FW de Klerk is reflection of a country he loved

It will be a long while yet before history can pass definitive judgment on FW de Klerk, South Africa’s last white head of state, who died yesterday from cancer at his home in Cape Town.

Since he presided over the conclusion of the process which led to South Africa’s first democratic election in 1994, views on De Klerk have changed markedly – and will, no doubt, change again.

In the beginning, he was uncritically heralded by many at home and by the majority of the international community as a brave politician who linked hands with his erstwhile enemy, ANC leader Nelson Mandela, to dismantle apartheid.

Such was the legend of the two men as saviours of South Africa that they were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in December 1993.

That view of De Klerk – and indeed of Mandela and the whole liberation process – was, however, simplistic. The truth, which is still hotly debated, is far more nuanced.

With the passage of time, the image of De Klerk as peacemaker has declined and, ironically, he has attracted critics – and enemies – from both ends of the political and race spectrum.

ALSO READ: Ramaphosa commends De Klerk’s courage, but no clarity on state funeral?

For whites, the man they regarded as the Moses who would lead them to the promised land of peace and prosperity and away from civil war, is now more and more being labelled a sell-out by conservative whites.

These people look at the mess of present-day South Africa and ask openly whether what De Klerk did was worth it.

On the other side, Africans who see insufficient real change in economic power and wealth distribution feel De Klerk was instrumental in ensuring that a version of the apartheid status quo remained, through the fact that ANC leaders were coopted to neoliberal ways or seduced by corruption.

There is also no denying that atrocities at the hand of the security forces continued to happen under De Klerk’s watch… although he did begin the process of tackling some of more secret security units.

Also, when the history books come to be rewritten with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps De Klerk will lose some of his lustre as the politician who ended the policies of separate development and segregation.

That’s because the reality is that De Klerk took the reins of an organisation – the National Party – which had, many years previously, realised the need for fundamental political change… and even accepted the inevitability of majority rule.

This was a party far less verkramp, or politically conservative, than many both inside and outside the country believed. That line is, sadly, often dismissed by people who take a stereotypical view of the Nats and Afrikaners, who were the main supporters of the party.

ALSO READ: ‘If De Klerk gets a state funeral, we must disrupt it,’ says Pearl Thusi

De Klerk, however, when confronted in later years around issues like security force brutalities and the failure of the systems put in place (like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission) to ensure justice for victims, steadfastly refused to apologise.

That recalcitrance is seen by his critics – and by many blacks – as emblematic of the refusal of the white sector of society to at least understand the evils of apartheid, even if they won’t go so far as to make reparations.

De Klerk is – because his image lives on – a man very much of his times and very much a reflection of the country he undoubtedly loved dearly.

And whatever else he may or may not have done, let us not forget he played a major role in averting a bloodbath in South Africa.