Zuma remarks on FW are technically right but don't tell the story

President Jacob Zuma’s assertion that South Africa’s last white president, FW de Klerk, was as much a conservative Afrikaner leader as his predecessor PW Botha is absolutely right.

Both were born and raised by traditional Afrikaans families who believed in the approach of conservative, white South African politics.

What distinguished the two from one another was the ability of De Klerk to see the writing on the wall and thereafter adapt to the change that was becoming increasingly necessary.

No mean feat at a time when no compelling catalyst was evident.

How soon people forget that this “little exercise” required enormous guts and determination without which this country might well still be labouring under an apartheid government or recovering from — or even still fighting — a full-blown civil war.

Many would have us believe that there were leaders among the National Party queuing up to take on this role or that the writing was so marked that even the most conservative Afrikaner knew that the time had come. That the armed struggle was so intense that white South Africa was essentially hoisting the white flag.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Other than serving two years compulsory military service the vast majority of whites did not feel affected by the armed struggle at all. If anything their main fear at that time was that a multiracial South Africa would expose them to crime and as a result of the demographics they would become marginalised in terms of real political power.

The effects of sanctions, well known to the government, but not the ordinary voter — which was the compelling factor behind the National Party’s decision — meant that something had to be done and quickly. In global terms by standing still and isolated South Africa’s economy would have just kept falling further and further behind the rest of the world leaving it of no benefit to anybody.

Enter FW de Klerk.

He had been in the House of Assembly since 1969 and made a member of cabinet in 1978. Thereafter he served as a minister in various posts notably national education where he was a supporter of segregated universities. As Transvaal leader of the National Party he was certainly not known as verlig or an advocate of reform.

His brother Willem on the other hand was an openly liberal newspaperman and one of the founder members of the Democratic Party.

In 1989 De Klerk put himself at the head of the verligtes within the National Party which resulted in him being elected as its head in February 1989. In September of that year he became president after PW Botha had to step down following a stroke. In his first speech after assuming the party leadership he called for a non-racist South Africa and for negotiations about the country’s future. He lifted the ban on the African National Congress and released Nelson Mandela.

In 1989 the armed struggle and sanctions were very low on the priorities of white voters and the multiracial democracy — so long spoken about as swart gevaar and rooi gevaar — very much feared among the community. Among many Afrikaners — the unthinkable.

In terms of personal standing, FW de Klerk could have been the next president, lived in the lap of luxury and done what everyone else in his position did — hand the problems to his successors. The issues in 1989 were not even close to compelling enough to force his hand into following the path that he did.

Instead of being the all-powerful president he chose to live with the abuse of being called a traitor by his own and stand as the symbol of apartheid for the black community.

The worst of both worlds.

Undoubtedly as a member of the government during apartheid he too must accept responsibility for the atrocities that took place at that time just as we hold members of today’s ruling party accountable for things that go wrong under their care. In that regard Zuma is fully entitled to make the comparison.

Yet in the context of African leaders we need only have regard to the case of President Robert Mugabe who is happily putting 5 million of his own people on the brink of starvation rather than accept the will of his people. Twice he has lost elections and once a referendum and nothing short of an earthquake will ever convince Bob that the people of his country must come first.

FW de Klerk did what he did because he believed it was the right thing to do. The alternative was far easier — do nothing the good ship apartheid rolls on.

Accordingly a place in history is reserved for him as a man of unbelievable courage and self-sacrifice along with the iconic first president of the multiracial South Africa, Mandela.

Both were deserved winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.