I've been reading the papers and getting more and more concerned about what's going on in South Africa. I've been a close friend of one of your diplomats Barry Hornabrook for many years and have many times discussed with him what might be done. I know your government has introduced a number of notable reforms. But the world demands more. And while no nation can, or should be, run to satisfy the demands of foreign governments, the facts are that in the modern world each government is subject to considerable external pressures -- if not direct, then economic, or from its own people responding to images from abroad. Even the USSR and China are modifying the operation of their economies to introduce some of the measures of economic efficiency of the capitalist system simply to compete more effectively with the west. And now it appears Mr. Gorbachev is going so far as to adopt some internal social and political reforms. I am not naive enough to accept his recent promises of "openness" without waiting for results. But I suppose we are all hoping it's for real.

I know enough from my conversations with my friend Hornabrook to realize that the situation in your country and mine are almost mirror images of each other -- and that you can't simply abolish apartheid by legislation as we did segregation: i.e. we have a small minority of Blacks, about fourteen per cent, while you have a large majority, about eighty per cent. Our Blacks all speak the same language, yours don't, indeed yours speak a large number of mutually unintelligible dialects. Our Blacks share the same basic culture, while your have many different tribal cultures. Finally, our Blacks form a cohesive unit, while most of the killing in S.A. is between Black tribes who care even less for each other than for the Whites. All this I understand. But even taking all this into account, one could hope that the positive results of our having eliminated segregation twenty years ago should hold out considerable hope for South Africa that there is a real possibility of decent relations between people in a multi-racial society. I know that bad examples have been set in Kenya and Rhodesia. And I realize that institutional forms can't alter basic human nature. As Alexander Pope said, "For forms of government let fools contest: that government which governs best is best". But still I have a suggestion to make which you may wish to share with your Ministerial associates.

Political theorists say that the only truly original contribution to political theory by an American thinker was the argument made by Pre-Civil War Southern Senator John Calhoun that under an adequate constitution, a simple majority vote in a legislative body should not be sufficient to override the deeply held contrary beliefs of a determined, substantial minority. It was disregard of this political wisdom which led to the American Civil War, ninety years of segregation, and Black exclusion from the greater American society and enormous economic losses from the non-participation of capable Blacks in the more productive sectors of the economy. If we'd only had the good sense not to press the division of opinion over the position of Blacks as slaves, and simply let matters ride for another twenty years, many believe that slavery would have died from natural causes as a result of the mechanization of agriculture as the cost of caring for slaves became greater than their marginal contribution as field hands.

I think the Calhoun theory can be applied to the political situation in South Africa. Let me explain how.

Already your government has accepted the idea of a Second House for the Coloureds in Parliament. Why not a Third House for Blacks? "Okey", you tell me, "but our Blacks are not literate and do not share our language or culture." True. But let me continue. Let the Blacks arrange their own elections in any way the ANC (and competing Black parties, if any) decide is best. Of course it is always best to have literate voters. But even in the USA ballots carry party symbols (roosters, stars, elephants) to guide the less literate. And with radio and television, even the totally illiterate can understand the debates and issues. And if ballots for the Blacks must be printed in half a hundred tribal language, this is a cheap price to pay for social accord. Indeed, with the possibility of automatic voting machines, you'd only need to attach party symbols to the buttons to be pushed to record the votes.

The important point, with three (or conceivably more) chambers, is to give each chamber veto power over the actions of each of the other chambers. At present, in parliamentary democracies, both chambers must pass a bill for it to become law. The Executive customarily can veto such legislation if he considers it unwise. In the USA the legislature can override the veto of the President by a two-thirds vote in both houses. Under the Calhoun approach, the veto would reside in each house of the legislature. Thus if Blacks, Coloured, and White simple majorities agree that legislation is in the public interest, the law would enter into effect. If even one house felt the new law would adversely affect the interests of its racial group, it would negate its passage even if the other two houses were in agreement. Thus the strongly held views of a "substantial minority" (even the twenty per cent White minority) could not be overridden even by a substantial majority. This would avoid radical changes in the basic law by the recently enfranchised, inexperienced, Black eighty per cent. I suggest that if such constitutional provision had been included in the organic laws of Kenya and Rhodesia at the time of independence, the Black majorities could not have ridden roughshod over the interest of the White minorities, destroying their economies and resulting in political chaos.

Perhaps the time has come to discuss such a possibility with Mr. Mandela and the leadership of the ANC.. The modern world seems to be faced with only two alternatives in this era of demand for rapid and radical change: try to hold the lid down -- leading almost inevitably to a social explosion, as in Nicaragua; or have the courage to reform despite all the dangers inherent in change. The Brits had the advantage when they passed the Reform Act in the mid-Eighteenth Century because expectations and demands were far more moderate in that remote age. Admittedly, if reform come too quickly, the social fabric can tear, with revolutionary results, as in Iran. But social change can succeed -- and the successful results in the Philippines, Salvador, Guatemala (admittedly all three still in embryo); the eminently successful racial reforms in the United States; and the attempts currently being made in China and the USSR, suggest that we are better off planning carefully, gritting our teeth, and plowing ahead, determined to work for success -- rather than adopting a "damned if I do, and damned if I don't, so I won't budge" attitude.

As I started by saying, the marriage, residence, and educational reforms adopted in your country are important, but not enough to eliminate growing internal pressures, and certainly not enough to gain the approval of the world. Even basically well-disposed President Reagan has had to yield to pressure and permit our Secretary of State to talk to Oliver Tambo (I taught Tambo's son in my class in Comparative Economic Systems at the American College in Paris. He was a bright boy and we had occasion to talk several times after class. I tried to impress on him the essentiality of avoiding the specious promises of Marxism and working to preserve the efficiency of a "Mixed economy"). Maybe, just maybe, taking the bit in your teeth and extending the franchise to the unlettered tribal Blacks, limited to the election of their own Third House, and reserving veto power to the other houses to prevent legislative excesses on the part of the Black House, just might satisfy your Black radicals and your friends abroad. Mightn't it be worth considering? Even the "announcement effect" would win friends, It would make me feel good that a Pre-Civil War American Statesman who strove unsuccessfully to avoid war in my nation was at last heeded, and that his contribution to political thought helped avoid a bloody civil war in another multi-racial nation torn by similar strife a hundred and twenty years later.

A final idea. In Great Britain, until quite recently, some individuals were accorded multiple votes, i.e. university graduates could vote for a university representative in Parliament as well as for their district M.P. And businessmen could vote for the M.P. representing the district in which they owned business property and paid business taxes. So the well-established might actually dispose of three votes. Were such provisions adopted in South Africa, this would further strengthen the influence of the White minority during the period of transition. And were the possibility of multiple votes held out to the Coloureds and Blacks it might provide a powerful element of social stability since the Blacks who would be eligible for dual votes would be the more successful (and conservative) businessmen, or the better educated professionals.