[ad_1]
On Thursday, the last leader of apartheid, Frederik Willem de Klerk, was killed and sparked a national dialogue between South Africans about his life and heritage.
Praise and support for De Klerk, who was president of South Africa during the transition from white minority to democracy, have been silenced in the country, not only because of his connection to apartheid, but also because of his many shortcomings as a statesman.
In the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, “Mr. De Klerk could have gone down in history as a great South African statesman, but he eroded his height and became a small man without greatness and spiritual generosity.”
During his presidency (1989-1994) and when he was Nelson Mandela’s vice president (1994-1996), De Klerk had the opportunity to shape the views of his white compatriots, raise the voice of black South Africans, and lead the way. The mission of building a democratic South Africa. Instead, he repeatedly chose to lie during his time in political power. Instead of considering the past, they tried to avoid De Klerk and the white politicians he led. As a result, De Klerk became a historical footnote.
Although he released Mandela and other political prisoners in 1990 and banned the liberation movements and their affiliates, De Klerk was a reluctant reformer. After losing the election against Mandela in 1994, he became vice president of his national unity government. Although he held a senior position in the government led by Mandela, De Kler could not accept his role in the violence against black South Africans during the apartheid era.
Instead of being clear, he lied to the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which was formed in 1996 after the new democratic government came to power. Led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the commission’s goal was to investigate apartheid human rights violations, including killings, kidnappings and enforced disappearances.
De Klerk could use his appearance at the TRC to show his commitment to creating a new society based on the values he received when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 along with Nelson Mandela. Instead, he stressed that “it has never been the policy of the government [or] That the National Party must kill people. ”
Subsequently, apartheid police officers who killed civilians and activists accused them of committing these killings, unknowingly and without permission, and without the knowledge of senior government officials. He said low-level white officers had become cunning and were using the TRC to “pass their heads” to their bosses now that apartheid was over. He then added:[I] stand by our security forces that have implemented it [apartheid] policies and decisions and all their meaningful interpretations ”.
It was a very disappointing performance, and one that lost a great deal of respect, among those who hoped it would play a role in white apartheid and the transition to democracy.
The testimony of the former leader set the pattern for the appearances of other major white leaders. The generals closed the lines and the white political leaders boycotted and ruined the procedure. In the end, of course, these denials and lies did not prevent the TRC from revealing at least part of the truth. A recent report by the commission made it clear that De Kler and his generals knew and authorized attempts to kill and injure anti-apartheid activists.
Although he was in the right place at the right time in 1990, his inability to fulfill the subsequent transition period honestly and honestly quickly overcame the impulses of the South African transition and was overtaken by political opponent Nelson Mandela. Three years after the 1994 democratic elections, De Klerk left the government. He never regained his political base and gave up trying to manage how he would remember most of the democratic era.
How the former leader’s concern would be remembered came to light this week in its entirety. On Thursday, just hours after his patron died, the De Klerk Foundation released a video statement recorded by De Klerk shortly before his death.
In a message saying it would be his “last,” De Kler apologized again for apartheid, saying he had always sought not only to “accept the wrongdoing of apartheid,” but to “take great measures to ensure negotiation.” and a new dispensation that can bring justice to all ”.
Many saw the video as De Klerk’s latest attempt to position himself as a man who played a key role in the birth of a new nation.
As his time approached, he seemed disappointed to prove that he had played a major role in the still-expanding story of South Africa. Instead, the clip confirmed what many already suspected: that De Klerk was just an unaffected actor on the side of South African history.
Nelson Mandela came to this conclusion many years ago. In the Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela gave De Klerk a kind of political preventive obituary, writing: “Despite seemingly progressive actions, Mr. de Klerk was by no means a great emancipator. He did not make his own reforms with the intention of excluding him from power. He did them for just the opposite reason: in a new dispensation to guarantee power to Africans. ”
With his characteristic frankness, Mandela refused to give the former apartheid leader a state of grandeur, denying De Klerk the praises he so clearly wanted. At death, as in life, the last president of apartheid overcame South Africa’s first Black, heavy and shady.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
[ad_2]
Source link
