Historian Professor Samuel Huntington, author of such books as The Clash of Civilisations and Political Order in Changing Societies.
I was frankly amazed to read the downright untrue and unethical opinion article, “When PW Botha listened to the Harvard man”, written by Sazi Bongwe about the late Professor Samuel Huntington and published in the Mail & Guardian on 3 March. The writer’s branding of Huntington as a “villain of apartheid”, of the same ilk as colonial architect Cecil John Rhodes, is downright mean and slanderous which begs an apology to Huntington’s world-renowned legacy as a political scientist .
Bongwe appears to use Huntington’s article as the main source of his conclusion that the latter advised Botha, asserting that “during the 1980s, a decade of deadly state-sanctioned violence, Huntington served as an unofficial advisor to Botha’s government’’. This is a downright and malicious lie. I knew Huntington well and can vouch that he never served in any capacity as advisor of Botha or his government.
In 1985, I was a visiting fellow at the Centre for International Affairs in Cambridge, headed by Huntington, and became friends with him and his charming wife Nancy. In 1981, in my capacity as president of the South African Political Science Association, Huntington accepted my invitation to deliver the key-note address at the association’s conference in Johannesburg on the topic “Reform and stability in South Africa”. His paper was subsequently published in Politikon (SA Journal of Political Science) and the American journal International Security in 1982.
In subsequent years, Huntington visited South Africa on various occasions, inter alia, to receive an honorary doctorate at the University of Johannesburg. During these visits, he never had professional contact with ministers or officials, and, most importantly, never with PW Botha, specifically not in an advisory capacity. Huntington said of himself: “It is obviously beyond the skill of a social scientist, particularly one that is not South African, to suggest the issues, tactics, resources and appeals that might be used … that is the job of South African political leadership.”
In his article, Huntington scientifically and convincingly proved that the apartheid policy was doomed to inevitable failure. Indeed, had Botha followed his advice, as falsely asserted, he would have aborted the policy. What Huntington did, in a masterful scientific and non-prescriptive way, was to clarify the issues, identify the options and shibboleths the reformer must deal with to move from apartheid to democracy, based on the underlying notion that apartheid was unsustainable.
In search of evidence to smear Huntington as a “villain of apartheid’’, the article cherry-picks quotes without understanding its underpinning scientific thrust and rationale, which is broadly a comparative cross-country empirical analysis of reform strategies and tactics from Niccolò Machiavelli and Mustafa Atatürk to the present.
Bongwe asserts that Huntington was a proponent of consociational democracy in South Africa. This is incorrect. In his article, Huntington observes that “what the theorists labelled ‘consociational democracy’ is, in short, nothing of the sort; it is more appropriately designated ‘consociational oligarchy’”. He concluded: “The days of minority-dominated vertical multi-ethnic societies are numbered.”
No doubt, Botha’s advisors must have read the Huntington article, but obviously did not follow his advice as Bongwe asserts. I have personal experience of the government’s resistance towards outside advice to introduce an inclusive multi-ethnic democracy as early as in the 1960s.
Another academic friend of mine, the late Harvard professor Roger Fisher — a White House advisor on negotiations and co-author of the best-seller Getting to Yes — offered his free services to assist the South African government’s negotiations. In a meeting I had about the offer with Pik Botha, Gerrit Viljoen and Fanie van der Merwe, Fisher’s offer was dismissed. “We will do our own thing” concluded Van der Merwe, a major government negotiator.
For the same reason, the advice of professor Arend Lijphart — the main theoretical proponent of consociational democracy and visiting South Africa on various occasions in the 1980s and 1990s — was ignored by the government. In a meeting I had with former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev when I was ambassador to Russia, he suggested to me that South Africa should involve the backing of the UN in the transformation process from apartheid to democracy, with Russian support. Pretoria did not react to this offer.
It is understandable that the government was under great pressure to find a negotiated settlement with the black majority. Proverbially being between a rock and a hard place, it had no choice as it was absolutely clear that the black majority would not settle for anything less than majoritarianism. A Westminster majoritarian system of democracy, based on a good constitution and under the wise leadership of Nelson Mandela, was opted for. But after Mandela passed the baton, things went horribly wrong — mainly because of incompetent governance and corrupt leadership.
With knowledge of political theory and historical case studies, the mess that followed Mandela was predictable. Right from the start, the NP government’s amateurish negotiators were notoriously outwitted by the ANC. Guided by the expertise and wisdom of intellectuals, things might have turned out for the better. As Huntington commented, “the political processes by which South Africa could move from the existing repressive political system to a different, more inclusive system have not received comparable treatment”.
In his 1982 article, Huntington stated that to know precisely where one is going is perhaps less important than to know clearly how one can get there.
In a sense, fundamental change in South Africa appears to be waiting for its Vladimir Lenin (without endorsing Lenin) — for intense attention to the strategy and tactics of reform comparable to that which Lenin devoted to the strategy and tactics of revolution.
In conclusion, to brand Huntington as a “villain of apartheid” is utterly mean, false and slanderous.
Gerrit Olivier is emeritus professor of the University of Pretoria and South Africa’s first ambassador to Russia and Kazakhstan.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Mail & Guardian.