The demise of Africa’s last White statesman, Frederik Willem de Klerk, aged 85, closes a chequered chapter on the controversial colonial-apartheid era that dominated South Africa until the 1990s.
However, in death the last Afrikaner president has been credited for playing a key role in creating democracy with his successor, Nelson Mandela, while being criticised for falling far short of unequivocally apologising for apartheid rule. Unknown to the outside world, De Klerk met Mandela secretly under the cover of darkness at the president’s office in Tuynhuis in December 1989 – which later became President Mandela’s office in 1994. This one-on-one ‘indaba’ set the political pace for the often tense negotiations between the lead negotiators, Nats and ANC, and attended by a conference of parties that hammered out a coalition-styled, multi-party government of national unity and the opening of the first constitutionally democratic parliament.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has recognised De Klerk’s role in “dismantling apartheid”, but his olive branch for honouring him with a state funeral has been side-stepped as the FW de Klerk Foundation said the veteran politician will be cremated at a private ceremony on Sunday. Two clear strands of comments have emerged in the wake of the peaceful death of the cancer-stricken politician at his home in Fresnaye; an affluent suburb between Signal Hill and Sea Point in Cape Town. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer that struck the lining of the lungs, and he received immunotherapy for his crippling illness. Mixed reaction is interspersed between condemning de Klerk for not fully apologising for the apartheid crimes – accused of “having blood on his hands” for the killings and bombings of hundreds of activists; and hailing the statesman for dismantling a half-century of apartheid rule and setting a deeply racialised country on the road to non-racialism, human rights and democracy – for which he and Mandela were rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize. Attempts by the likes of the EFF’s Dali Mpofu to lobby for de Klerk to be stripped of the Nobel Peace Prize have fallen flat – at least now that he has died.
Hours after the passing away of FW de Klerk on Thursday, when TV and radio stations – here and abroad – broke the news, local commentators and social media users went into overdrive on the various digital platforms, with many condemning apartheid’s last head of state for the “war crimes” against people of colour – particularly the political persecution of Black, Indian and Coloured people, and the decades of the deaths of many activists by right-wing death squads. On the flip-side of public commentary, South Africans have paid tribute to the former National Party leader and credited him for his courage in releasing Mandela from prison, unbanning the outlawed ANC and other anti-apartheid activists and formations. But de Klerk, in death, is receiving the short end of the stick. His apartheid apology from the grave – South Africans would have been more forgiving if he had accepted the United Nations’ ‘resolution’ in the 1970s that declared apartheid as a crime against humanity: “Genocide is a crime against humanity, not apartheid,” de Klerk insisted until the very end. He told Ramaphosa that he was unaware of the UN declaration, which later triggered the global sanctions, isolation and boycott of apartheid SA.
However, in defending his role and credibility, de Klerk said his leadership in ending legal segregation and unlocking the prison doors was “conscience-driven”: “Our conscience said we must rectify the wrongs of the past. We had the strongest army in Africa, we could have carried on, but Mandela and I agreed that we had to negotiate. Apartheid was morally unjustified. There is a fallacy that I did not apologise, we did something about it, the new SA is a constitutional state which is the highest law of the land.” In 1996, his appearance at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) fell short of apologising on behalf of the National Party for the apartheid atrocities, history and heritage. Mandela’s lawyer, Krish Naidoo, said the statesman’s legacy would always have two interpretations: “De Klerk did not speak openly and honestly at the TRC. It will remain unanswered whether he released Mandela and allowed a negotiated settlement because of his own goodwill or the end of the Cold War, or whether the people’s struggle and the unsustainability of apartheid compelled him to do so will always remain unanswered.”
Fawzia Peer, Durban’s former ANC deputy mayor and councillor, said de Klerk’s “role in the miraculous and peaceful transition” deserved recognition: “Those that disagree were probably too young to understand our critical situation then. De Klerk had single-handedly broke the camel’s back without the support of his die-hard, right-wing Afrikaner blocs. He was pragmatic and respected Mandela’s peace initiatives towards creating a new, equal society.” Activist-educator, Spider Juggernath, was scathing and believed that de Klerk’s speech from his death-bed would have been welcomed if he announced that apartheid was indeed a crime against humanity: “His proceeds as leader of apartheid should be used to uplift the needy families whose family members were assassinated by his death squads and his foundation should be turned into a new board to promote non-racialism and democracy.” TV and radio presenter and author, Joanne Joseph, said de Klerk’s death reminded her of her documentary on the Cradock Four – the brutal slaying of the anti-apartheid activists by apartheid agents in 1985.
