By Prof Angelo Dube
The second week of November was quite hectic in South Africa. Amidst the drama and theatrics of coalition negotiations amongst South Africa’s political parties came the news of the deaths of Zulu regiment leader Mgilija Nhleko (may his soul rest in peace) and that of Frederic Willem de Klerk – South Africa’s last apartheid president. It is the death of the latter, the perpetrator of the crime against humanity called apartheid that has animated me in this opinion piece.
FW de Klerk’s past as a politician who served, pledged loyalty to, agreed with and provided leadership to the apartheid regime in South Africa is well documented, I need not repeat it here. That he was the last apartheid president and as such gave up power to a democratically elected president, former president Nelson Mandela is also common knowledge. But this is not something to be celebrated. De Klerk did what the regime would have eventually done anyway – at some point, the torture, murder, rape, and subjugation of black people would have had to stop. That evil would not have continued ad infinitum. Following de Klerk’s demise there were sentiments that he did a noble thing when he ‘handed over power to Mandela’. That is a very disturbing sentiment, for it portrays de Klerk as a good-hearted teddy bear, who unilaterally decided to break ranks with the National Party and recognize the humanity of Afrikans and all non-white persons. It casts de Klerk as a humanitarian who could not bear to see the suffering of the black population at the hands of the National Party Government and took matters to his own hands. Again this narrative which places the superior white male saviour at the centre of the existence of the Afrikan rears its ugly head in this positive portrayal of a man who sanctioned the killing, economic exclusion, land deprivation, and enforced impoverishment of many non-whites. With the Cold War over and sanctions severely affecting the apartheid regime, there was no other way out but to negotiate with the very people the regime had oppressed for so many decades.
This saviour narrative has no scintilla of truth in it. De Klerk was no saint, nor was he a caring, benevolent leader of an otherwise racist regime. In fact he occupied the same position as Germany’s Adolf Hitler, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Belgium’s King Leopold and Swaziland’s King Mswati III – all of these individuals committed crimes against humanity at a grand scale. Perhaps those who push this sanitazied narrative about de Klerk must draw inspiration from the Nguni proverb Ikhiwane elihle ligcwala izibungu translated to mean ‘the nice fig is often full of worms’. It is essentially a warning to those who overly focus on the perceived goodness of a person, ignoring the untold suffering they visited upon fellow human beings.
Two things will add to the generational trauma that South Africa is refusing to deal with: (1) de Klerk’s denial that apartheid was a crime against humanity (2) the fact that he lived his life peacefully to the ripe old age of 85 without the South African justice system molesting him for his part in playing Hitler to thousands of Afrikans.
Media reports that circulated soon after his death indicated that his PR Team had released a video. Although I personally refuse to listen to a dead man’s supposed apology, if these reports are to be trusted, this was de Klerk’s attempt to apologise for his role in peddling apartheid. The fact that the video was designed to be a post-humous apology is at best laughable. At worst, it should be seen as the insult it is, a mockery, a middle finger to all who were negatively affected by apartheid in one way or another. Indeed those who were positively impacted upon by apartheid will brand us as unforgiving, ungrateful for the daring and sacrificial act of de Klerk ‘handing over power to Mandela’.
The fact that de Klerk could not, whilst alive, speak to the nation and acknowledge that the government he led, whose policies he designed and approved, broke this nation is testament to his disdain for anything black. To him these were not humans, and as such, a crime against humanity could not have been committed. Which is why he was on record denying that apartheid was a crime against humanity. After much public outcry, with the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) demanding that he be removed from a parliamentary session he had attended after that callous statement, de Klerk pretended to offer an ‘apology’. He attempted to retract his statement and to ‘apologise’ for the confusion, anger and hurt that it has caused’. De Klerk’s denialist stance persisted despite the United Nations having declared apartheid a crime against humanity through the UN Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The EFF later laid criminal charges against him, but the matter was never taken forward by the prosecuting authority. A similar fate befell the 23 criminal charges laid against de Klerk and his then minister of law and order, Adriaan Vlok in 2016. Attempts to get the National Prosecuting Authority to prosecute de Klerk for, amongst others, complicity in the 1985 murder of the Cradock Four – Matthew Goniwe, Fort Calata, Sparrow Mkhonto and Sicelo Mhlauli also did not yield any fruit.
This could explain why in many quarters across the country, people were generally either not bothered or extremely happy that a perpetrator of grave crimes was no more. There were reports of celebrations held in Cape Town and other places. The emotions of those celebrating can be understood – even the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Hitler, both international law delinquents – were celebrated.
There is one more reason why people would celebrate de Klerk’s demise. For years attempts were made to offer de Klerk his day in court, where he could have proved his innocence. De Klerk’s death has robbed all victims of his brutality a chance to actually hear the truth and to see the perpetrator punished. The actions of those celebrating his death are not necessarily new. Similar celebratory expressions online were seen within the white community when Winnie Mandela and Zindzi Mandela died. The ‘de Klerk is dead’ celebrations are testimony that South Africa remains a scarred nation, whose long road to healing will require more from the politicians in charge of this country – and that superficial references such as the so-called ‘rainbow nation will not cure the nation’s generational trauma.
About the Author:
Prof Angelo Dube is a full professor of international law at the University of South Africa. He is currently the Acting Director of the School of Law within the College of Law. He is also the CEO of the Afrikan Peer Growth Network. Prof Dube researches and publishes in the areas of international law, the law of war, comparative constitutionalism and aviation law.