Hierdie laaste aspek, die herlewing van volksoewereiniteit, moet goed begryp word - want met ons neerlaag in die Tweede Vryheidsoorlog op 31 Mei 1902, het ons ook die beginsel van volksoewereiniteit verloor en dit was die begin van ons knegskap van vandag.

In ons vrye Republieke het daar geen politieke partye bestaan nie. Sedert 1902 is ons verstrengel in die Britse parlementêre stelsel van politieke partye, party-willekeur en ‘n volk wat in ewigdurende vyandige kampe verdeel word deur beroepspolitici. Met die VVK-inisiatief het daardie noodlottige era van party-politiek verbygegaan. Want enige lid van die volk wat as kieser op die VVK-kiesersrol geregistreer is, sal die reg hê om Volksraadslede te nomineer.

Volksraad-kandidate sal in persoonlike hoedanigheid verkies word en NIE as een of ander “grootkop” van een of ander politieke party nie. Daarbenewens sal Volksraadslede wat die selfbeskikkingstrewe op enige stadium mag ondergrawe, demokraties uit hulle posisies verwyder kan word sodra ‘n mosie van wantroue op ‘n volksvergadering aangeneem mag word en sonder dat hulle eers ‘n “termyn” moet uitdien waarin hulle skade op skade kan aanrig.

Meer nog: Selfs die verkose Volksraad sal die uiteindelike besluit oor die grootte en ligging van ‘n eie grondgebied, of die vraag wat ons te doen staan as ons vreedsame pogings tot ‘n skikking sou misluk, aan die volk moet oorlaat deur volksvergaderings daaroor byeen te roep.

Die eerste belangrike onderskeidingskenmerk van die VVK-inisiatief is dus: Die volk besluit!

Die VVK is nie nog ‘n organisasie wat lede werf nie. Die VVK kan en wil veral nie “leiers” vir die volk wees nie. Die VVK is ‘n administratiewe liggaam, wat soortgelyke werk doen as die IEC ("Independent Electoral Commission") maar slegs binne volksverband.
Verby is die dae wat ons aan die neus rondgelei word deur alewige beterweters, partye, strukture, rade of koukusse wat meen dat hulle beter weet wat goed is vir die volk as die volk self.

Die tweede belangrike saak is dat die VVK-inisiatief gebaseer is op regsvoorskrifte van die Volkereg. Wat ons doen is te alle tye ten volle wettig en regverdigbaar in die Suid-Afrikaanse- en Internasionale Reg. En hoe verder ons op hierdie vryheidsweg gaan vorder, hoe opwindender gaan sake word!

THE ROLE AND THE TASK OF THE VOLKSRAAD VERKIESING KOMMISSIE ("VVK" or in English: "ELECTORAL COMMISSION FOR THE ELECTION OF A BOER-AFRIKANER PEOPLE'S ASSEMBLY")

Land on planet Earth had been created once and it's size stays the same; people on the other hand are being born every second and human numbers continue to multiply ever since Creation. The results, right through world history, is competition among human beings for land and other natural resources. As these resources get more and more depleted on a plundered; polluted and over-populated planet, economic options and opportunities are in decline accordingly - which, in turn, decrease the prospects for prosperity and peace.

Increasingly, the dwindling opportunities of our Age lead to insecurity and anxiousness - even in "rich" states which are homogeneously populated. All the more so in democratic states with multi-culture populations; where the competition for opportunities and resources reaches yet further intensity under majority-government which obviously rather satisfies it's own specific constituency and necessarily does so at the cost of minorities (already because of the scarcity of resources and opportunities; and even discounting possible malicious intent).

Moreover: The nation-state as we know it, was “designed” as a system of the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary on first (national), second (provincial) and third (local) levels of Government – by Western political philosophers like Rousseau in environments of cultural uniformity. The modern state did not take on it's current shape with multi-cultural societies in mind – and this poses a vital problem to the multi-culture national states of today; since “culture” entails much more than language and determines much more than outward appearances.

Culture ultimately “encodes” different peoples differently in terms of values – what is “acceptable” (“right”) and what is not (“wrong”), in terms of norms, standards and, generally, encodes various peoples differently on what the “way of life” should be in all spheres of life. Legistlation in a democratic multi-cultural state however, is comprised of a uniform set of laws equally applicable to everyone. Here the individual might be “equal before the law” - that is, before the Judiciary – but the members of different cultures can never be “equal before the Legislative”. Because in deciding on any legislation, the Legislator necessarily applies a certain underlying set of norms and values to the exclusion of another. How does “equality before the Law” benefit a member of the excluded culture? The answer is clear – it is at best a meagre consolation to such a person; whose value-system was trampled when the Law had been set down in the first place.

It is true of course, that people politically also behave differently within the same culture (as in all other fields of human behaviour) and hence, that some of them are more adaptable to multi-culture societies. The causes for this may vary from individual considerations of self-interest to a true non-commitment or even resentment towards the own cultural descent (for whatever personal reasons) and many other considerations in between – in most cases a multitude of reasons play a part. Fact however is that hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of people hardly or never adapt to a multi-cultural situation where their beliefs and way of life constantly clash with that of millions of others; clash with the values according to which the state they live in is being ruled; with the way legislation is executed and adjudicated.

This leaves us with the unavoidable fact that governments in multi-culture states simply can not be what it should be for a great number of it's citizens. Not because some people and cultures are “better” than others, but because cultures differ from each other, the needs and requirements of various peoples from government are different. It is practically impossible for one Government to fulfil the divergent needs of diverse peoples in ons state, with scarce resources, by legislation accommodating everyone.

This is why International Law contains (in Covenants of the United Nations, amongst others) the concept of self-determination – for the benefit of ALL peoples and cultures. Even though some people within a culture might accept subordination, the right to self-determination of those who don't is not legally impaired – as proven in case of the Irish, for example. In a world of diminishing resources, self-determination has become a critical legal tool creating real peace and fair prosperity for all; globally leading to the emergence of new states which are not necessarily hostile towards the nations they broke away from, but more often than not continue to cooperate with the latter in regional sense.

Applied to the situation in Southern Africa, we conclude the following:

1. The current borders of South Africa result from the fiercest British colonial war in Africa; fought against the Boer Republics until 1902. That war (and other wars waged by the British in southern Africa) not only destroyed Boer-Afrikaner independence; but also the sovereignty of all traditional Black territories with Black rule hitherto being kept by the Boer Republics.

2. The Boer-Afrikaners is a peoples indigenous to Africa: we can not call any other place “home”. Critical elements of our culture were created on this continent, which we already inhabitated 136 years prior to any Whites setting foot on Australia. Being people of Africa, we are on the same side as all other Africans in the great economic struggle between the rich Northern hemisphere and the South, as the natural resources of the latter are being plundered by the North since time immemorial.

3. As with all states whose borders had been drawn by colonialism, the current borders of South Africa forces together a multitude of peoples and cultures; and people range from full acceptance of that fact, to a total rejection thereof.

4. A substantial number of people (specifically among the Boer-Afrikaner population, as far as the VVK is concerned) do not accept South Africa's current colonial borders. They are not so much concerned on whether the ANC is governing “good” or “bad” (obviously, the ANC rules it's own constituency as it deems fit). The problem for these Boer-Afrikaners is rather the way borders are drawn which render them a “minority” in the land of their birth, with practically no influence whatsoever on the legislation by which they are governed.

5. The question is: What are the numbers of such Boer-Afrikaners; who would speak on their behalf and what territory do they claim?

6. In order to answer these questions, it must first be noted that the right to self-determination clings to a people and not to any organization, political party or any other sub-structure within a people. Consequently, no such sub-structure or individual can claim self-determination of it's own accord. The right to self-determination can only be claimed and it's practical implementation only be negotiated on behalf of a people by a body they elected and mandated for this purpose in a free, fair and democratic election; to be held within such a people.

7. Thus the first step to be taken by a people in the process of exercising it's right to self-determination, is to elect representatives and invest them with a mandate to act on it's behalf in this regard.

8. As the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) only facilitates elections among the broad South African population and no election within a people, it was decided on a meeting between members of various pro-independence organizations during August 2007 to set up a Commission with the task to facilitate and organize an election of representatives who will specifically be mandated to claim territorial self-determination for pro-independence Boer / Afrikaners; and enter into negotiations with any relevant role-players as to all aspects regarding the practical implementation thereof. That includes the location of a territory concerned, it's size, and possible transitional arrangements in view of current population composition.

9.Thus the VVK, with it's mission to facilitate such an election, came into being and the body to be elected (compiled by individuals who will be directly responsible to the people and not by political parties) will be called the Volksraad, all in accordance with Boer-Afrikaner political tradition.

10.Since the VVK started the initiative to compile a Boer-Afrikaner voter's roll, several organizations (like the Afrikaner Front, an umbrella body striving for independence and currently comprising about 25 member-organizations) have proclaimed official support for the VVK-initiative. Voter-registration began at the end of February 2008, and subsequently a substantial number of voters (living in South Africa and abroad) have been registered by approximately 300 Registration Officials. The number of voters and Registration Officers increase daily.

11. Whereas a “minority” does not have to accept a position of permanent subordination in a majority-dominated state, the VVK believes in the principle of firstly endeavoring to settle differences by negotiation and, hence, supports dialogue between the Boer-Afrikaner people; Government; and all other relevant role-players.

12.In the premises, the VVK believes that any form of assistance rendered to it by any role-player including the South African Government, constitutes a contribution to durable peace in southern Africa.