The great transition
Twenty years ago on February 2, President FW de Klerk formally pronounced the death of the apartheid system with his dramatic speech to parliament in which he unbanned the African National Congress and other proscribed movements and individuals. More even than the iconic 1994 elections, this was the most consequential moment in South Africa’s modern history.
Nine days later, Nelson Mandela was released from imprisonment after 27 years in captivity, ushering in a slow — and, alas, often violent — interregnum between white rule and the general franchise.
Within four years, negotiators had arrived at a transition towards full democracy, and the world declared a miracle.
Sometimes, it seems, the accomplishment of the country’s transition, which could have been so much more bloodstained, is not fully appreciated. When ANC Youth League leaders and others speak dismissively of Mr Mandela’s efforts at reconciliation throughout the 1990s, they exhibit a gross lack of political understanding. It was that policy of reconciliation and accommodation which facilitated the relatively peaceful transition. The alternative was a protracted civil war.
Mr de Klerk must be given credit for neutralising militant white opposition. South Africa also owes a debt to such keen supporters of apartheid as General Constand Viljoen, who persuaded the militant right to participate in elections instead of fostering an armed rebellion. President Jacob Zuma understands the importance of this: his cabinet includes Pieter Mulder, the current leader of the party founded by General Viljoen.
Only two decades ago, South Africa was an international pariah, not even allowed to participate in international sports. This year the world’s focus will be on South Africa. It seems appropriate that the 20th anniversary of the death of apartheid should coincide with South Africa taking the global spotlight as the host to the world. Here is an opportunity to present this country as a nation that can overcome the divisions of history, race, ethnicity and economy — even if only in an imperfect truce.
Of course, beneath the occasional flashes of national unity and the veneer of a political miracle, the wounds of apartheid have yet to heal. Some of these are mending — interaction between once separated race groups is increasing, especially among young South Africans. Other legacies of apartheid, such as the social and economic imbalances, will take many generations to be adjusted, policies of aggressive social engineering notwithstanding.
South Africans must not be impatient with the social healing process. White South Africans in particular are in no position to prescribe to what extent those who were oppressed under apartheid should forget the past. Many white South Africans sadly fail in acknowledging their country’s history with accuracy, sensitivity and humility.
At the same time, the idealism that united so many people of different social, racial, religious and ideological backgrounds in the struggle against apartheid has given way to division and, not infrequently, mercenary greed. Post-apartheid governments have not always ruled with the highest standards of ethics or competence. Some heroes of the struggle have turned out to be mere venal career politicians.
But where just over two decades ago it was a hazardous venture to criticise, never mind oppose those who governed, today it is a right that is protected by an admirable Constitution and Bill of Rights. For that, we have to thank those who guided South Africa through the chaotic years preceding the drafting of our Constitution.
In the words of Advocate Mike Pothier, whom we quote this week, “we should measure what we have become against what could well have been.”
- The Look of Christ - May 24, 2022
- Putting Down a Sleeping Toddler at Communion? - March 30, 2022
- To See Our Good News - March 23, 2022
