Written by Angelique Retief our Research & Policy Officer
Mr De Klerk, who shared the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize with Nelson Mandela after helping to negotiate an end to apartheid died on Thursday and his foundation has released a video of the late ex-president of South Africa on Friday apologising for the crimes committed against people of colour in South Africa.
De Klerk remained a divisive figure in South Africa long after he left politics. Just last year, he was heavily criticised for a comment made during an interview with the national broadcaster, in which he said he didn't "fully agree" that apartheid was a crime against humanity. Serving as the man in power when the deplorable apartheid regime was finally dismantled and having the courage to do so will be at the heart of Mr de Klerk's legacy, but his true nature might not be remembered by some as quite so praiseworthy.
The party which ruled SA from 1948 – 1994 brought in a series of draconian laws which formalised a system of apartheid in which racial groups were forced to live apart. By the late 1950s the apartheid government had developed its policy to include the creation of 'homelands' for the black population. The supposedly-autonomous states, which received little international recognition, comprised less than 15 per cent of South Africa's land but were designed to house around 80 percent of its people.
South Africa suffers among the highest levels of inequality in the world when measured by commonly used Gini index which manifests itself through a skewed income distribution, unequal access to opportunities and regional disparities. While Black South Africans account for just over 80% of the country’s current population, white South Africans make up a little over 8%. The data shows that white South Africans still command the highest average incomes in the country at approximately R444,446 a year. This is over 1.5 times greater than Indians/Asians at R271,621 per year, and almost 5 times more than Black South Africans, at R92,893 per year.
Many white people have never been obliged to confront, properly, the evils of the past. This is in part, perhaps, because apartheid ended through negotiation rather than a military victory. Mr De Klerk told CNN that the idea of ethnic communities being separated, as under apartheid, was 'not repugnant' and that there was merit in the idea of different ethnic groups living apart. He believed that apartheid was responsible for relatively few deaths and that it should not be put in the same category of "genocide" or "crimes against humanity” and his views are supported by many governments. Although the UN General Assembly declared that apartheid was a crime against humanity, the US and the UK (both permanent members of the Security Council) voted against approving this description. Apartheid was also included as a "crime against humanity" in the Rome Statute that set up the International Criminal Court.
It took courage to do what no other white politician could even contemplate. Not only to admit that apartheid didn’t work but of the grotesqueness of the experiment in social engineering. However, while South Africa could not have escaped from the cruelty of apartheid without him, it remains stuck in the vortex of its history as political rhetoric in South Africa has become increasingly racialised. A vortex which has only been fuelled by his refusal to acknowledge the abhorrent and reprehensible nature of apartheid – not just in its impact but in its ideology. No matter how much he acknowledged that apartheid was a mistake, he refused to come to terms with it as a gross human rights violation, as an atrocity.