THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT OUR "MIRACLE" REBIRTH

Kagiso Pooe

Kagiso Pooe says Codesa was formed to secure the interests of the white economic elites

THE recent utterances by F.W.de Klerk on CNN, whether taken in or out of context, clearly indicate that the time has come for South Africa to look deeper into what this "miracle nation" means. One of the many questions that should begin to be asked and answered revolves around whether De Klerk and his supporters really meant for this nation to "transform from white monitory economic rule".

However, to undertake such a task two things need to happen. Firstly, the bedrock of South African existence, the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (Codesa) 1991/1992, needs to be revisited in light of De Klerk's truthful confessions. Secondly, De Klerk as a representative of a negotiated settlement needs to be explored outside the confines of today's popular liberal representation of him.

To begin with, De Klerk is as important to the making of the new South Africa as former president Nelson Mandela is, so most modern liberal literature and the De Klerk Foundation would have us believe. So, when this revered and hallowed man fails to appreciate the inhumanity of the system of apartheid, serious questions require answering.

A deeper analysis of De Klerk's comments reveals a man who seems to have negotiated not necessarily for the abolishing of apartheid, but for doing away with economic sanctions over white minority industries and people.

After all, how else would one interpret his three most jarring comments; namely, that there wasn't anything wrong with the "original concept of separate development", secondly, that "apartheid wasn't like Nazism" and finally that "Africans and blacks weren't disenfranchised"?

Can it really be a surprise to see the country failing to deal with real issues like economic transformation of the economy, land redistribution and the out-of-context Constitution which 18 years on is more problematic than inspiring? One of history's great questions revolves around why De Klerk sold out white people. It seems as though this question was finally answered on CNN. And it's an answer that seems to be more convincing by the years.

Namely that De Klerk and many like him did not attend Codesa to establish a warm fuzzy Rainbow Nation. Rather Codesa and subsequently the drafting of the SA Constitution was seen by De Klerk and his cohorts as mechanisms to negotiate the best economic outcome for white elites, who had helped maintain the apartheid state for so long. Critics might argue that this is a rather negative interpretation of what was a very complex period in South Africa's history and they would be correct.

Yet, when looking into historical records as to why De Klerk wanted to be allowed to negotiate with the liberation parties like the ANC, PAC and Azapo one is drawn to this very intriguing point. Namely that "F.W. de Klerk urged people to vote ‘yes' in support of him and warned that a ‘no' vote would mean the continuation of sanctions. The outcome was that the majority of whites voted ‘yes'." So, in effect Codesa was seen as an economic reprieve for white capital and not about acknowledging the wrongs of apartheid and colonialism. Hence, De Klerk's stance that separate development wasn't morally wrong. De Klerk's comments highlight how far Codesa failed at redressing the economic wrongs that led to the establishment of the South African state.

The architects of Codesa will continue to elucidate how complex the times were and how certain sacrifices had to be made; namely, foregoing repossession of land and not prosecuting apartheid criminals in the same way the Nuremberg courts prosecuted Nazi war criminals.

Yet, 20 years post-Codesa it can be argued that its real legacy was its inability to set a economically equitable path away from the apartheid and colonial structured system that ensures white minority economic interests continue to benefit. Ultimately, Codesa achieved what Stokely Carmichael calls "institutional racism", a form of racism that occurs through institutions such as public bodies and corporations, including universities.

Where Codesa's odyssey explains that "we came to negotiated settlement where we all won", Carmichael's theory states that the winner in any race-based war is the one that emerges with real power; i.e. wealth, land and stock options. So, in this regards De Klerk should be thanked for beginning what is an important debate heading to the ANC's policy conference.