R. PIET "PROMISES" KOORNOOF, South Africa's minister of cooperation and development, is one of the most powerful men in that country today. His job is to oversee the blacks in South Africa. According to his own testimony, he is committed to "a period of reform" and has bolstered this statement by his past and present activities. As minister of sport, Koornhof was responsible for the desegregation of athletic clubs and certain sports events. In his present position, he is responsible for relaxing government pass law requirements and supporting the recommendations of two commissions advocating far reaching reforms in South Africa's labor laws.

Dr. Koornhof is criticized by white liberals for promising much, yet delivering little--hence the nickname "Piet Promises." At the same time the right wing of his own party vociferously denounces his politics. On a recent trip to the United States, Dr. Koornhof declared that "apartheid is dying and dead." He was immediately challenged at home by Dr. Treurnicht, a staunch Afrikaaner conservative and leader of the conservative bloc in the country. Prime Minister Botha reprimanded Dr. Treurnicht in a showing of support for Koornhof's statements.

Koornhof offers no immediate solutions, but he does offer hope insomuch as he represents a new breed of Afrikaaner politician. He is willing to admit the inequities and hardships blacks suffer in South Africa and is devoted to finding a solution, albeit an Afrikaaner solution, to South Africa's racial troubles. Dr. Koornhof, Prime Minister P.W. Botha, and the Foreign Minister Pik Botha, are "verligte" i.e. liberal Afrikaaners. Dr. Treurnicht, a former chairman of the Broederbond, is "verkrampte" i.e. conservative. The question of South Africa's future will depend to a large extent on the political struggle between these factions of South Africa's national party.

We spoke with Dr. Koornhof at his Pretoria home in late July.

Q: You have all the credentials of what we could call in the United States a card-carrying liberal. You are the son of a minister and a graduate of Oxford University. I understand that you have maintained your academic interest through the Rand Afrikaans University, and as a faculty member of the South African Academy of Arts and Sciences. Yet you find yourself a member of the same party as Dr. Treurnicht. Is this an anomaly? A: No, I don't think it's an anomaly. I've been in parliament now for 18 years. I've been interested in politics all my life and I've been in public life for more than 30 years. I explain it by saying that Dr. Treurnicht, whom I know well because we studied together at Stellenbosch University in 1946, '47, and '48, has the image of being a more conservative type of politician, and he is, I think, a strong man. He's got rapport with...let's say, a more conservative minded white voter in South Africa.

I, on the other hand, am moving more...let's say...on the liberal side as you put it, with the result that I haven't got the same rapport with the conservative minded white voter.

I see the situation, as a social anthropologist by training, as a very good thing, provided that there is understanding between a man like Dr. Treurnicht and myself. If a bridge can be built on two strong pillars across a rather wide spectrum, it may in that way effect renewal and reform and solve problems.

Q: Do you see any irony in the fact that it was you, a past research officer in Bantu Affairs on the staff of Dr. Verwoerd, father of apartheid, who was to make the rather sensational "apartheid is dead" statement in the United States?

A: (Laughter)...Yes...I don't think there is so much irony in it, but if one has grown up with this old concept over a period of thirty years, then it is certainly very interesting indeed. I was appointed immediately after my return from Oxford as a personal research officer for Verwoerd. I think this is indicative of something which is overlooked in the world at this moment and that is the tremendous constitutional process that's been going on for more than a quarter of a century in this country.

Real chances and opportunities from the top level down have been created. That's the reason why we, pole cat of the world, have avoided the bloody revolution despite the fact that the whole of Africa was in a period of revolution.

As you have in the States or as other plural societies like Switzerland, we've got the same basic things, namely, good strong local government for all the different types of people in this country. Then we have got a very good regional government. The whites have got the provincial government. The simple fact of the matter is that the black states' government, from whichever point of view you look at it, is at least very good regional government. Kwazulu has got a very good administrative government, very good from the point of view of law and order and from any possible point of view. They are good types of government, and anybody must be stupid to think that you can ignore that in this constitutional process. So you've got the trimmings and the makings of a very sound foundation for a very exciting further constitutional development.

I tend to be optimistic in my outlook. I believe in Norman Peel's power of positive thinking, and so maybe I could be accused of being too optimistic. I think that we will show the world a very fine system of plural government in this part of the world.

Q: Do you see a possibility of an end to the legal separation of the races?

A: I think there are a few things which the white people place quite a premium on. The first thing is the strong belief in a mother tongue education. Therefore they strongly believe it's in the interests of the child, be they white, black, coloured, or indian, that the children be educated through their mother tongue. In practice that means that each goes to his different school. So the schools issue is a sensitive thing although you have got mixed private schools and it came across with not too many hitches. It's a sensitive and emotional area.

The second thing is the question of townships. The concerns are for devaluation of properties, variations in properties in going with different things and different setups and so on and so forth. At this moment in time I would think they put a high premium on the way they live. Their day to day life must be in a way which they prefer it to be.

A third thing which I think they put a high premium on, is that they want order to be maintained and they want standards of living to be maintained at a high level.

My experience in this is that the whites are willing to accept almost anything, provided that the standard of living is not dropped and provided order is maintained. They have built things over a long period of time with great difficulty. They think that if that should be lowered then what has their work been for?

Q: Why does the South African government find censorship such a necessary part of its political existence?

A: As you know, we have always been Calvinistically inclined. We're really religiously minded, not only the white people but the black people too. There is a real desire to keep high moral standards, which I think is understandable in the context of South Africa. Despite the many bad things, this type of censorship is the best thing because it fosters the upliftment of everyone.

Q: But when we speak of censorship, we're not only talking of Playboy magazine.

A: Yes, yes, I understand. I suppose from your point of view there is a difficulty, but I've tried to explain that, in this setup, it's not extreme.

Q: If I understand your position correctly on the pass laws, you are opposed to them. You have said that they must be eliminated. Can they be eliminated? What would be the alternative?

A: The Riekert Commission advocated dramatic change in the system and specifically in influx control. They recommended that the yardstick for the people in this country must be a job and a house. The Riekert Commission's report has been accepted in principle by the government. This is a tremendous change in the system, but because of the government's uncertainty as to the short-term effect of this principle, they weren't quite prepared to phase out the 72 hour ruling at once. (Any non-European unable to produce a pass upon demand is subjected to 72 hour detention.) If the job and house principle would work in practice, then I think I would be in a position, I hope, to phase out the 72 hour thing very quickly. On the question of the so-called pass law, I've stated publicly in Parliament and outside of Parliament and in the United States, that I detest the damn thing. The sooner we get rid of it, the better.

Q: Was the increase in fines for illegal workers a political compromise to save Crossroads? (Crossroads became the focal point of conflict between the right and left wings of the National Party. An influx of illegal workers into the area resulted in serious social and economic problems. The right wing of the National Party wanted to expel the illegal migrants regardless of the length of time they had lived there. The liberal wing of the party wanted to grant amnesty to the illegal workers and upgrade the township.)

A: Yes. I read somewhere that someone said it was a political compromise. The first time I heard that was when I read it in the press. I was very surprised. I never thought it was a compromise. Let's look at it from a practical point of view. What had been the ingredients I had been dealing with as a real humanitarian, because that is what I am, and a man of compassion. I was dealing with a factual situation of twenty thousand squatters and their living conditions in that squatters camp were not good. In addition, there are more than six thousand coloureds out of employment in the Cape Town area and just as many blacks. That is over and above the unemployed in Crossroads. It is not a highly industrialized area. At the same time, it would have cost us between 15 and 20 million to rehouse the Crossroads people. Now they are going to be housed properly and I am very proud of that. That was a real "crossroads" in the history of this country in my way of thinking if ever there was one.

Against that background, it was not so unwise, I think, to increase the fine for illegal workers. If not, we would have had another 20,000 people coming into the area without jobs. The 20,000 we are presently trying to assist would be ousted in this fiasco.

I am not an advocate of migrant labor. I think it is a system with very bad repercussions. If I could do away with it, I would. I would rather have people on a family basis settled wherever they can find a job or a home. If you cannot supply them with either a job or a home, then what are you doing? You are creating a really bad situation. In the city they cannot even plant vegetables to eat. At least in the rural parts they have more to live off of if they haven't got a job. In the city you get an awful slum condition.

It is against that background that the question of increasing fines in order to make it more difficult for people to move in that the decision was made. My point is that it is a very rational step from a practical point of view to obviate misery.

Q: There were reports in the paper about two weeks ago that 6,000 coloured families are being uprooted to make way for "white rezoning."

A: Where was that?

Q: I believe that was in the Transvaal.

A: Yes, I read about it, but if it's coloured people, it's not in my province. I can tell you that I don't take the view that it is a good and healthy thing to move people against their will.

Q: We have spoken to many blacks in South Africa and many of them say that outside coercion and criticism are in fact the only catalysts for change in South Africa.

A: Well I would disagree with that. In my own experience, I'm not saying that outside pressures and coercion are not factors or catalysts for change. Obviously at least to some extent, they are and in some cases they may be the only catalysts. In my experience, without a shadow of a doubt, those outside pressures tend to slow up the change process considerably. That is one of the most difficult and tragic things I've experienced as a minister in this country. Take sport for instance. I still think that if there had been better understanding in the outside world the process of change in sports would have been tremendously facilitated. And other changes, going well beyond sport would have occurred. When world support for our desegregation process in sports was not forthcoming, and the pressures on us still continued, the right put out their tongues and said "I told you so." It was all in vain. So as I said it can slow up the process and coercion becomes counter-productive. A white right backlash can be very strong and put things back considerably.

Q: Can the west play any role at all in helping solve the racial problems facing South Africa?

A: Yes, they can help by understanding and taking an interest, an enlightened interest in South Africa. I think more understanding honestly would make a big difference. People are only people and when they are praised and when they feel their efforts are worthwhile and being appreciated, then it surely makes it easier to change. It enhances the process. When they're being hammered at all the time it makes them more resistant to change. Think of the American situation in the last 15 to 20 years and I think you'll appreciate that this is not a situation that can be rectified over night. So really it's a combination of factors which could make the difference. To think that only one approach, one set of factors, i.e. coercion and pressure and boycotts can do the trick, well that's very superficial and incorrect.

This is the first of two interviews conducted by Gerald J. Sanders and Ian Brookshire, students at the University of Texas Law School. Next week: interviews with Dr. Motlana, chairman of the Soweto Committee of Ten, and Judge Marais, an Afrikaaner politician who resigned from the National Party.