Mrs Mandela, a flamboyant politician known for both her chutzpah and her charisma, did not go gently into unemployment. She complained to reporters that her sacking was ‘legally invalid and unconstitutional’ and that the appointment of her replacement, human rights lawyer Brigitte Mabandla, was similarly ‘irregular and unconstitutional’.
She bitterly criticized the president for refusing to detail his reasons for firing her as deputy minister for arts, science, culture and technology, and called his previous statements ‘facile’.43
* * *
At such times, especially the premature departure of the National Party from the GNU, Mandela must have known that pressure would pile on him – and the ANC – and resuscitate the bile of prophets of doom. To those conditioned to view black leadership with suspicion, the departure of an overwhelmingly – and reassuringly – white National Party cabinet was grist to the mill. Notwithstanding the peaceful elections and a dazzling inauguration, the world was still peopled with worshippers at the altar of racist conservatives like the British journalist Peregrine Worsthorne. ‘Black majority rule,’ he famously ranted after the ANC’s electoral victory in 1994, ‘should send a shudder round the world.’44
Much later, piqued by another affront, and reacting to the litany of complaints about the record of the ANC in government, Mandela put pen to paper. His words, while chiding, simultaneously act as a reminder of the endorsement his presidency received from the international community. A staggering array of men and women of stature had given the country, President Mandela and the ANC their collective blessing.
‘Another perversion shamelessly touted by some opposition parties,’ he writes, ‘is that the ANC has caused unemployment, homelessness, violence and a multitude of other socio-economic problems. On this particular topic, the City Press of 15 May 1994 did not mince words. They said that traditionally an incoming government in most Western democracies is given one hundred days to prove whether it is up to scratch. It would be unfair to use such time frames in our case.
‘An ANC Government has very little in common with parties which came to power in the Western world. The ANC has been, until very recently, a liberation movement. It lacks, through no fault of its own, the experience of governing a sophisticated country such as South Africa. But the biggest difference between ourselves and the Western democracies was that, contrary to what some people might wish, South Africa was a Third World country with typically Third World problems.
‘The ANC was inheriting a country with immense social and economic problems. The gap between the haves (mostly whites) and the have-nots (mostly blacks) was wide; there was massive unemployment, the economy was in poor shape, the shortage of houses among the poor was growing and informal settlements were proliferating all over our major cities. Violence, be it political or otherwise, was another problem facing the country. And a solution to the education crisis was nowhere in sight.
‘This is what the City Press wrote only five days after the installation of the new government. The City Press has indicted the apartheid regime and those opposition parties who welcomed white supremacy and gobbled up all the fruits of that notorious and rapacious regime.
‘Both the National Party and the Progressive Party, predecessor of the Democratic Party of Tony Leon, condemned the armed struggle and sanctions, the principal weapons used by the oppressed to liberate the country. These parties now present themselves as paragons of good government, as people who have never heard of unemployment, homelessness, violence and other socio-economic problems until liberation in 1994.45
‘The City Press of 15 May 1994 wrote that “no amount of words could adequately describe and capture the mood” when the first democratically elected President of South Africa was installed in Pretoria on Tuesday.’46
Mandela then recaps the historical nature of the day of his inauguration, not so much for his interlocutors to review the pomp and ceremony of the day, but to see it in the context of how South Africa came of age and, in one fell swoop, aided the world to come of age.
‘“Millions of people all over the world,”’ he writes, continuing to quote from the City Press story, ‘“witnessed this historic moment. Those of us fortunate enough to be where the action was, will never forget that momentous day as long as we live.
‘“Brushing shoulders and shaking hands with all those famous people, Heads of States, Kings and Queens, church leaders and famous socialists, was an unforgettable experience. It can be easily argued that nowhere else in the world did a single country host so many celebrities in one sitting. Friend and foe sat next to each other. Cuban President Fidel Castro and [the] United States Vice President, Al Gore, smiled at each other. The Israeli President [Chaim Herzog] and the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organisation] leader Yasser Arafat shook hands, and Zambian President Frederick Chiluba and Kenneth Kaunda embraced each other.
‘“The generals from the army and the police, who not long ago declared war on the political leaders and on neighbouring states, stood at attention and saluted their former enemies and President, their new boss.
‘“Many of us experienced goose flesh when the fighter jets flew over the crowds. There was a lump in our throats as we sang the national anthem and, of course, many of us shed a tear or two when the first black President of South Africa was finally declared,” said the newspaper.’47
Mandela was heartened to know that his endorsement – and that of the ANC and the new democracy – had come from far and wide. For example, US Republican congressman Amory R. Houghton, Jr described how
he has seen a lot of history – but nothing compares to what he saw Tuesday, when he stood in the throng of 50,000 who watched democracy finally come to South Africa.
‘I was in Nicaragua for the inauguration of Violeta Chamorro (de Barrios) and at the Kremlin when the Soviet flag came down and the Russian flag went up, but I’ve never seen anything like this,’ he said in a telephone interview from Pretoria, where he witnessed the inauguration of President Nelson Mandela. ‘I just can’t believe it … There was really the sense of something extraordinary happening,’ he said … ‘There’s this sense of forgiveness and reconciliation that dominates this (country) now,’ Houghton said. ‘And Nelson Mandela is holding this together. He’s the George Washington of South Africa.’48
Most world leaders have enjoyed an ambivalent relationship with the media, all warily heeding the age-old truism that the media giveth and the media taketh away. Mandela, although deferential to the fourth estate, evinced a less guarded attitude, seeing the media as a necessity for a functioning democracy. Unlike most people who ascend to great heights, he was advantaged by the years of incarceration, where he was out of the public eye and was one of the few people in history whose image or any reproduction thereof could earn one a prison sentence. He grew to epic dimensions in the collective imagination of the world, the slogan ‘Free Mandela!’, as ubiquitous as he was absent, appearing in reverse in reality on headlines screaming ‘Mandela Free!’ on the fateful February afternoon in 1990. It was the media that had kept him connected both to world events and what was happening in his country – its disasters, ups and downs, the triumphs and the tears – in all available languages including Afrikaans.
In time, he was able to comment on the role of the South African media:
‘In their comments on the inauguration, the South African press reached a high level of patriotism. They regarded the occasion as truly historic, and were intensely objective and full of praise.
‘According to The Argus, with the inauguration, the final seal was placed on South Africa’s acceptance of non-racialism and democracy. And the leaders of the world were there to bear witness to that commitment. South Africa, the paper said, had a government of parliament representative of all citizens.
Beeld hailed the fact that white and black had accepted each other as members of one family.49 One of the main reasons for the violence was that not every family participated in the political process. When everyone
could take part there was a dramatic change, which contributed to the reduction of political violence.50
‘Cape Times referred to the remarkable transformation of the past four years initiated by Mr de Klerk as an historic act of courage and vision.
‘This was by no means free of tension and violence. And there had been something miraculous about the dramatic change for the better since the mass of South Africans were given the opportunity to vote in a general election and eighty-seven per cent of those eligible went to the polls, and voted in peace and good order.
‘[The] Citizen hailed the occasion as a great day on which the liberation struggle of Blacks was finally over. That the ANC would win in the end was as inevitable as the rising of the sun. The changes that had come about were traumatic for many people – the old order passing and a new one just beginning, the end of white rule, and the start of Black majority rule, the corridors of power peopled by those who were once banned or exiled or who were in the forefront of the battle for equality.
‘City Press: “The arrival of the dignitaries at the Presidency for breakfast was reminiscent of a UN Summit in New York. Never before has South Africa been able to bring together such a broad spectrum of world leaders on one occasion. After our day at the Presidency on Tuesday, it really dawned on us that this country would never be the same.”51 South Africa was going through an exciting period, which had captured the focus of the whole world.
‘Daily News: The unfolding big challenges for all our people proclaimed the swearing-in as more than a moment of high symbolism and emotion for millions of South Africans who had been deprived of their birthright. It marked a moment in which the country shrugged off anachronism and entered the future with purpose and opportunity to play its rightful place in Africa and world affairs. We were being taken into the future at the head of a Government of National Unity. The country was united as never before. And that was what was really new – and gave a chance of success in the year ahead.
‘[The] Sowetan recorded that on May 10, power was transferred from President de Klerk. “People who would never be seen under one roof, like Cuba’s Fidel Castro and the United States’ Al Gore, plus leaders and representatives from around the globe, all came.”52
‘We might add our own observation and say what rang clearly in the ears of everyone were the words: “We must act together as a united nation for national reconciliation, for nation building, for the birth of a new world.”
‘In congratulating the two deputy presidents, Thabo Mbeki and De Klerk, [The] Sowetan added that “De Klerk had the wisdom and vision to choose the right path when he stood at the crossroads.”53
‘[The] Star picked up the same theme. In a sombre tone but with an optimistic ending, it warned that South African leaders were on trial. Africa was watching to see whether South Africa, with its vast reserves of human talent, its rich natural resources and sound infrastructure, could succeed where most of the continent had failed. This land with its diversity of peoples, religions and cultures, its juxtaposition of First and Third World economies, was in many ways today’s world in microcosm. Success in [sic] many years of oppression and conflict would be a source of pride to South Africans and an inspiration to Africa and beyond.
‘Rapport: The number of Heads of State and Government, who attended the inauguration of South Africa’s President this week confirmed that South Africa has been accepted back to the international community. Several African leaders indicated that they not only expected South Africa to play a leading role in Africa, but that they would also like assistance from South Africa. In fact the whole world expected South Africa to play a leading role in Africa and not in vain. They are tired of carrying the problems of the dying continent. South Africa was Africa’s last hope, said an African expert.
‘Sunday Independent was only published in 1995 and there is no comment from them.
‘Sunday Times: “Most people at the inauguration of the President would select the moment when the jets swept across the sky – our jets, not their jets – as the emotional climax of South Africa’s rebirth … We had come home at last; we had taken back our air force, and our army, and our police and the country. It had been such a long time, a lifetime, since we could regard our national symbols with possessive pride, free of guilt or shame or anger.”54
‘There are several other national and regional publications that welcomed the new South Africa in glowing terms and boosted our pride.
‘We have had robust exchanges with the press. In some, the words used were carefully selected merely to convey no more than what both parties believed to be true. Others were more than robust, leaving the contestants bruised and without balance. Such heated exchanges cannot be avoided or suppressed in a democracy.
‘It is good for us, the media and the country as a whole, to know that our journalists can rise to expectations and acquit themselves excellently as on the day of inauguration and on numerous other occasions.’55
* * *
It cannot be stated often enough that Mandela’s lifelong dream was the liberation of the African majority from tyranny and the ushering in of democracy in South Africa. Throughout his life, he was also dedicated to reversing the iniquities of the past and, as president, to preclude, by word or precept, his administration ever sending the proverbial shudder round the world. He was therefore quick to acknowledge those erstwhile members of De Klerk’s cabinet who had withdrawn from party politics. Some of them had been, like their ANC counterparts, shocked at De Klerk’s precipitate step, leaving some, like Pik Botha, suddenly without the wherewithal to start afresh. A common thread in their later explanations of their decision was a conviction that the National Party lacked the capacity to change in ways that would enable it to play a significant role in the democratic era.
At the National Executive Committee meeting in May 1996, Mandela noted the implications for the National Party. He saw both a challenge, for instance in the vigorous campaign for the imminent Cape Town municipal election, and opportunity in the divisions in the National Party for the ANC to make inroads into the coloured and Indian communities.56 Later, addressing the NEC in August, Mandela expatiated on the manage-ment of the transition and national unity. He was simultaneously shrugging off what might have been read as premonitory signs of the death of the GNU.
‘With the withdrawal of the NP from government,’ he said, ‘the question of the future of the multiparty cabinet has arisen sharply.
‘Firstly, we need to examine our relationship with the IFP, both in the context of its participation in the GNU and the political developments in KwaZulu-Natal. What is the best approach required in dealing with this organisation?
‘Secondly, I have personally raised the issue of securing the cooperation of the PAC on specific questions and ensuring that they actively participate in the transformation process, including at the executive level.’57
From as far back as the late fifties, when the PAC broke away from the ANC, leaders like Mandela had maintained a cautious, almost aloof distance from the splinter party. People like Joe Slovo, vexed by the PAC’s critique that the ANC’s legitimacy was undermined by the influence of communists, dismissed the PAC as a CIA front. It didn’t help that the PAC was formed on 5 and 6 April 1959 at the Johannesburg offices of the United States Information Service (USIS), where its flamboyant leader, Potlako Leballo, who would prove to have a big appetite for intrigue, had been employed. However, Mandela had a high regard for its president, Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe, a committed, respected intellectual who had made his mark as a leader in the Youth League, and who, like Mandela, was a graduate from the University of Fort Hare.
Throughout history, at home and abroad, the attempts to unite the ANC and the PAC had failed. The most notable failure involved the South African United Front (SAUF). Formed abroad after the Sharpeville Massacre of 21 March 1960, it brought together such struggle luminaries as Oliver Tambo from the ANC, Nana Mahomo from the PAC, Fanuel Kozonguizi from the South West African N
ational Union (SWANU) and Dr Yusuf Dadoo from the South African Indian Congress (SAIC). Despite these heavyweights, the differences in approaches to discipline, between the ANC and the PAC especially, put paid to the longevity of the SAUF. Yusuf Dadoo lamented the break:
‘The ANC and the SAIC representatives tried hard to maintain the integrity of the United Front … They conscientiously held back from expounding their own policies abroad in their desire to maintain faithfully the unity of the Front. They refused, in spite of repeated provocations, to engage in attacks on their principal partner, the PAC. They always confronted their partners with common problems and had even compromised aspects of their policies, all with a view to maintaining the unity and cohesion of the Front.’58
The SAUF lasted barely more than a few months, and its dissolution in London on 13 March 1962 led to recriminations that widened rather than bridged the rift between the ANC and the PAC.
In prison, Mandela was witness to the political feuding that sometimes led to physical confrontations, but he had determined to continue playing the role of reconciler, to such an extent that, during a dispute, he refused to testify on the side of the ANC. He writes:
‘I regarded my role in prison as not just the leader of the ANC, but as a promoter of unity, an honest broker, a peacemaker, and I was reluctant to take a side in this dispute, even if it was the side of my own organisation. If I testified on behalf of the ANC, I would jeopardise my chances of bringing about reconciliation among different groups. If I preached unity, I must act like a unifier, even at the risk of perhaps alienating some of my own colleagues.’59
It was still in this role that, even before the negotiations, Mandela had mulled over the possibility of a united front or patriotic alliance of the ANC, PAC and the Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO) towards a stronger representation during negotiations.*60 History, absence of vision, entrenched positions and confusion in the face of untested ideas proved too daunting for this initiative to win the day.
Dare Not Linger Page 15
