![deklerk FW de Klerk](https://i0.wp.com/www.zimeye.com/wp-content/live_images/2012/04/deklerk.jpg?resize=160%2C126)
known
SPEECH BY FORMER PRESIDENT F W DE KLERK TO THE RIVER CLUB,
JOHANNESBURG, March 30 2012
POLITICIANS AND STATESMEN WHOM I HAVE KNOWN
Steven Mulholland suggested two topics that I might address – one that might
entertain you – and the other that would probably depress you.
I have decided to choose the former. It relates to my memories of the many
leaders that I have met during my political career – and subsequently.
Politics is a strange business.
It takes a particular type of personality to thrust himself before the
electorate and try to persuade his fellow citizens that he has the extraordinary
qualities required for leadership.
On the whole, politics is not a career that pays very well. In its traditional form it offered few financial inducements. This is of course no longer necessarily the case. Some of the far more astute politicians of the present age have elevated politics to one of the most profitable of businesses.
In my day most practitioners would probably have made much more money by
remaining in a respectable profession or by climbing the corporate ladder. In my
case, when I went into politics in 1972 I had to exchange a flourishing law
practice in Vereniging for the modest income of a back-bencher. We had to move
out of our beautiful home in on the banks of the Vaal and take up residence in a
converted army barracks in Acacia Park.
Life as a back-bencher is, at best, undistinguished.
As junior members of the caucus, young MPs generally speak when they are
spoken to. They must quickly adapt to the Byzantine manoeverings and jockeying
for position that characterise all political organisations. They must wait
desperately for a chance to catch the attention of the leadership on the rare
occasions when they are asked to speak in parliament. It is difficult to do so
if the topic they must address is the Railways Second Appropriation Bill. This
is not the stuff of which Gettysburg Addresses and Pericles Funeral Orations are
made.
It is for this reason that the attention of back benchers of all parties in
all dispensations is focused so firmly on the possibility of being appointed to
higher office. As soon as one becomes a deputy minister – or succeeds in
attaining the Olympian heights of cabinet membership – the world changes.
Suddenly, one has one’s own office and one’s own department. The new minister is
surrounded by public servants who quickly confirm his own view that he is a
pretty smart chap and a natural leader. The media are suddenly interested in his
pronouncements. There are press conferences and overseas trips, official cars
and private secretaries.
I was lucky. I was appointed to the cabinet in 1978 – only six years after
entering parliament.
However, once one has become a cabinet minister
other drawbacks become apparent. Everything the minister does is open to
scrutiny. Every peccadillo becomes a glaring headline on the back page of the
Sunday Times. Cartoonists and comedians have free rein to ridicule one. The
minister’s policies, his character and his family are exposed fairly – or
unfairly – to merciless attack in public forums.
Managing democratic societies is often a thankless task. Leaders are
confronted with crises created by others – some of which are, frankly,
unsolvable in the period they have at their disposal. Whatever the politician
says, whatever he does, he is subjected to bitter criticism. As one American
President remarked: “Hell, every time I open my mouth I alienate 25% of the
population.”
And all the time there is relentless competition with one’s closest
colleagues.
As one disillusioned politician was heard to remark: “My opponents? They were
the people in the parties that opposed me in parliament. My enemies? Those are
the ones who were sitting beside and behind me”. It is more often the
politician’s colleagues rather than his opponents who finally bring his career
to an end.
It is perhaps for such reasons that commentators have observed that “All
political careers end in tears.”
These are also the reasons why so relatively few really competent people
stand for the Presidency of the United States. It is impossible to believe that
there are not thousands of people in America who would be far better candidates
than the crop that is currently contending for office. However, they are far too
prudent to do so. They do not need the money. They do not want to have their
private lives subjected to relentless, intrusive and often unfair scrutiny. They
do not want their families to be hopelessly disrupted. They do not want to
demean themselves by having to tailor their views according to the latest
opinion surveys – or to mouth the platitudes that pass for political
discourse.
Now, as you all know, much of this is true to a greater or lesser extent in
the careers of all successful men. Everyone who has become a CEO or company
chairman has also had to play hard-ball in board-room politics.
They say that the vindictiveness is worst between academics. When he was
asked why this was so Henry Kissinger replied “the competition between academics
is so bitter – because the stakes are so low.”
And yet – and yet the allure of politics and of power remains. Henry
Kissinger also observed that power is the greatest aphrodisiac.
Nero is famously supposed to have exclaimed just before he died that a great
artist perished in him! He certainly was not a good exponent of the art of
statesmanship – but statesmanship is an art. It is practised on the largest
canvas that one can imagine: one’s country – and in some cases the world.
The fact remains that despite all its shortcomings as a career, politics
offers its exponents the opportunity to perform on the greatest stage of all:
the stage of history. The decisions that statesmen take can make the difference
between war and peace; between freedom and tyranny; between prosperity and
poverty. The stakes are immensely high: they are the happiness of and security
of tens of millions of ordinary people. They are the ability of ordinary people
to pursue what Yeats called the ceremonies of innocence: growing up; getting an
education; falling in love and raising a family; making a living and pursuing
one’s special dreams.
In my own career I have had the privilege of interacting with some great
leaders – who in their own ways have changed the histories of their countries or
even of the world.
Mikhail Gorbachev is one of the people whom I count as a friend.
The simple reality is that the history of the world, or Europe and of Russia
would have been fundamentally different if a hard-line communist had seized the
reins of power in the early 1980s. Even though the Soviet Union was doomed to
economic failure, an orthodox communist dictator might well have held the empire
together for decades. The cold war would not have come to an end. The countries
of Eastern Europe would not have been liberated. The Soviet Union would not have
disintegrated – and Germany would still be divided between east and west.
Often it is the individual leader who puts his weight on one side or the
other of the political balance who changes the course of history.
Ironically, this is not necessarily what Gorbachev intended. In his book
Perestroika he still declared that communism was the best system – but merely
needed to be implemented in a more democratic and open manner. It was never his
intention that the Soviet Union should fall to pieces or that the Warsaw Pact
should be disbanded. Ultimately, he found it impossible to control the momentum
or the direction of the historic changes that he had unleashed.
Nevertheless, the world today would have been a substantially different – and
in my opinion worse – place had he not made the decisions that he made.
The leader who, perhaps, impressed me most was Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.
Once again, he was an individual who changed the course of history. In many
respects he was the creator of modern Singapore. Without his leadership it might
still be just another city in Malaysia. As it is, and despite its tiny size, it
has become one of the most successful countries, with one of the freest
economies, in the world.
Lee Kuan Yew took the right decisions for his country; he chose the right
values and the right economic policies to ensure the development of a successful
society. In this, he was an artist painting on the largest canvas that society
can provide. He was also a very astute judge of the world and provided a very
canny and realistic assessment of our situation in South Africa when I met him
during the early ‘nineties.
Another great leader whom I count among my friends is Margaret Thatcher. Few
British Prime Ministers have had such a profound influence on the course of
their country’s history as she did. She understood, when she became Prime
Minister, what the fundamental challenges were that she would have to address.
The most serious of these was a trade union movement and residual socialist
policies that were inexorably dragging Britain toward stagnation and national
failure.
Soon after she became Prime Minister she prophesied that within three years
she would be one of the most unpopular leaders that the country had ever seen.
“But two years after that” she said ” I shall be re-elected Prime Minister with
an increased majority.” And she was quite right. She took on the unions and won
– and subsequently she took on the Argentinians and beat them as well. In all
this she showed far greater determination and courage than any prime minister
since Winston Churchill.
Her free market middle-class conservatism set the paradigm not only for
British politics for decades to come, but changed democratic politics
everywhere. I remember an exasperated John Major telling me after the
Conservatives had lost the 1997 election that he wondered what Tony Blair would
do once he had run out of the Conservative Party’s policies. The reality is that
after Thatcher, British politics became a battlefield for the centre with the
new left jettisoning traditional socialist policies as fast as it could.
Margaret Thatcher also had a keen understanding of the unfolding situation in
South Africa. Although she was a consistent critic of apartheid, she had no
illusions about the nature of the challenges that we faced. She doggedly
resisted for as long as she could persistent demands for more sanctions against
South Africa in the Commonwealth and in the international community. She always
gave me – and our partners in the negotiations – strong and committed support
for the achievement of our goals.
Although I never met Deng Xiaoping, I believe that he will probably be
regarded by future generations as the greatest leader of the latter part of the
twentieth century. He himself was a victim of the Cultural Revolution but
nevertheless rebounded in 1978 to initiate the reforms that have fundamentally
changed his country. The process that he began has led to the most far-reaching
improvement in the lives of the largest number of people in the shortest period
in the whole sweep of human history. In so doing he has visibly improved the
daily lives of hundreds of millions of ordinary people and has established China
as a leading strategic and economic power.
Such is the great canvas of statesmanship. Deng succeeded in turning China
from a drab and paranoid ideologically obsessed backwater to a confident,
prosperous and successful society. I have no doubt that the daily lives of
hundreds of millions of people have been made far happier because of the
decisions that he took.
And in our own country I would like to mention two notable statesmen.
The first is P W Botha – a difficult and irascible man – who nevertheless
played an indispensible role in the transformation of our country. When he
became Prime Minister in the difficult circumstances that confronted the country
in 1978, he realised that we would have to ‘adapt or die’. He built up one of
the most effective armed forces not only in Africa but in the world. He
overhauled and rationalised the whole system of government. Under his
predecessor, John Vorster, the most junior minister wrote the cabinet minutes by
hand in a note book. P W Botha introduced an efficient system of cabinet
committees and properly compiled cabinet papers.
He understood the need for change and initiated the process that led to the
Tricameral Parliament. Obviously, it was never going to be the total answer to
the total problem because it still made no provision for black South Africans.
However, in the incremental world of reform politics it was a step in the right
direction. By 1986 the government had already repealed more than 100 apartheid
laws. Nevertheless, the crux of the matter was no longer reform – but
transformation.
However, PW ruled more by fear than by consensus. He did not encourage open
debate within the cabinet and dealt harshly with anyone who failed to toe the
line. When asked what the difference was between serving in my cabinet and PW’s
cabinet Pik Botha said that when I was president he did not wake every morning
with a shudder.
Shortly before he left office, P W Botha said that he had made two mistakes
as president: he had not moved forward rapidly enough with his reform policies;
and he had communicated badly. He was right on both counts. Nevertheless, there
is no doubt that he prepared the way for the negotiation process that I had the
privilege of initiating on 2 February 1990.
The other great South African leader of my generation was, of course, Nelson
Mandela. I do not subscribe to the general hagiography surrounding Mandela. He
was by no means the avuncular and saint-like figure so widely depicted today. As
a political opponent he could be brutal and quite unfair. During the
negotiations and while I served as Deputy President in the Government of
National Unity we often had bruising clashes.
Such is the nature of politics.
However, whenever the situation required it, he was able to rise above the
political passions of the moment and join me in hammering out reasonable
compromises that enabled the process to continue. He also had the stature and
the strength to hold his fractious alliance together – even at the most
difficult junctures. The source of his authority, consciously or unconsciously,
was the fact that he was a Xhosa aristocrat – with all the bearing and natural
authority that came with his royal connections.
However, he is a principled man and a great communicator. Through his natural
charm and consideration he played an indispensible role in promoting
reconciliation and in laying the foundations of our new non-racial nation.
I believed him when he said on 8 May 1996,
after the adoption of our new constitution, that the “founding principles of our
constitution are immutable.” He described the constitution as “our national
soul, our compact with one another as citizens, underpinned by our highest
aspirations and our deepest apprehensions”. He said our pledge is that: “Never
and never again shall the laws of our land rend our people apart or legalise
their oppression and repression. Together, we shall march, hand-in-hand, to a
brighter future.”
Now, 16 years later there are those in the ANC who are saying that “our
national soul, our compact with one another as citizens” was merely a temporary
compromise and that it must give way to a second transition based on less
immutable principles.
All of us should reject such thinking with all the resources that we and our constitution provide. But then, that is the other topic that Steven wanted me to address – and which you may explore in the question and answer session.
In the meantime one thing is clear. The great South African socio-political
5 Replies to “FULL TEXT: de Klerk attack on Nelson Mandela”
Comments are closed.
How many hectares does the fool’s farm have.People who sufferd the brutal aparthied should benefit, chase him off
Dick clerk is a dick, aguta kunyarwa manje.
Great speech, there is no attack on Mandela.
Whatever de klerk i am not even going to read this stupid story of yours. brokeass trying to cash in on this one.
Izvi ndezve Mandeere nema Bhunhu avo kuma Bantustans avo ku SA.