He was short, fat and bald. He was spectacularly dull
in his English Speeches. His faults were
imminently visible when you consider the fact that his negotiating partner
across the table was a presentable definition of charisma. However, he played a crucial role in shaping a
nation and ending a vile system of government. His role in maintaining peace
cannot be underestimated.
If my generation (Gen x) as an event that sparked an incredible
amount of hope, it would be the 1994 (year I left school) election in South
Africa, which saw Nelson Mandela duly elected as the first black president of
South Africa.
This was an incredible moment for us. We all grew up
knowing South Africa as a nation that had this evil system of government called
apartheid, which was legalized racism. Blacks and whites were not allowed to
mix (so much so that the comedian Trevor Noah’s biography is called “Born a
Crime” because his father is white and mother is black and that was strictly illegal
under the system) and the black majority was condemned to be classless citizens
in their own land. Because of this, South Africa became a “pariah” nation,
which was boycotted by every nation for just about every event of significance.
South Africa developed a “siege” mentality and White South Africans in particular
became a target of ridicule for living in a system where racism was legal. One
only has to go back to Spitting Images song, “I’ve Never Met a Nice South
African,” which had a chorus on White South Africans echoing “And that’s not
bloody surprising.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pcDUQXU6Mg
Then, one day that changed. South Africa ended this “racist”
system without the bloodshed anyone imagined would take place. There was charismatic
leader who forgave his captors and used their loved game, which the majority of
black people hated to unite the nation. Unlike just about everyone else on the continent,
Mandela stepped down after a single term as president so that his successors
could grow without him (which in many cases has been a disappointing failure):
Taken from Time Magazine
Nelson Mandela became to my generation what Gandhi was
to my grandparent’s generation. He was a politician who ended up being revered
as a saint. We’d call him the definition of what leadership should be. The most
telling was at his funeral in 2013 when then US President, Barak Obama told
cheering crowds that he would struggle but fail t live up to “Madiba” (Mr.
Mandela’s clan name) standards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SggOsfjsL0c
There is no doubt that Nelson Mandela was a very
special figure for South Africa and the world. However, he could not have done
without someone else who happened to be his polar opposite. That someone, was the
last State President of South Africa, Mr. FW de Klerk who died on 11 November
2021 of cancer. If Mr. Mandela was a charismatic visionary, Mr. de Klerk was a dull.
If Mr. Mandela was about integrity and an ideal, Mr. de Klerk was a pragmatist.
Mr. Mandela looked good whilst Mr. de Klerk did not.
Yet, if you look at the story of how apartheid ended,
you’ll realise that it was Mr. de Klerk who made things happen. What he lacked
in “vision,” he more than made up for in daggered determination. Unlike Mr.
Mandela, he died a controversial figure. Many blacks felt he didn’t enough to
stop the violence and apologize for the wrongs of the apartheid system. Many
whites felt that he had betrayed them. The poor man had to apologize from the
grave as his foundation released this final message upon news of his death:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwL2NpgvKf8
Whilst Mr. Mandela was born for the purpose of leading
a people to freedom, Mr. de Klerk spent his adult life believing in the apartheid
and prior to becoming State President, he actually played a key role in enforcing
it. One of the criticisms about Mr. de Klerk was the fact that he had “no choice”
because South Africa was imploding thank to global economic isolation.
Yet if you think about it, Mr. de Klerk was probably a
more realistic model for people. Not everyone can be a moral guide in the way
Mandela was. However, one can be a daggered fighter like Mr. de Klerk if one
puts one’s mind to it. To use a Christian analogy, there would be no Christianity
without Jesus. However, the world-wide faith that we know would not have been
possible without Paul, who started out as Saul of Tarsus, a man dedicated to
persecuting Christians. There can only be one Jesus but many of us can be Paul
if we choose to be.
Sure, Mr. de Klerk started life supporting apartheid
but he was the one who took the steps to free Mr. Mandela and his gang of
freedom fighters. He was the one who made the African National Congress (ANC)
and a host of other resistance movements legal. So, what if he did this because
he was “forced to” by sanctions and so on? The world is faced with leaders who
refuse to change course even when things are collapsing. In South East Asia,
there was the example of Suharto in the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Egyptians
and the example of Hosni Mubarak who refused to go until he was pushed out. A collapsing
economy doesn’t force leaders to change course. It often gets them to dig in.
So, the fact that Mr. de Klerk took the steps to change
course and go against everything he was brought up to believe shows the
character of the man. He was willing to put nation above his own perceive self-interest.
Then there’s the fact that he sold the abolition of apartheid
in a “Whites Only” referendum on 17 March 1992. This cannot be underestimated. The
black population had every incentive to be against the system, they were being
screwed by it. The White had every reason to keep it because they were
benefiting and there was a fear that they would be slaughtered if there was no apartheid.
Let’s remember this is not an unfounded hear. Neighbouring Rhodesia which
became Zimbabwe had to go through a civil war. That didn’t happen, the White
Minority relinquished power at the ballot box and Mr. de Klerk deserves credit
for that.
Whilst the two men were partners for in the process,
they didn’t actually like each other. You could almost say they were enemies.
When violence erupted, Mr. Mandela called on Mr. de Klerk to resign and often
accused him of being weak. Their body language was often tense:
This actually makes things more impressive. Its easy
to work with friends and loved ones. They’re probably friends and loved ones
because they agree on the key points with you. It’s a different story when you
talk to someone who stands for everything you were brought up to believe was
wrong with the world. Again, Mr. de Klerk deserves credit for being able to
negotiate with Mr. Mandela, knowing that the end result was his loss of power
in favour of Mr. Mandela (again, easier to negotiate when you know you’re going
to win).
No doubt that you can argue he could have done things
differently and had better outcomes. However, you cannot question that a man
who negotiated the end of his people’s dominance after years of oppressing them
had one great quality – courage and one has to ask, isn’t that what makes the
difference? Mr. de Klerk had the courage to go against everything he was
brought up to believe – to negotiate with an enemy and to relinquish power for
his people. Whilst South Africa has disappointed in so many ways from that
glorious election on 1994, things could have been worse as is seen in Zimbabwe.
Mr. de Klerk’s efforts to relinquish power on the best possible terms should be
commended and whilst he is the “unsung” hero of the story, he is still a hero
and history should judge him accordingly.
No comments
Post a Comment