FW de Klerk’s integrity left at the TRC

In the ’90s Nelson Mandela came in for a lot of criticism from his comrades for calling the recently deceased FW de Klerk a “man of integrity”.

Even as far back as 30 years ago, people on the opposite side of the 66 political divide found it problematic that the man who was the last state president of apartheid South Africa could be described as a man of integrity by a man of the stature of Nelson Mandela.

Mandela was quick to point out that he referred to De Klerk’s integrity in so far as keeping to his word, doing exactly what he said he would do.

Mandela’s comrades disagreed because they didn’t believe that De Klerk was “honest” or had “strong moral principles”.

The debates raging over De Klerk’s legacy are not helped by the fact that he chose to leave a recorded speech to be released after his death in which he apologised to the victims of apartheid.

It is quite telling that he chose to record a video offering a generalised apology when he had given an apology at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on behalf of the National Party.

ALSO READ: De Klerk qualifies for a state funeral, but he doesn’t deserve one, says Thembi Nkadimeng

It could be a sign that, on some level, even he agreed with his detractors that he had missed an opportunity at the TRC to genuinely apologise for apartheid and its atrocities.

The release of the video just after his death, clearly shows that the former deputy president in Nelson Mandela’s government wanted to play a huge role in controlling the narrative around his legacy, even after his death.

It is not often that a political figure’s death causes strong reactions right across the political spectrum with right-wing political formations branding him a sell-out and some left wing politicians going as far as celebrating his
death.

De Klerk’s biggest concern (when he was still healthy and in control of the narrative) should have been “how do I live the rest of my life to ensure that I measure up to being a man of integrity”? Apartheid had happened.

He would have never been able to go back into the past to change his role there.

But the TRC had provided him with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that he could measure up to what people now accept to be the definition of integrity: what one does in private/secretly is not in conflict with the picture they present in public.

At the TRC, when asked if he knew of the murders that were taking place at Vlakplaas, his response was that neither he, nor the generals in the police force knew about those murders.

According to him it was a few policemen gone rogue. It is for this response that white rightwing formations loathed De Klerk.

WATCH: FW de Klerk speaks from the dead, apologises for apartheid’s pain

Yes, some felt he sold out on a land they consider their birth right and despised him for that – but it was his half-hearted apology for apartheid that was underpinned by their having to shoulder all the blame for the atrocities while he shone and was rewarded with the Nobel Prize for Peace that made him not a man of integrity.

He missed a genuine chance to say to black people (within the protection of the TRC): “I was a part of the State Security Council that did all the dirty work for the apartheid state.”

Of course, granular details would have been required of him but that, the courage it would have taken, would have ensured that he would see no need to try and rescue his legacy with a deathbed video.