F.W. de Klerk: a hero of our time

03 February 2010

/article_images/articledir_11499/5749593/1_listing.jpg

Few rulers give their empires away, says Rian Malan, but 20 years ago, for the good of his country, de Klerk did just that. South Africa owes him a great debt

And so it fell to de Klerk to take the dive. His pluck was greeted by a global roar of approval, but those who cheered loudest were usually those who had the least understanding of the gamble he was taking, lowering his weapons on a continent where it’s dangerous to be weak and defenceless. There are, of course, some Afrikaners who will never forgive him, but I think most would concede, even if through gritted teeth, that de Klerk’s offer of friendship has been accepted with a measure of grace. We’re still here, still grilling our wors under the blue heavens celebrated in our old national anthem and whingeing about the many signs of creeping decay. It’s sometimes hard to see a future, but if we’d stayed inside the laager, we would have had no future at all.

Anyone who has doubts on this score should consider what’s happened to Israel over the past 20 years. On the day de Klerk stepped up to the microphone to make his historic speech, God’s other chosen people were also contemplating the opportunities created by the end of the Cold War. They too were presented with a fleeting chance to make peace from a position of power, but the risks were too great, so they dug in their heels, refusing to make the painful concessions necessary to break their ancient stalemate with Palestine. Now they’re totally isolated, totally reliant on the protection of a declining America, and facing a deadly fundamentalist enemy interested only in their eradication.

These are the fruits of intransigence, and they look rather unappetising. If not for F.W. de Klerk, white South Africans would have been in a similar, but probably worse position. That’s why I’ll be raising a glass to him on anniversary day, and threatening to moer anyone who fails to say ‘cheers!’.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

More articles from: Rian Malan | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (1)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

kevwrite

February 16th, 2010 10:32pm Report this comment

Rian Malan, a known apologist for so-called verligte ("enlightened") Afrikaners, like de Klerk and stooges of the ilk of Thabo Mbeki, leaves out a very key piece of information, which would certainly have totally undermined the image he was trying to create of his hero.
The uncultured and lowly-educated PW Botha, egged on by his genuinely, forward-thinking Foreign Minister, Pik Botha, had decided in the mid-Eighties to "cross the Rubicon", “take the plunge”, almost an eon before; given the circumstances which prevailed in those troubled times.
At the eleventh hour, one man stood in his way, the same FW de Klerk, who indicated that he would lead a break-away of conservative, Transvaal Nationalists -- not quite the epitome of pragmatic liberal Christian democrats your correspondent was trying to make de Klerk measure up to -- if Botha made any concessions to the blacks.
For the next five years, one must assume, de Klerk's recently departed verligte editor brother, Wimpie,should be given the credit for finally persuading him to achieve his delayed Damascene conversion.
Either way, there are legions of dead, suffering and scattered-to-the-four-corners, black and white South Africans who would have far preferred the earlier release from Nationalist rule, which real-politiek Botha offered.
De Klerk's reasons initially were selfish, and related to ego and power; and later opportunistic, nothing more and nothing less.
That he has become more urbane and broadened his own outlook over the last 20 years should not cloud what happened at the time.
Go an moer someone else, Rian, that Englishman had it pretty damn right.

Post comment