South Africa faced another 10 to 15 years of violence from “elements on the right and the left”, President FW de Klerk predicted during his visit to the United States.
The sombre forecast was one of several intriguing glimpses into the minds of De Klerk and African National Congress president Nelson Mandela during their contest for the hearts and minds of the American people this month. Both were in the US to receive the Liberty Medal from President Bill Clinton for their contributions to the development of democracy in South Africa.
De Klerk told reporters in Washington on July 2 that the violence would emanate from whites resisting the transfer of power to blacks, and from black seeking to avenge decades of indignity at the hands of white fellow countrymen. He sought to balance his forecast, however, with the assertion that South Africans would ride the storm ahead. Violence would be confined to the “lunatic fringe”, and South Africa’s fundamental stability would remain intact.
For his part, Mandela disclosed to interviewers in Atlanta, Georgia, that he had offered quietly to come to terms with far-right Afrikaners seeking regional autonomy in a restructured South Africa, and that he was awaiting a response. He also revealed that when he emerged from prison in 1900, Inkatha’s Mangosuthu Buthelezi and De Klerk proposed that the three of them “should form a troika (of their political parties) … which should decide the political agenda for the country”. He added: “I, of course, totally rejected that.”
Elaborating on the deal the deal he envisioned with what he called “the growing ultra-right movement”, Mandela said it could count on “the loyalty of a substantial section of the civil service, of the police and the army”, all well-trained, highly literate and militarily sophisticated. The ANC sympathised with and considered “quite reasonable” their demand for their own region after more than three centuries of power, he said. But their demand for self-determination would be infectious with Buthelezi and nine homelands joining in.
Mandela went on: “So what I have said to them is: ‘Don’t talk about the right of self-determination for the Afrikaner, because that we’re not going to do. But you must quietly work out a map. Tell us what region you would like and give it to us without making a noise … and we will see whether we can compromise with you —’ “Because in any case regions are going to be created. We would like, therefore, within that policy, to accommodate them.”
This was vintage Mandela, displaying the moderation and reasonableness which White House officials, speaking privately, said they envied — even if it risked the wrath of Mandela’s followers back home. Recognising that risk, the ANC leader was careful to balance his public utterances by assailing his opponents. He branded De Klerk, for instance, the leader of “an illegitimate and discredited” regime, even while acknowledging he needed the president as much as the president needed him to achieve their shared aim of an elected non-racial democratic government.
Mandela dismissed Buthelezi, whose sense of insecurity, he said, had diminished the role he had played in the struggle against apartheid and who was insisting on a form of-statehood now “because he knows that when it comes to elections he might be wiped out”. It was inevitable, then, that the attention of the White House, the Congress and the media would be focused more on Mandela than on De Klerk.
Mandela won the headlines not only because of his charismatic past; he also seemed better able to identify the ANC’s struggle for rights with the heroes of the American revolution than De Klerk was able to do. De Klerk sought to shrug off the pot-shots aimed at him by declining to indulge in what he called “petty politics”.
Despite disavowals by De Klerk’s office, US officials say there was undoubtedly concern in the De Klerk camp at what was perceived to be the Clinton administration’s attitude towards him. It was no accident that America’s First Lady, Hillary Clinton, did not pick up the suggestion by the South African embassy in Washington that she meet Marike de Klerk. There were areas, however, where the two leaders were seen to be working together in South Africa’s broader interests — notably in their separate exchanges with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and with the administration itself about future funding and credits needed to uplift the country’s economy.
But, here again, the initiative seemed to rest with Mandela, who withheld a call for the final removal of sanctions until total agreement on the formation of a Transitional Executive Council (TEC) had been negotiated in Johannesburg. Mandela again laid the onus on De Klerk. He cited the president’s intervention in the selection of the SABC board, arguing that he wanted to ensure this would not be repeated in composing membership of the TEC.
In his proclaimed mission of raising $43-million for the ANC’s voter education and electoral programmes, Mandela exposed himself and his organization to some political dangers. A British diplomat observed: ‘There is a fine line between educating voters and campaigning for votes. If charitable bodies or corporations donate funds for voter education, and then discover those finds are being used for political purposes, they could be in trouble.
And the ANC, too, could be accused of misusing those donations if they have come from tax-exempt groupings. The ANC ought to watch out.” In his fundraising swing through seven US cities, Mandela was not accorded the hero’s welcome he received after his emergence from jail in 1990. Nor did he expect it — his quest was purely for financial backing.
The ANC estimates it needs something like R140-million –about half for its voter education programme and the rest for electoral campaigning. The infrastructure being developed for voter education is intended also to serve its electioneering activities. But his drive for money won the backing of many famed American figures in business, politics, entertainment.
Corporations ranging from Coca-Cola to HJ Heinz and Sony Pictures also participated. In the UK this week, a parallel fund-raising operation began with a full-page advertisement in The Guardian at a cost of about R45 000. The aim is to raise about R5-million.