I am a product of the apartheid era.
I grew up in a house where politics and especially apartheid
was never discussed as a subject per se, because it was simply the normal way
of life. Among the majority of the Afrikaners apartheid was essentially a
cultural preference, the way they preferred to live, separated from the influences
of the other cultures in South Africa. They attended their own schools, lived
in their own neighborhoods, ate their own kind of food, celebrated traditional
days important to them, spoke their own language and listened to their own
music. Not that the rest of the world was ignored. World history, literature,
sciences and geography, albeit with a European slant, were extensively taught
at school. As a nation the Afrikaners, with their brave pioneering heritage and
great aspirations for its children, were comfortable in their own cultural lair.
Rightly or wrongly! They never thought their way of life or the politics of the country would ever change. Why should it? Unfortunately the practice of race segregation introduced by European overseers evolved into a cultural and political tool which had no chance of long term success in a changing world.
The ripples from Sharpville
I was born at the start of the 1960s in South Africa, at the
height of the “grand” apartheid era, 18 days before the Sharpeville massacre. On
March 21, 1960 between 5,000 and 10,000 black South Africans, as called upon by
the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), demonstrated against passbook laws in the small
township of Sharpeville, thirty-five miles south of Johannesburg. They
basically came to the police station to force the police to arrest them for
refusing to carry the dreaded passbook, a dompas.
A police force of 75, later reinforced to 300 was greatly outnumbered and
although no one gave any order to shoot, someone did, the police panicked and
opened fire, and when the shooting eventually quieted down, 69 people were dead
and 181 wounded, a government produced number, although some claimed up to 400
died or were wounded.
That single day and that single event would be a turning
point for South Africa and apartheid, because that is the day the world started
to take notice of the policy of apartheid and the United Nations started to
intervene in South African affairs. Foreign nations started to pull capital
from South Africa. The Johannesburg stock exchange plummeted over the next two
years and for the first time white South Africans started to emigrate in fear of
a possible civil war. At the same time black South Africans started to leave
the country for very different reasons. It would also start the process of
South Africa exiting the British Commonwealth and lead to its declaration as a
republic on 31 May 1961 and sever its constitutional ties with the United
Kingdom of Great Britain. The end of 155
years of English rule.
Sharpville aftermath.
Sharpville was not the start of the struggle for equality,
but it was the catalyst for the African National Congress (ANC) and the PAC to
start a 30-year armed struggle against the government of South Africa. At the
same time though, the political atmosphere was ripe for polarization and black
demand for political recognition and equality grew stronger, especially in
light of the awakening of black consciousness throughout Africa during the
1960s. The world was changing and the Age of Colonialism in Africa was standing
on its last feet in front of an open grave.
Police inspecting passbooks
In December 2010, while on vacation in South Africa, a
family member gave me the book, Die
Laaste Trek, ‘n Nuwe Begin (The Last
Trek, a New Beginning) by F.W. de Klerk, ex-President of the Republic of
South Africa. I had the best of intentions to read it, but never got around to
it. During November 2013 while looking for something new and different to read,
I was tired of novels and travelogues, I came upon the book again in my library
and thought, why not. I have always wondered what happened during those years
of negotiations at CODESA (Convention for a Democratic South Africa) when all
political and cultural groups in South Africa met to determine South Africa’s
future. And I have quietly wondered, once or twice, why we never had that second referendum after
the completion of constitutional negotiations to approve a new constitution, as
was promised by the government all along. Then there were the issues of the “non-negotiable”
requirements of power-sharing (the Swiss Model) and the “entrenched protection
of minority rights and cultures”. What happened that those issues were simply negotiated
away or were they never really viable principles at all?
Mr. de Klerk and Mr. Mandela in different moods during the negotiations at CODESA.
While reading de Klerk’s autobiography, Nelson Mandela, the
man who struggled for many years against apartheid and who was jailed for 27
years for acts of terrorism and crimes against the state, but who later succeeded
de Klerk as President, died on December 5, 2013. Although I had no initial thoughts
to read Mandela’s autobiography, Long
Walk to Freedom, his death, while reading de Klerk’s book and things that
de Klerk mentioned in his book, tickled my interest and I decided to buy and
read Mandela’s book too to get a balanced perspective of what transpired behind
the scenes in South Africa during 1990 to 1994. Although I lived through those
stormy years in South Africa and actually voted in the referendum of 1992 to
empower the National Party government to continue its negotiations with the African
National Congress, I have to acknowledge I then only knew the side of the story
that was consistent with my upbringing.
Mr. de Klerk the day after the 1992 referendum.
Together de Klerk and Mandela achieved a rare feat in
world politics when they brought about systematic change through “relative” peaceful
means instead of a bloody revolution or civil war. From within the legislative structures of
a nation de Klerk dismantled all apartheid laws and convinced his fellow
politicians and in general the Afrikaner nation that the time for change had arrived.
On the other hand, Mandela had to convince
a youth oriented, radical and militarized ANC, hell-bent on continuing its guerrilla warfare,
that the only way forward to a peaceful and bloodless future was through
negotiations instead of a continued armed struggle.
Apartheid was nothing
new
Apartheid is today mainly associated with the white people
of South Africa, and more specifically the Afrikaner group, and the “purified” National
Party that came to rule this part of the world in 1948 and would do so
uninterrupted until 1994. But apartheid is really an old product of the Dutch
and the English overlords who banned or punished (in most cases) racial
integration since 1652 when the Dutch established a refreshment station at the
Cape of Good Hope on the southern tip of Africa. And they were assisted by the
French Huguenots, the Germans, and to a lesser extent the Italians, the
Portuguese, the Polish, the Jews, the Swiss and several other smaller groups of
Europeans that migrated to South Africa through the 300 years preceding 1948. As
the white citizens of South Africa who could have influenced the European overlords
to some extent, and later, as the voters for legislators and government, they,
the white citizens, all had a part in kneading, molding and keeping separate
cultural development alive seeing that it was never previously eradicated nor
were any laws changed to allow non-white people to vote for the general assembly
or to participate in government. Of course it was not called apartheid before
1948, but in practice it was.
Mr. Mandela destroying his passbook in 1952.
Take the sensitive case of the passbook that blacks were required to
carry. During the first 150 years after 1652, the Dutch ruled and as mentioned
above any form of black and white integration was resisted and punished. The British took control of the Cape in 1806 and in
1809 introduced the Hottentot Code, which required that all Khoikhoi and other
free blacks carried passbooks stating where they lived and who their employers
were. Persons without such passes could be forced into employment by white
masters. With the emancipation of slavery in the British Empire imminent the
pass laws were revoked in 1828. However, after the discovery of diamonds in the
Northern Cape area in 1872, the town of Kimberley's white claimholders
persuaded the British colonial administration to introduce a new set of pass
laws to limit the mobility of black migrant workers, who frequently changed employers
in a constant (and usually successful) attempt to bargain wages upward. This
law would become the foundation of the later passbook laws that led to the
Sharpville demonstration and the many general strikes about pass laws during
the 1960s.
The last trek
To do a detail review of the books after so many years and a
movie that was based on Mandela’s book is rather useless so I won’t, but I would
like to touch on some aspects of both books.
I feel The Last Trek,
a New Beginning is just a little too short for an autobiography, especially
if it is about the life of such a prominent person that changed the direction
of a whole nation. De Klerk’s summarized treatment of his earlier years up to his
entry into Parliament, what influenced him those early years while he was a lawyer,
and what caused him to change history could have been fleshed out a bit more. But then again maybe there wasn't more details to be fleshed out? It
is obvious from the book and to some extent de Klerk agreed, that in principle he
was not such a passionate reformer as some would think, but that change was
forced upon him and the government and the white people of South Africa. And, strangely,
he often gave his predecessor, Mr. P.W. Botha, whom he loathed, credit for
initial reforms prior to 1989 when de Klerk became State President.
It is also obvious from the book that his initial
“non-negotiable” requirements for power-sharing and protection for cultural
minorities came to nothing. This was mainly due to a combination of the
National Party and government negotiators being railroaded by the ANC
negotiators inside the halls of CODESA, and even more effectively, the ANC-backed
“rolling mass actions”, intimidation through strikes and other forms of
violence, especially black-on-black violence, to make the country ungovernable,
thus weakening the hand of the government negotiators. The issue of the second
referendum to approve the negotiated constitution also came to nothing because
of the ANC’s demand that a constitution can only be approved by a parliament
elected by all the peoples of South Africa instead of by just a minority of the
people.
In my view, the only true successes achieved by de Klerk and
his team at the negotiation tables, and these are major achievements, were the
relative peaceful handover of power (South Africa could easily have had a civil
war which happened so often in other countries) and the continuation of a
parliamentary system of government.
Overall, the book was an interesting read that focused
mostly on the political events surrounding de Klerk through his political years, but fell
short on a personal insight into the man. In his book The Last
Afrikaner Leaders Hermann Giliomee quoted a speech de Klerk made on 21
January 1997 in London: "The decision to surrender the right to national sovereignty
is certainly one of the most painful any leader can be asked to make. Most
nations risk war and catastrophe rather than surrender this right. Yet this was
the decision we had to make."
I would have liked to read more about the struggle inside this man as he came to the decision "to surrender the right to national sovereignty."
Exciting but long
I would have liked to read more about the struggle inside this man as he came to the decision "to surrender the right to national sovereignty."
Exciting but long
I found Nelson Mandela’s autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, both an exciting but also at times a boring
and too long read. (600+ pages.) I really struggled though some passages of the book,
especially the near minute-by-minute, detailed descriptions about
life and communications inside prison, the blow-by-blow commentary on prison commanders, and even sections of the
Ravonia trial just went on and on.
However, I found his early history, education, life in
Johannesburg studying and practicing law and the traditions of the Xhosa people
captivating and informative. His ability to articulate his beliefs and the
sheer determination of the man to achieve a better dispensation for all
disadvantage people is certainly admirable. His patience with people, ability
to listen to all viewpoints without judgment, stamina, and especially his mental,
and emotional strength through the prison years were venerable.
The simplistic view that many people in the world have of
South Africa and apartheid is that Mr. de Klerk was the demon while Mr. Mandela
was the perfect picture of peace, love, and forgiveness. However, in my mind both
had blood on their hands; De Klerk through his limited actions during his
presidency to control the police and third forces within the police, even
though he constantly claimed that he was unaware of who was trying to disrupt
the country and what the caused was of the many black-on-black violent attacks,
especially in the Kwazulu-Natal province. Today of course, we know that there
was a secret force active within the police and responsible for coordinating some
of these attacks. But Mandela also had blood on his hands through his
leadership of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the military wing of the ANC, who was
responsible for many acts of terrorism and death of innocent people and the fact that he at times took no or little definitive steps between 1992 and 1994 to restrain the ANC supporters from taking part in these black-on-black attacks.
Clockwise from top left: Arrest warrant for Mr. Mandela; Prisoners on Robben Island; Mandela paying a visit to his old cell; Mandela and Walter Sisulu.
The last thought I would like to highlight from the two autobiographies is the stormy relationship that existed between these two men. In de Klerk’s book there are several references to his frustrations with Mandela’s unwillingness or stubbornness at times to cooperate during the negotiations and Mandela’s verbal attacks on de Klerk in the media. De Klerk was especially frustrated that Mandela did not use his influence to stop the “rolling mass actions” of the United Democratic Front, which succeeded to some extend to make the country ungovernable and Mandela’s refusal to ask the world to lift economic sanctions against South Africa after 1992’s unbanning of the ANC, Mandela’s release from prison and the scrapping of all apartheid laws.
For his part Mandela accused de Klerk of being dishonest,
arrogant and treating him like a fool. He also accused de Klerk of not being a
true reformer and for wanting to negotiate a constitution that still reeked of
apartheid, just under another disguise. (He was referring to the various
blocking devices that the National Party wanted to have included in the
constitution for the protection of minority groups.)
The point is both men knew that although they might not have liked one another, they needed each other to bring about change in South Africa. They had a sort of “uncomfortable
affair” to bring about this necessary change to prevent a total financial
meltdown and most probably a bloody civil war.
Don’t Let Me Be
Misunderstood
In closure, although it took me 3 years to pick up de
Klerk’s book and although I never had any intention to read Mandela’s book, I
now have to acknowledge that I enjoyed both books, that I am richer in
knowledge and understanding and that I am pleased that I read both
books. In some way it is also a kind of closure about some faint questions
that still lingered out there about the political changes that took place in
South Africa.
Left: The first meeting between President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela in 1990 while Mr. Mandela was still in jail.
To quote the title of Eric Burdon’s book Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood, (Eric was
the iconic voice of the 1960’s band, The Animals, that gave us the legendary House of the Rising Sun),
this article is in no way an apology for 300 years of separate "development" or a praising for the "good" apartheid brought for a specific or any cultural group in South Africa. However, apartheid, systematically institutionalized as in South Africa,
was a degrading and undignified policy that prevented non-white peoples of
South Africa to pursue their own dreams and ambitions within the realm of a
civilly accepted society.
Nor is this article a condoning or disapproval of past or present
South African governments. I think any country has from time to time good and bad governments that
make good and bad decisions. No government is ever perfect.
Mr. Mandela and Mr. de Klerk sharing a joke while Archbishop Tutu looks on.
Furthermore, apartheid was not just a case of a white
minority that could vote and a black majority that couldn’t. That is a far too
simplistic view and unfortunately that is the view maintained by many people
that does not have a deep understanding of South Africa’s history. Those that
lived and grew up in South Africa knows that apartheid laws tried to control
every fiber of society in South Africa.
For some Afrikaners apartheid was all about politics and they saw it as
a means to strengthen the position of the Afrikaners, to get rid of the British and to revive the dream of an independent
republic like they had before the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902). An Afrikaner country. Even in de
Klerk’s book he mentioned the resentment Afrikaners had for the English while
he grew up.
For some it was cultural, a case of Afrikaners rule by Afrikaners
and no integration with other races. James A Michener in his saga about South
Africa, The Covenant, described
apartheid, as told to him by, I think, a white politician, as a multi-layer
bowl of different colored Jell-O, the perfect picture of separate development
of the various races, each in its own land. Interestingly, after 1994, Nobel
Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu would coin a similar vision for the new
South Africa. But instead of seeing the different bands of colors as separate
development he saw unity of the different colors. He called it the rainbow
nation.
Mr. de Klerk paying his last respect to an old foe and opponent and friend and partner after Mr.Mandela death.
Election 1994 TV debate
