the global economy developed at the end of the nineteenth century. However, despite being sustained by major imperial powers, with a common ideological outlook and a stable monetary system based on gold, the system broke down.

"The nineteenth-century incarnation of the global capitalist system," he writes, "in spite of its relative stability, was destroyed by the First World War. After the end of the war, there was a feeble attempt to reconstruct it, which came to a bad end in the crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression. How much more likely is it, then, that the current version of global capitalism will also come to a bad end, given that the elements of stability that were present in the nineteenth century are now missing?"

Soros is critical of the moves by the IMF, the US Treasury and the leaders of the G7 to improve the flow of information on financial markets to try to prevent the emergence of crises in the future. The prevailing doctrines about the operation of financial markets have not changed and the assumption is that with perfect information markets can take care of themselves. He insists that the "debate" must be broadened.

"It is time to recognize that financial markets are inherently unstable. Imposing market discipline means imposing instability, and how much instability can society take? ... To put it bluntly, the choice confronting us is whether we will regulate global financial markets internationally or leave it to each individual state to protect its interests as best it can. The latter course will surely lead to the breakdown of the gigantic circulatory system, which goes under the name of global capitalism."

Soros insists that to "stabilize and regulate" the global economy and prevent such a breakdown, a global system of political decision making is necessary. However in advancing this "solution" Soros runs up against the real contradictions and conflicts generated by the system of rival capitalist nation-states.

"A global society," he writes, "does not mean a global state. To abolish the existence of states is neither feasible nor desirable; but insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions."

However, as Soros himself acknowledges, the greatest opposition to this idea is coming from the United States which is "unwilling to subordinate itself to any international authority." In other words, at the very point where the development of a truly global economy requires the creation of international institutions to prevent a breakdown of the whole system, the divisions between the most powerful nation-states are deepening, thereby rendering such collaboration increasingly difficult, if not impossible.

There are many examples of this process: the increasing inability of the major capitalist powers of the G-7 to reach agreement on economic policies, the conflicts within the IMF over funding and policy issues, the trade tensions between the US and Europe and between the US and Japan, the development of the euro as an international currency to challenge the dollar, and the recent breakdown of the APEC summit, to name but a few.

And in the two weeks since the publication of Soros' book, one of the most graphic examples of "unilateralism" has occurred with the US onslaught against Iraq aimed at securing its interests against its capitalist rivals in the resource-rich Middle East and central Asian regions.

Soros has pointed to some of the central contradictions of the world capitalist system. But the proposals he advances make clear that the representatives of the bourgeoisie, even where they are conscious of the disasters which the market system is producing, are unable to advance any program which can lead civilization out of the impasse in which it now finds itself.

Source: World Socialist Web

COMPETITION ACT 89 OF 1998

To provide for the establishment of a Competition Commission responsible investigation, control and evaluation of restrictive practices, abuse of dominant, position and mergers; and for the establishment of a Competition Tribunal responsible to adjudicate such matters; and for the establishment of a Competition Appeal Court; and for related matters.

The people of South Africa recognise:

That apartheid and other discriminatory laws and practices of the past resulted in excessive concentrations of ownership and control within the national economy, inadequate restraints against anti-competitive trade practices, and unjust restrictions on full and free participation in the economy by all South Africans. That the economy must be open to greater ownership by a greater number of South Africans.

That credible competition law, and effective structures to administer that law are necessary for an efficient functioning economy.

That an efficient, competitive economic environment, balancing the interests of workers, owners and consumers and focussed on development, will benefit all South Africans.

IN ORDER TO-

provide all South Africans equal opportunity to participate fairly in the national economy; achieve a more effective and efficient economy in South Africa;

provide for markets in which consumers have access to, and can freely select the quality and variety of goods and services they desire;

create greater capability and an environment for South Africans to compete effectively in international markets;

restrain particular trade practices which undermine a competitive economy;

regulate the transfer of economic ownership in keeping with the public interest;

establish independent institutions to monitor economic competition; and give effect to the international law obligations of the Republic.

Source: SABINET

ANC paves the way for a travesty of justice

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) findings on human rights violations do nothing to provide justice for the victims of apartheid rule in South Africa. The truth is that the reconciliation it advocates is impossible because, behind the thin veneer of democracy provided by the ending of apartheid, South Africa is still characterised by appalling poverty and inequality.

Source: World Socialist Web

Pretoria's Words: 'Extrajudicial Killing'

Following are excerpts from the final report issued by South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission today:

Primary Finding

On the basis of the evidence available to it, the primary finding of the Commission is that:

The predominant portion of gross violations of human rights was committed by the former state through its security and law-enforcement agencies.

Moreover, the South African state in the period from the late 1970's to early 1990's became involved in activities of a criminal nature when, amongst other things, it knowingly planned, undertook, condoned and covered up the commission of unlawful acts, including the extrajudicial killing of political opponents and others, inside and outside South Africa.

In pursuit of these unlawful activities, the state acted in collusion with certain other political groupings, most notably the Inkatha Freedom Party (I.F.P.). . . .

Certain members of the State Security Council (the state President, Minister of Defense, Minister of Law and Order, and heads of security forces) did foresee that the use of words such as ''take out,'' ''wipe out,'' ''eradicate,'' and ''eliminate'' would result in the killing of political opponents.

P. W. Botha

During the period that he presided as head of state (1978-1989) according to submissions made to and findings made by the Commission, gross violations of human rights and other unlawful acts were perpetrated on a wide scale by members of the South African Defense Force, including:

The deliberate unlawful killing and attempted killing of persons opposed to the policies of the Government, within and outside South Africa.

The widespread use of torture and other forms of severe ill treatment against such persons.

The forcible abduction of such persons where were resident in neighboring countries.

Covert logistical and financial assistance to organizations opposed to the ideology of the A.N.C. . . .

Inkatha

The Commission finds that in 1986, the South African Defense Forces (S.A.D.F.) conspired with Inkatha to provide the latter with a covert, offensive paramilitary unit (or ''hit squad'') to be deployed illegally against persons and organizations perceived to be opposed to both the South African Government and Inkatha. . . The Commission finds . . . that the deployment of the paramilitary unit in KwaZulu led to gross violations of human rights, including killing, attempted killing and severe ill treatment. The Commission finds the following people, among others, accountable for such violations: Mr. P. W. Botha, Gen. Magnus Malan, Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. . . .

The A.N.C.

While it was A.N.C. policy that the loss of civilian life should be ''avoided,'' there were instances where members of its security forces perpetrated gross violations of human rights in that the distinction between military and civilian targets was blurred in certain armed actions, such as the 1983 Church Street bombing of the South African Air Force headquarters. . . . In the course of the armed struggle, the A.N.C., through its security forces, undertook military operations which, though intended for military or security force targets, sometimes went awry for a variety of reasons, including poor intelligence and reconnaissance. The consequences in these cases, such as the Magoo's Bar and Durban Esplanade bombings, were gross violations of human rights in respect of the injuries to and loss of lives of civilians.

Individuals who defected to the state and became informers and/or members who became state witnesses in political trials . . . were often labeled by the A.N.C. as collaborators and regarded as legitimate targets to be killed. The commission does not condone the legitimization of such individuals as military targets and finds that the extrajudicial killings of such individuals constituted gross violations of human rights.

The commission finds that, in the 1980's in particular, a number of gross violations were perpetrated not by direct members of the A.N.C. or those operating under its formal command, but by civilians who saw themselves as A.N.C. supporters. In this regard, the Commission finds that the A.N.C. is morally and politically accountable for creating a climate in which such supporters believed their actions to be legitimate. . . .

A.N.C. Camps

The Commission finds that suspected ''agents'' were routinely subjected to torture and other forms of severe ill treatment and that there were cases of such individuals being charged and convicted by tribunals without proper regard to due process, sentenced to death and executed.

Winnie Mandela

The Commission finds that Ms. Madikizela-Mandela was central to the establishment and formation of the Mandela United Football Club, which later developed into a private vigilante unit. . . . The Commission finds that those who opposed Ms. Madkizela-Mandela and the Mandela United Football Club, or dissented from them, were branded as informers and killed. The Commission finds that Ms. Madikizela-Mandela . . . is accountable, politically and morally for the gross violations of human rights committed by the Mandela United Football Club.

The Commission finds further that Mrs. Madikizela-Mandela herself was responsible for committing such gross violations of human rights.

Source: New York Times

HRW Welcomes Release of South African Truth Report

Human Rights Watch welcomed the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's (TRC) draft report as an important step in establishing the truth about past human rights abuses committed in South Africa.

It is disturbing to see South Africa's political leadership undermine the vitally important work of the truth commission," said Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch. "The draft report offers all South Africans and the world at large the opportunity to learn from South Africa's suffering during apartheid. We call upon those responsible for the abuses committed by all sides to rise to this historical occasion and acknowledge their role in human rights abuses. Such acknowledgment is an essential step in reconciliation."

At a ceremony in Pretoria today, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the chairperson of the Commission, handed over the five-volume report to President Nelson Mandela. The report documents the widespread human rights abuses committed during the apartheid era in South Africa, implicating many apartheid government officials as well as the ANC and other liberation organizations.

Human Rights Watch expressed disappointment with the TRC's decision to excise findings from their draft report implicating the last president of the apartheid era, F.W. De Klerk. Human Rights Watch urged the TRC to take the necessary steps to ensure that all those proved responsible for abuses would be named in its final report.

Human Rights Watch condemned the attempt by the ruling ANC to prevent the release of the draft report, and urged its leadership to take responsibility for the abuses committed during its liberation struggle. ANC Secretary-General Kgalema Motlanthe attempted to block the release of the TRC report through a court application which was rejected early today. In the application, the ANC accused the TRC of "criminalizing the struggle for the liberation of the people of South Africa," and argued that if the ANC had to be bound by the requirements of the laws of war, South Africa's liberation struggle might have failed.

Human Rights Watch emphatically rejects the view advanced by the ANC that it should be held to a lower standard of scrutiny because it was fighting a just war against an oppressive system. The abuses committed by the ANC during its liberation struggle, including the targeting of innocent civilians in bombing campaigns and the torture and summary executions of suspected collaborators at ANC camps, cannot be justified by reference to the justice of its struggle. The objectives of any military or political campaign do not affect the obligations of all parties to respect the rules of war and the principles of international humanitarian law.

"The argument advanced by the ANC that they should not be held accountable for their abuses because they were committed in the furtherance of a legitimate struggle are directly contrary to the principles of international law," said Peter Takirambudde, Executive Director of the Africa Division of Human Rights Watch. "We urge the ANC to take responsibility for the abuses committed by its forces during the apartheid era, and to stop hiding behind the legitimacy of its struggle against apartheid."

Human Rights Watch strongly supports the call by the TRC to prosecute individuals who committed gross human rights violations and did not seek amnesty. Calls for a blanket amnesty should be rejected, as all individuals had the opportunity to seek amnesty from the TRC.

Source: Human Rights Watch

EXECUTIVE MEMBERS’ ETHICS ACT 82 OF 1998

To provide for a code of ethics governing the conduct of members of the Cabinet, Deputy Ministers and members of provincial Executive Councils; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

INSPECTION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT 80 OF 1998

The purpose of the Inspection of Financial Institutions Act is to provide for the inspection of the affairs of financial institutions; the inspection of the affairs of unregistered entities conducting the business of financial institutions; and for matters connected therewith.

Appointment of inspectors

(1) The registrar may from time to time appoint inspectors under this Act.
(2) The registrar must furnish every inspector with a certificate of appointment signed by the registrar.
(3) An inspector must, before commencement of an inspection or the examination of any person, produce his or her certificate of appointment.
(4) An inspector may, with the consent of the registrar, appoint any person to assist him or her in carrying out an inspection.

Source: SABINET

The voice of 'Prime Evil'

In the South African media, Eugene De Kock has been described as a mass killer, a psychopath known to the public as "Prime Evil". He's an unlikely villain. With his carefully combed hair and thick glasses, he looks more like a librarian than a ruthless assassin. And in the post-apartheid era of truth and reconciliation he has also become something of a hero, a man of integrity in a community of denial.

Truth and reconciliation has been hard to come by in South Africa. Only one former apartheid cabinet minister has sought amnesty for his role in the political crimes of the last white government. Every other minister has dodged the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and passed off the crimes of the apartheid era as the work of a few rotten apples.

De Kock is one of the foul fruits grown from the tree of apartheid. When he admitted to his crimes in front of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission he was applauded by a black audience. They were commending him for his honesty, and his willingness to identify senior politicians on whose orders he carried out his dirty work. De Kock disputes the label of psychopath, arguing that he never took pleasure in killing his victims. It was a job he said, and he was acting under orders from the very top.

Eugene De Kock is on a crusade to finger his old bosses who let him fall for his crimes once he had outgrown his usefulness as an apartheid killing machine. He still gives them sleepless nights with his clarity and vision in recalling that dark era when a white government was prepared to cling to power by any means necessary.

The flaw within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission may be that such brutal honesty will not be put to good use. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission chose only the last three decades of the apartheid era for its frame of reference. It's a small period of South African history in which an awful lot of crimes were committed under the name of apartheid. But almost two and a half years on from the first investigative hearing, this Commission of Truth has been left with a huge lie: that it was not the apartheid leaders who were responsible for the heinous crimes of that era, but the foot soldiers like Eugene De Kock.

The ministers who guided and co-ordinated the evil strategy of apartheid have used the Truth Commission like a Catholic confession box. They have taken their pew and spoken softly only of the crimes they want to confess - and the Commission has absolved them of their sins, blessing them as they leave to forget about that awful past.

Source: BBC

NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY ACT 32 OF 1998

The purpose of the National Prosecutions Authority Act is regulate matters incidental to the establishment by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, of a single national prosecuting authority; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

WHEREAS section 179 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act No. 108 of 1996), provides for the establishment of a single national prosecuting authority in the Republic structured in terms of an Act of Parliament; the appointment by the President of a National Director of Public Prosecutions as head of the national prosecuting authority; the appointment of Directors of Public Prosecutions and prosecutors as determined by an Act of Parliament;

AND WHEREAS the Constitution provides that the Cabinet member responsible for the administration of justice must exercise final responsibility over the prosecuting authority;

AND WHEREAS the Constitution provides that national legislation must ensure that the Directors of Public Prosecutions are appropriately qualified and are responsible for prosecutions in specific jurisdictions;

AND WHEREAS the Constitution provides that national legislation must ensure that the prosecuting authority exercises its functions without fear, favour or prejudice;

AND WHEREAS the Constitution provides that the National Director of Public Prosecutions must determine, with the concurrence of the Cabinet member responsible for the administration of justice, and after consulting the Directors of Public Prosecutions, prosecution policy which must be observed in the prosecution process;

AND WHEREAS the Constitution provides that the National Director of Public Prosecutions may intervene in the prosecution process when policy directives are not being complied with, and may review a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute;

AND WHEREAS the Constitution provides that the prosecuting authority has the power to institute criminal proceedings on behalf of the state, and to carry out any necessary functions incidental to instituting criminal proceedings;

AND WHEREAS the Constitution provides that all other matters concerning the prosecuting authority must be determined by national legislation;

Source: SABINET

Man Is Guilty in the Killing, For Sport, of a Firefighter

A 22-year-old Long Island man was convicted yesterday of murdering a total stranger -- an off-duty New York City firefighter out for a jog -- for no reason other than pure, random sport in January 1997.

After three days of deliberation, a jury in Suffolk County Court in Riverhead convicted the man, William P. Sodders, of one count of second-degree murder in the shooting death of James Halversen, 30, in Centereach, N.Y., on Jan. 3, 1997. Mr. Sodders is scheduled to be sentenced on Nov. 4. He faces a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.

It was not known whether Mr. Sodders's lawyers planned to appeal, and they could not be reached for comment last night. But for prosecutors, the conviction concluded a case that was particularly chilling because Mr. Sodders had intended to shoot a stranger just for the thrill of it. ''We're gratified with the jury's decision,'' an assistant District Attorney, William T. Ferris, told reporters yesterday outside the courthouse in Riverhead. ''They made the correct decision in this case. We're very thrilled.''

Mr. Halversen joined the Fire Department in 1992. Assigned to Hook and Ladder Company 174 in East Flatbush, Brooklyn, he quickly established a reputation as a free spirit who relished all sorts of challenges, be they sports or the strategy of firefighting. He was also regarded as a family man and a tireless worker who took after-hours jobs as a roofer and handyman to help support his family.

On Jan. 3, 1997, Mr. Halversen drove from his home in Centereach, his golden retriever at his side, for his usual jog at the Centereach High School track. But a few hours later, his wife, Rosalie -- who was eight months' pregnant with twins -- found her husband unconscious at the track and shot several times in the chest and legs.

A few days later, Mr. Sodders was turned in by his father, Patrick Sodders. Mr. Sodders said that his son's girlfriend, whom he identified only as Nicole, had told him that she knew that the younger Sodders had been in the vicinity of the high school track on the night of the murder.

Father and son worked as mechanics at the same bus company on Long Island. But the elder Sodders described his son, an 11th-grade dropout, as a violent young man with a history of psychiatric problems, who used drugs, bullied his brother and sister, and enjoyed violent movies like ''Natural Born Killers,'' which depicts random violence. And because he feared that William would harm Nicole -- the mother of his son's infant daughter -- or family members, he decided to contact the police.

During the trial, Mr. Ferris told of Mr. Sodders and a friend, Eric W. Calvin, going out driving on Jan. 3 ''looking to hurt someone.'' He said that Mr. Sodders test-fired a 9-millimeter handgun on the way to the track, and chose Mr. Halversen as a target.

At the track, Mr. Ferris said, Mr. Sodders bent over, pretending to tie a shoelace as Mr. Halversen approached. Finally, the prosecutor said, Mr. Sodders rose and fired point-blank, striking Mr. Halversen in the chest. There was no robbery, no exchange of words, no demand of surrender, prosecutors said.

Mr. Sodders then returned home to eat dinner and watch a television movie with Mr. Calvin, Mr. Ferris contended during the trial.

At several points during the trial, Mr. Halversen's widow wept openly. Many members of Mr. Halversen's fire company attended the trial as well, and displayed a picture of Mr. Halversen at the station house.

Yesterday, after the verdict was rendered, Lieut. Brian Foley of Hook and Ladder 174 said that the firefighters were relieved that the ordeal was over.

''This was like a weight lifted,'' Lieutenant Foley said.

Source: New York Times