Transitions in South Africa
An Interview with F.W. de Klerk
SJIR: In 1990, during the transition, and 1994, during Mandela’s inauguration, what were your expectations of the future violence that South Africa would experience?
De Klerk: I realized that there was a risk of some continuing violence. I was confident that the foundation which we had laid with our new constitution and the degree of reconciliation which had been established would enable us to deal with that. In now looking back, I think that it has in fact enabled us to do it. There is still some political violence taking place, particularly in KwaZulu-Natal where old unsettled scores between the supporters of the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party continue to give rise to violent actions and reactions, and I think the people involved there have forgotten what the real cause is. It’s like a vicious circle. But it’s reducing. The violence which we experience at the moment, generally speaking, it’s criminal violence, and I don’t think it should be described as political violence, with a few exceptions.
De Klerk:I think that a three-prong approach is involved. The first is, improve effectiveness in fighting crime, and that should be done, not only vis-?-vis the role of the police, but also in the courts, increase the effectiveness of prosecuting the cases in the whole court system, and also in the penal system and prison system. There needs to be better coordination between the relevant role players, and there should be a greater emphasis on improved role management in that regard.
Secondly, we must realize that there is an underlying social problem, and thirdly an economic problem. The social problem is, that a very vast number of young South African have, in the years of conflict, been taught not to have respect for authority. Let’s just take education. The slogan, "liberation before education," which went hand-in-hand with efforts to break down the education system?to make schools ungovernable, to intimidate teachers, not paying your dues, not paying your electricity account, undermine authority, break the law. I’m not saying it was right or wrong, but it clearly developed a disrespect for authority, and for the law. This has to be reversed, and then on the economic side, if you have 25-35% unemployment, it’s not an excuse for crime. But if you’re really hungry, and you’re the head of a household, and your child is hungry, you do something about it. So I’m sure that economic growth, economic development, and job creation all have an important role to play in fighting crime.
SJIR: To what extent did the isolation of the international sanctions cause South Africa to pursue a nuclear weapons program in the 1970s?De Klerk:There’s no doubt that it played a major role, together with what was really a very real threat of Communist expansion. It wasn’t a propaganda trick to say that there was a danger of an onslaught from the international Communist center, which was Russia. They were supporting, under the name banner of freedom fighters, revolutionary organizations, they were training them, they were giving them money, they were helping to pay for bringing in tens of thousands of Cuban troops. It was a very real threat?so that also played a role.
So yes, sanctions resulted in the South African government for a long time trying to make South Africa as independent as possible and as strong as possible against any threat. I don’t think that my predecessors who were involved in the decision to build the atomic bomb really ever thought that it would be used. It was, I think in their minds, a strategic position to be, to say "we have this," which would, in the process of international isolation, strengthen their hand. It was my privilege, because of the breakthrough which we made in moving towards negotiation, and my conviction that we would never need this bomb, it was my privilege to take this decision, and I think we’re the only country in the world which has so far done it, to have it totally dismantled under international supervision in the end to check that we’ve been honest, and that every milligram of material which went in it could be accounted for. I personally am a strong supporter of demilitarization. But it has to be done with world powers in a step-by-step manner?that I realize. I don’t like the idea of a club which is allowed to have it, and the rest should not have it. I think the goal should be, in a step-by-step manner, to reach a situation where nobody even contemplates using it, and therefore will not need to have it.
SJIR: How did your relationship with the Afrikaaner community change after you released Mandela and after the transition? What was it like to go back to them, and how did they treat you?De Klerk:The Afrikaaner community really has never been a homogenous community. As there are Americans, if you look at the political spectrum, on the far right, fairly radical, on the right, in the center, in the left, on the far left, fairly radical. Likewise, Afrikaaners are divided. So a certain percentage of Afrikaaners never voted for me. They were far to the right. They were radical. They feel I am a traitor?they even called me a traitor. But they’re a minority. And that was proven by the referendum, when 70% said, "go ahead." Within that 70% was a majority of the whites, but also a majority of the Afrikaaners. They have supported me throughout, and I have not become estranged from them in any way.
SJIR: You call your book, "not a typical autobiography." To what extent do you view its publication as part of South Africa’s reconciliation process?De Klerk:I don’t think it played a direct role in reconciliation, per se. In that sense, it’s a record of how we reached a historic agreement, and it’s a statement which tries to give perspective about the whys of the past, the hows of the past, and it is an effort to build understanding from the perspective of somebody who has grown up in a home which always supported the National Party since its inception in 1914, and to build understanding-how that part played, in the end, a constructive role, and tried to rectify the mistakes that it had made.
I hope also, that those who read it will understand how unfair it is, to compare apartheid, with all its faults, which I don’t try to justify in the book, but to compare apartheid with Nazism and the like. There was never genocide in South Africa. I make a case in the book, that notwithstanding the fundamental flaws in our policies, which we were not unique in having, we just carried on somewhat longer than the rest of the world. It was also prevalent in America, it was prevalent throughout the world. But how that should not be compared with ruthless oppression, how even though it had those flaws, how a lot of good things were done?universities were built, there was growth in democracy, multiparty democracy was established in the hearts of minds of black people, who participated in many elections, which was not recognized. So, all of it was not bad, and the intentions behind it was, with all its flaws, not to continuously suppress, not to keep people down for the sake of bringing people down, but to find a way of bringing justice to them, while maintaining what was regarded as also just for us.
SJIR: Do you think it would have been possible to end apartheid earlier than you did?De Klerk:Apartheid was ended?that’s a process?so I don’t claim that just I did it. I, yes, I did the final thing, of clearing the standard which finally, and of rectifying the biggest wrong, namely, not having a vote of equal value between all South Africans. But my predecessor did a lot, many of my colleagues over a period did a lot, but to do it much earlier, I don’t think would have been possible. When the Communist threat was as strong as it was, it wasn’t possible. Before the ANC started to indicate, also through Mandela, that they were ready to talk, I think it would have been very very difficult for any leader, without fatal loss of support, to embark upon the final programs which I embarked upon. But the falling of the Berlin Wall, the implosion of Communism as a real threat, hand-in-hand with progress which had been made behind the scenes to prepare the seed for negotiation, brought us to a point where the timing was right.
SJIR: How do you want South Africa to see your place in its history?De Klerk:I have been asked that question so many times and given a few different replies, I hope they don’t militate against each other! I would prefer to let historians define that role, and not to try to. I would hope that I will be remembered as somebody who, together with others, at a crucial time in our history, prevented a catastrophe, helped to save the lives of hundred of thousands of people, and made a difference which brought hope and opportunity to all the people of South Africa.