Dan Snow's History Hit - The Complicated Legacy of F W de Klerk

Episode Date: November 28, 2021

The result of his complicated legacy, the death of South Africa's last apartheid president, F W de Klerk, on November 11 2021 generated a flood of differing assessments. De Klerk wrote himself into the history of South Africa on February 2 1990, when he announced the unbanning of the African National Party (ANC) and other liberation movements, as well as the release of Nelson Mandela from prison. While this set South Africa on the path of reform, De Klerk’s failure to break free of apartheid thinking was evident throughout the years that would follow.To arrive at a rounded, fact-based understanding of De Klerk’s place in history, Dan is joined by “Mac” Maharaj. Mac has been involved in the freedom struggle since 1952. After serving a twelve-year sentence on Robben Island from 1965-1976, he was appointed secretary of the department charged with organising the ANC within South Africa. Mac served alongside De Klerk in the first democratic cabinet, led by Mandela. As joint secretary of the Multi-Party Negotiating Forum and the Transitional Executive Council, Mac was directly involved in the negotiations that produced the transition from apartheid to democracy.Mac is the co-author of the upcoming Breakthrough: The Struggles and Secret Talks that Brought Apartheid SA to the Negotiating Table

Hi everybody, welcome to Dan Snow's History Hit. On the 11th of November 2021, Frederick Willem de Klerk, F.W. de Klerk, the last white president of South Africa, died in Cape Town. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for his part in the process of transition from white apartheid rule, minority rule, to majority rule democracy in South Africa. He then served under Nelson Mandela as deputy president from 1994 to 1996. How should we think about this man? How should we think about a career that saw him presiding over a white supremacist state, but also one that involved eventually talking to, compromising with his former enemies and putting

South Africa on the path to democracy. I was very, very lucky in this podcast. I got to talk to a legend of the freedom struggle, Mack Maharaj. He was in prison alongside Nelson Mandela on Robben Island. He was involved in secret negotiations with F.W. de Klerk's team in the 1980s, early 1990s, and that's an experience he's written a book about, Breakthrough, the struggles and secret talks that brought apartheid South Africa to the negotiating table. It's a real, real pleasure to talk to Mac. He's as fascinating about the past as he is about the present and future, as you'll hear. I really enjoyed this. I hope you will too. If you enjoy listening to these podcasts,

you might want to check others out. If you want to listen to them without the ads, and I can understand why, lots of ads around at the moment, you can go to History Hit TV where we've got a TV channel. We've got hundreds of documentaries on there. We've got thousands of podcasts.

It's all there. You just go to historyhit.tv and because it is Black Friday, you use the code BLACKFRIDAY, in which case you ruin me. I'm in penury. I'm it is Black Friday, you use the code BLACKFRIDAY, in which case you ruin me. I'm in penury. I'm working for nothing here, guys. But it's worth it for the Black Friday tradition. This ancient tradition stemming from just a couple of years ago of people going mad on this weekend every year. Black Friday, all one word, gets you six months of History Hit TV,

the world's best history channel, for half price, six months for half price. You will be spending a couple of dollars, a couple of pounds, a couple of euros, wherever you are in the world listening to this, it works. If you listen to this, History Hit TV works in that place where you're at. And so just for a couple of whatever local currency you're using, you get History Hit TV, the world's best history channel, and you can watch the mega adventures that we've got planned for next year. Let me tell you, it's going to be a ride. So go over there and use Black Friday. In the meantime, here's the brilliant Mac Maharaj talking about F.W. Clarke. Enjoy. Mac, thank you very much for coming on the podcast.

What did you think when you were a political prisoner and you're in Robben Island? De Klerk, what did you make of him back then? De Klerk didn't occupy any space on my horizon at that time. I was in prison from 1964 to 1976. At that time on the political landscape, he was hardly featured as a figure. The person who featured was his father, who had been a National Party member for 12 years and had ended his political career as the President of the Senate in the all-white parliament. So de Klerk had come into politics in the wake of his father,

no great waves, hardly noticed as a political figure, and rose steadily to become a minister in the cabinet, but made no waves on the political scene. Let's just talk briefly about his dad then. Did you hate his father? Was it personal for you? What was the feeling of you and your comrades in prison watching and reading about these men that were responsible for your incarceration and the injustice of apartheid? We hated a system, Dan. We didn't hate individuals. So when we looked at the leadership of the National Party, which was governing and the architect of apartheid, what we hated is what they had created.

I had endured torture at the hands of their security branch. And even there, I do not recall a sense of hatred. Lord Joffe, I wrote a preface to his book on the Rivonia trial, and Lord Joffe asked me, how come you didn't hate him? How come you admired one of your torturers? I said, I did so because of his expertise in reading my mind when he was torturing me. For that, I respected him. But for what he represented, I disagreed totally.

So that didn't enter. Yes, we were pained by the conditions we were living in. But Mandela said a profound thing when he walked out of jail. He was asked by Bill Clinton, how did you feel? Why were you not bitter? Mandela said that as he walked out, he realized that if he still was going to hold bitterness, then he would still be in prison. So he freed himself by not having hatred for individuals. When de Klerk became the head of the National Party in the late 80s, was there a sense after Botha had resigned, was there hope there for you? Did you think this is a new generation? after Botha had resigned.

Was there hope there for you? Did you think this is a new generation? There may be some movement in their intransigent opposition to black freedom in South Africa. He became the leader of the National Party in 1989 when the then leader, P.W. Botha, had a stroke. And he did not even feature amongst the candidates who were expected to be the leader of the party in that way. But he became the leader and he was known to be an arch conservative.

So what he demonstrated to me, and I was in the underground within the country at that time, was a deep understanding of the machinations within the National Party and of the white constituency. That was his strength. He was able to manipulate that system and of the white constituency. That was his strength. He was able to manipulate that system and rise to its leadership. So when he became a leader, what was there in our minds, and certainly in my mind, was an open question, because at that moment, the apartheid system was already in crisis. Why was it in crisis?

What was changing in the lateships. Soldiers in uniform armed with guns were occupying classrooms to teach our kids. That's the first element. The second element was that that movement within the country had come to accept the leadership of the ANC and its guidance. The third element was the place of the international community. The anti-apartheid movement, which had its origins in Britain, had become a worldwide movement such that there was pressure in the United States against the Reagan presidency to enforce sanctions against South Africa. And against Reagan's veto, Congress passed the AAA Comprehensive Sanctions Bill.

In Britain, Margaret Thatcher, who had been anti-ANC and called it a terrorist, was forced to accept, through the Commonwealth structures and the pressure of British people, that she could not withstand the call for sanctions and the pressure of British people that she could not withstand the call for sanctions and the release of Mandela. So there was this movement taking place as a world. And it was now saying that friends of the apartheid system in the form of Britain, United States and other Western powers were no longer prepared to go along with it. no longer prepared to go along with it. That was the pincer movement that made apartheid unsustainable. And when de Klerk came to power, that was the challenge he faced. I'm so interested in de Klerk, a little bit like whether it's de Gaulle in France or maybe Ariel

Sharon in Israel. Is it easier to make concessions? Is it easier to make peace if you have a reputation as a hard man, a man of the right? That's an interesting question, because sometimes when I look at conflicts around the world, I begin to feel that, yes, it doesn't matter who's in power. What you have to understand is the social forces within that country and externally, and to realize that who are the people who are in power, who are ready to begin to read the writing on the wall. And I think that de Klerk's strength was that he read that writing correctly. He realized that you could not sustain the system, you have to open the door to discussions and dialogue for a transition. In that context, we have to

understand his background, his past, and the extent to which his subsequent actions showed that he still remained a prisoner of his own past. In what respect do you think he ended up having to go much further than he wanted to? What do you think he was hoping he could get away with? When he entered negotiations, and I was the joint secretary of the negotiating process, his party stood for one thing, group rights. And that was an umbrella term under which they wanted each minority to have a veto power in any decision making in the new government. Under the guise of power sharing, it was a question of putting a veto within the system. Now, in the interim constitution, we agreed on a five-year period where there would be

an enforced coalition made up of all parties who gained more than 5% of the vote. This party got 20% of the votes, came into the government of national unity. But the moment we negotiated the full constitution, which was through a constitutional assembly of elected people by the country in 1996, and his party voted for it, one day later he walked out.

And he gave the reasons publicly. He said, because the new constitution does not continue the lifespan of joint decision making. That's the bridge he could not cross. And he could not cross it for interesting reasons, Dan, because he understood the white constituency. he understood the necessity for transition. What he did not accept and what he did not bring his constituency into was a democracy which would involve a transformation, addressing the inheritance of 350 years of colonial rule where the majority had no rights. Just to quickly go back a second, in 1990, he unbanned the ANC. Do you remember that moment?

Did that come as a surprise? No, by that time, the writing was on the wall. Correspondence between myself in the country and Oliver Tambo, the president of the ANC, had long indicated that we were anticipating this possibility. What he did in February 1990, which was a bit of a surprise, was the broad sweep of the measures he undertook. Not just the release of Mandela, undertaking to release all political prisoners, unbanning all political

organizations that had been banned in the past. And that broad sweep was clearly a decision that he took. And we have written about it now in a book that we published, showing that he had to ask himself, how do I get the moral high ground? And by that action, he wrote himself into the history of South Africa. We cannot ignore his action. It stays in the history book because it opened the path to a negotiated resolution of the South African conflict. Was he doing that for political contingency, or was he doing that because he believed that this was the right thing to do? I mean, how should we think about his legacy?

His own writings indicate a deep sense to persuade us that he had now changed and become a Democrat. But his actions post-94 belie that claim. I have shown you how even when the final constitution was agreed to by the delegates elected on the basis of universal suffrage. One day later, he walked out of the government of nationality on the grounds that the final constitution does not prolong joint decision-making. The second thing that puts a huge question mark on him is that we had agreed in the Constitution that there would be some mechanism for amnesty for people who were involved in atrocities during apartheid. We created the Truth and Reconciliation Act, but he never walked there into it with a mind of taking responsibility for the atrocities.

He let the blame stand on the foot soldiers. atrocities. He let the blame stand on the foot soldiers. He conducted himself in such a way that it prevented us South Africans, black and white, to have a common understanding of where we come from. And that is a grievous stain on his record. Those two acts, his failure to recognize apartheid was a crime against humanity, and his persistence in holding to joint decision-making and minority veto showed that he was a prisoner of his past. So he helped the transition, but he failed to cross the Rubicon that would take us to a democracy in which, by our constitution, it is necessary that we should transform our society to create one where each of us are equal to the other.

You're listening to Dan Snow's History. We're talking about F.W. de Klerk. More coming up. If you love ancient history, then don't worry. We've got you covered. I'm Tristan Hughes, host of The Ancient's podcast, the podcast for all things ancient history. And these are the only surviving boxing gloves from the Roman Empire, and the earliest surviving boxing gloves for over 1,600 years. So through this material, we're actually looking at this entangled sum

of hundreds and thousands, in fact, of stories of life across ancient Eurasia. Baths of Cleopatra. I had never come across any such thing before. Subscribe to The Ancients on History Hit wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Matt Lewis. And I'm Dr. Alan Orjanaga.

And in Gone Medieval, we get into the greatest mysteries. The gobsmacking details and latest groundbreaking research from the greatest millennium in human history. We're talking Vikings. Normans. Kings and popes. Who were rarely the best of friends. Murder, rebellions. And crusades. and popes. Who were rarely the best of friends. Murder. Rebellions.

And crusades. Find out who we really were. By subscribing to Gone Medieval from History Hit. Wherever you get your podcasts. So just coming back to the key negotiations in 1990 we're talking about how difficult is divine what he was really thinking do you think it was a lot in that case driven by he had no choice the white south africa was at the point of a crisis he had to make concessions yes i think i would go with you that he had to make concessions but Yes, I think I would go with you that he had to make concessions. But I think part of the reason is that the proposal that they were pursuing,

a white minority veto under the guise of power sharing, joint decision making, you name it, was indefensible before not only the South African people, it was indefensible before not only the South African people, it was indefensible before the world community because the ANC had piloted already under Thambo's leadership the Harare Declaration which was endorsed by the OAU and the United Nations which set out the goal of a negotiation to be a democracy based on one person, one vote. So those principles, when you put up group rights as a necessity in the system, group rights became

indefensible. So he had to bow to the necessity of the time. He had to bow to the pressure within the country. He had to bow to the pressure outside. And he had to bow to the arguments at the negotiating table. When he died so recently, do you think he accepted that apartheid was wrong? He recorded a video which was to be released after his death. It's an interesting act he took. The fact that he released it after his death showed a certain measure of halfness about it. But he accepted there unreservedly that apartheid was wrong. He just wouldn't cross over a little further

to say it was a crime against humanity, which was a decision and a position arrived at the UN. What's more interesting is that video indicates that he did want to control the content of his legacy. content of his legacy. But then, when you want to do that, you must understand that any person's legacy is determined not by the person himself or herself, but by the others. Secondly, you have to understand that what you say should be said while you are alive so that you can defend it against challenges. So, yes, I think that he was moving, but he was aware because of the release of that video after his death, he was aware how deeply flawed his legacy was. He has written himself into our history,

but he compromised that legacy, and he was trying to repair that compromise, that legacy. And he was trying to repair that compromise, but he could not just take that full measure that is needed. And why? Because it's understandable to me, Dan, in many ways, we remain influenced by our past. But at the same time, the shift in the world and social development comes with leaders who are able to understand the changing times and step into it wholeheartedly. I think he was a reluctant person, and I formulated it by saying he initiated and opened the transition, but he could not walk over into a transformed society founded on democracy as universally understood.

How should we think about today's South Africa? Are there things that he could have done and the parting white administration could have done to try and help the chances of a successful transition and a stronger, richer, happier South Africa into the future. What are the regrets that you have around that transition? I'm not a believer in delving into the ifs of history. Where I stand is I accept the reality, but I look at it to say, what are the fault lines in this current reality? to say what are the fault lines in this current reality? What could have shifted it differently? What needs to be shifted?

South Africa remains a deeply polarized society. And part of the thing is a sense in the white community that look, it's all over now. We are a free society. Fine, hunky-dory, let's go on and live our lives. They feel no responsibility for the deep wounds that were inflicted on the black community. The black community, on the other hand, feels shortchanged by the changes. It feels, how come the privileges still sit in one and the divide is still defined. If you look at inequality and you say in terms of which population group you find the black sitting in the unequal bottom pit.

So had he taken responsibility at the Truth Commission, we could have been in a very different society. We could have been in a common understanding of where we come from, but that's in the past. My issue now is to say to ourselves, what are we doing about it? How are we proceeding to build a one nation? How do we take into account that we were two communities living in one geographical space, living in one world, but operating in two universes? Now, the challenge for political leadership and social leaders is to grapple with that phenomenon, take what we have inherited and shape the future. take what we have inherited and shape the future.

That means dealing with inequality, that redressing the past, that means fighting racism in practical terms, not just in words. Life in South Africa is still divided. We live in separate geographical areas, even though we have tried to integrate so much. And it means fighting sexism and patriarchy. But it also means, crucially today, fighting corruption systemically and with a determined footstep so that you march forward. Now, those challenges we have to address. Diklak is past in our history. Take him for what he did as good and take the good from what he did and build on that and go forward.

Can I ask you one last question? While I've got you here, Mac, because you're a legend of the struggle, when you were an even younger man in Robben Island in the 1960s and 70s, looking forward to 2021, what did you think South Africa would be when you were back there and being tortured and imprisoned? I was like all freedom fighters. We have a huge, huge reservoir of idealism that drives us and makes us survive

all the hardships that go with the freedom fighter's role. So we dreamt of a South Africa which, in the 25 years, should be far beyond what it is today. But then, that's the nature of the challenges. I'm now 87 years old, but with all the mistakes that have taken place, my only concern is that we need to interrogate even the 25 years of democracy, not in a spirit of who to blame, but in a spirit of what are the problems and how do we solve it. That is what carried me through my prison and it still carries me at 87.

I believe that if we can get into discourse on the basis of facts, we will overcome things in ways that are unbelievable. And we have inherited a world in which the digital revolution has made information available at our fingertips. But it has also given us the power to manipulate people's emotions in ways that are extremely destructive. We live in climate change. We live in a globalized world. All of these have huge benefits, but huge disadvantages.

But what they have taught us is that we are one world and we better throughout the world recognize we are in one universe and we have a common battle to fight. And if we do that, we're in a different space. My political upbringing was substantially influenced by my stay in the United Kingdom. In 1957 to 1960, I demonstrated I suffered at the hands of the British police in St. Martin's Lane, where they very skillfully marshaled us at night, split our pickets, and then gently punched us in our kidneys until the next day you couldn't walk.

But Britain taught me a hell of a lot and made my commitment to democracy so firm that I believe that we've made a huge stride by attaining democracy. It has given us a platform where people can take charge of their destiny. Inspiring stuff. Thank you very much. Tell us about the book you're writing. Everyone's going to want to get a hold of it. Paulo Jordan, also a veteran of the struggle, who's 79, and I have written a book called Breakthrough. It deals with the struggles and the secret talks that took place between 1984 and 1990,

which led us to the negotiating table. What it examines, Dan, is that most people write about conflict resolution, about what happens at the table. But a conflict, the longer it lasts, the more bitter it becomes, the more difficult it becomes for the parties to come to the table. and the regime that was in control, and the international community, to see how those forces coalesced and created the conditions where apartheid, which said it will never sit at the table with the ANC, 42 years later found itself sitting at the table. What's it like forging relationships around that table? Do you end up, dare I say, even making friendships with these people

who weren't until recently your implacable enemy? We ended up with huge respect for each other across the divide. But the tragedy of South Africa is that we have never become social friends. I don't know of anybody across that divide, even at the negotiating table, who became social friends in the changed world we live in. We still live, Dan, in substantially separate geographical areas. Yes, we go to the same bars, we go to the same hotels, our kids go to the same schools, but after school they go back to the ghettos. They don't find themselves in each other's homes because they're not in the same locality where you live. So you don't have that friendship after school

where you drop into each other's homes. I know in Britain, I lived in Muswell Hill and I had friends, South Africans, who had British friends. And the kids would phone each other on a Sunday morning and leave that landline holding and run to the house of the friend and come at the door and surprise them. They just walked into each other's homes. Doesn't happen yet. It's happening in small ways. And so you talk about

friendship. I can't talk about friendship. I can talk about deep respect. And I do miss the idea. And the fault is not on one side only. Because to reach out when you are separated in the way we are still separated needs a conscious effort. And to that extent, I too am guilty. Well, don't be too hard on yourself. Thank you very much indeed, Mac. That was outstanding.

Thank you for coming on and talking about all this. Thank you very much indeed, Mac. That was outstanding. Thank you for coming on and talking about all this. Thank you very much, Dan. I feel the hand of history upon our shoulders. All this tradition of ours, our school history, our songs, this part of the history of our country, all were gone and finished. Thanks, folks. You've reached the end of another episode. Hope you're still awake.

Appreciate your loyalty. Sticking through to the end. If you fancied doing us a favour here at History Hit, I would be incredibly grateful if you would go and wherever you get these pods, give it a rating, five stars or its equivalent. A review would be great. Please head over there and do that.

It really does make a huge difference. It's one of the funny things the algorithm loves to take into account. So please head over there and do that. Really, really appreciate it