The End Of Non-Racialism?

ANC rhetoric consistently characterises whites as "the other"

In his recent address to the Cape Town Press Club Hlumelo Biko pointed to the increasing tendency within the ANC to "obectivise", to "other" and to "border" non-black communities - and particularly whites. He warned that this process was not good news for those who are being objectivised.

What did he mean?

A speech by Jeff Radebe last month in Parliament provides some pointers regarding the manner in which the Government is ramping up its rhetoric. In a relatively short address, he referred no fewer than seven times to the depredations of the past -

• to "apartheid colonialism";
• to "the struggle against colonialism and apartheid";
• to "the forces of colonialism and later of apartheid, on the one side, arrayed ...against the forces of freedom and democracy on the other side;"
•  to " ... the heroic stance by the United Nations when It declared apartheid a crime against humanity and a threat to world peace;"
• to "...the untold suffering, strife and racial hatred sowed by apartheid..."; and
• to "...the poverty trap and vicious cycle of inequality perpetrated by the legacy of apartheid and colonialism..."

Such references pepper most policy statements made by the ANC. Whatever their historic merit - or lack of merit - it would be surprising if they do not stir up some degree of racial animosity - or at the very least - reinforce perceptions of white moral inferiority and black entitlement. Inevitably they fuel demands for restitution - particularly of land - which most black South Africans firmly believe was stolen from their ancestors.


The message characterises whites as "the other" and places them beyond the border of "us" because they are presented as being either directly responsible for "apartheid colonialism" - or as being its present day heirs and beneficiaries. Whites are indelibly tarnished by the past - while blacks are identified with the forces of freedom and democracy. 

The "legacy of apartheid and colonialism" is routinely identified as the root cause of most of South Africa's problems - and particularly of the triple crisis of poverty, unemployment and inequality.

Increasing use is made of the term "apartheid colonialism" - implying that whites are transient alien interlopers. For example, the Green Paper on Land Reform proclaims that "all anti-colonial struggles are at the core about two things, repossession of lost land and restoring the centrality of indigenous culture" (i.e. placing blacks at the centre and "bordering" and "othering" minorities at the periphery).

The message continues that, in the second phase of national transition, the time has now arrived to take action against these vestiges of apartheid and colonialism.

All this raises questions about the degree to which non-racialism is still a core value of our new society, of our government and of the ruling alliance.

It is a question that was recently addressed by the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation in a study of racial perceptions in a number of ANC branches in Guateng. The findings revealed "a growing sense of isolation and fracture among non-African constituencies" which could have "profound implications for the party's (the ANC's) ‘identity' as a non-racial party."

Although participants in the survey noted that the ANC "theoretically supports the ideal of non-racialism" they felt that there were "significant problems with race relations within the ANC, at all levels" - particularly in branches with strong minority membership - such as Eldorado Park, Sandton and Lenasia. Among the problems were perceptions of racism and the sense that non-Africans were excluded from leadership positions.

The authors of the study go on to discuss the ANC doctrine that the institutional racism of "colonialism of a special type" can be overcome only through the "empowerment of blacks in general and Africans in particular". This will require "the radical restructuring of key aspects of the economy so as to destroy the material basis of the white racist power structure." 

This process - which lies at the core of the ANC's National Democratic Revolution - is described by Firoz Cachalia as "anti-racist-racism". 

According to Pallo Jordan

"The movement adopted as policy the conscious and deliberate re-racialisation of South Africa by undertaking a host of measures, among which are affirmative action, to ensure that the results of decades of systematic discrimination and denial of job opportunities are reversed. In other words, the purpose of affirmative action is to create circumstances in which affirmative action will no longer be necessary."

The ANC's updated 2012 Strategy and Tactics document states that "the need for such affirmative action will decline in the same measure as all centres of power and influence and other critical spheres of social endeavour become broadly representative of the country's demographics. In the process, all inequalities that may persist or arise need to be addressed."

The "re-racialisation" of South Africa is gathering pace. The government rigidly allocates posts in the public service according to demographics - down to the first decimal point - regardless of merit or objective circumstances. 

Coloured employees of the Department of Correctional Services in the Western Cape are informed that they will not be promoted - because they have exceeded their national racial quota of 8.8%. 

1 500 white members of the SAPS have been refused promotion to vacant officers posts because they have exceeded their 9% quota. 

Late last year Minister Rob Davies said that demographic representivity should also be applied to the private sector: "We need to make sure that in the country's economy, control, ownership and leadership are reflective of the demographics of the society in the same way the political space does. "

What we are experiencing is racial social engineering on a Verwoerdian scale, where once again, the course of South Africans' lives is being determined by their race and not by individual merit. Because it will take generations to achieve broad demographic representivity in all centres of power and influence minority communities can expect to be subjected to "anti-racist racism" for the indefinite future. 

For all intents and purposes South Africa is no longer a non-racial society.

The "re-racialistion" of South Africa is the antithesis of the constitutional values of human dignity, equality and on-racialism on which our new society has been based. 

It contravenes South Africa's international treaty obligations - and it will certainly destroy any hope of national unity. 

Without national unity we will have little chance of successfully implementing the National Development Plan or of addressing the many challenges that confront us - including the pressing need for a rational and workable transformation process.

Dave Steward is Executive Director of the FW de Klerk Foundation

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=362634&sn=Detail&pid=71616

De Klerk and Mandela

F.W. de Klerk, the last leader of white South Africa, who joined with Nelson Mandela to bring an end to apartheid and shared a Nobel Peace Prize for their achievement, was recently interviewed at a summit of Nobel Laureates in Chicago and appeared on Thursday’s Amanpour.

So I’m a Convert

It was noted that Mandela had once called de Klerk “a man of integrity” but had taken it back, regretting that de Klerk had never renounced the principle of apartheid.

De Klerk responded: “Well, let me first say I’m not aware that Mr. Mandela says I’ve never renounced apartheid.” He then said, “I have made the most profound apology in front of the Truth Commission and on other occasions about the injustices which were wrought by apartheid.”

But then he added: “What I haven’t apologized for is the original concept of seeking to bring justice to all South Africans through the concept of nation states (essentially creating two separate states, one black and one white).”

“But in South Africa it failed,” he said. “And by the end of the ‘70’s, we had to realize, and accept and admit to ourselves that it had failed. And that is when fundamental reform started.”

He was then asked if apartheid failed because it was unworkable, or because it was simply morally repugnant.

“There are three reasons it (apartheid) failed,” he said. “It failed because the whites wanted to keep too much land for themselves. It failed because we (whites and blacks) became economically integrated, and it failed because the majority of blacks said that is not how we want our rights.”

Still, De Klerk would not back off his belief in the validity of the original concept of “separate but equal” nation states.

“There is this picture that apartheid was…used to be compared to Nazism,” said de Klerk. 

“It’s wrong, and on that, I don’t apologize for saying that what drove me as a young man, before I decided we need to embrace a new vision, was a quest to bring justice for black South Africans in a way which would not – that’s what I believed then – destroyed the justice to which my people were entitled.”

“That’s how I was brought up,” said de Klerk. “And it was in an era when also in America and elsewhere, and across the continent of Africa, there was still not this realization that we are trampling upon the human rights of people. So I’m a convert.”

Eleven official languages

Again, he was asked if he wanted to take the opportunity to say that apartheid was, in retrospect, morally repugnant.

“I can only say in a qualified way,” said de Klerk. “Inasmuch as it trampled human right, it was – and remains – and that I’ve said also publicly, morally reprehensible.” He added, “But the concept of giving as the Czechs have it and the Slovaks have it, of saying that ethnic unities with one culture, with one language, can be happy and can fulfill their democratic aspirations in an own state, that is not repugnant.”

“With the advantage of hindsight,” said de Klerk, “we should have started the reform much earlier…But the intention was to end at a point which would ensure justice for all. And the tipping point in my mind was when I realized… we need to abandon the concept of separateness. And we need to build a new nation with its eleven official languages, accommodating its diversity, but taking hands and moving forward together.”

We call each other on birthdays

Mandela, will turn ninety in July and de Klerk was asked if they were friends.
“Actually, we’re close friends,” said de Klerk. “Not the closest in the sense that we see each other once a week. Also, we live apart. But he’s been in my home as a guest; I’ve been in his home as a guest. When I go to Johannesburg, my wife and I have had tea with him and Graca, his wife.”

“We call each other on birthdays,” he said. “There is no animosity left between us.” But then he added: “Historically, there was.”

http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/10/de-klerk-no-animosity-with-mandela/

Mandela was no 'saintlike figure'

11 April, 2012

Former president FW de Klerk has called Nelson Mandela a "brutal and unfair" opponent and said he was no "holy man", angering the ANC.

De Klerk, 76, who in 1993 won the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with Mandela, said that the anti-apartheid hero was a principled man of "stature and strength" but not faultless.

"I do not subscribe to the general hagiography surrounding Mandela," he said in a speech in Johannesburg on Monday, reflecting on their tense negotiations about democratic reforms.

"He was by no means the avuncular and saintlike figure so widely depicted today."

The ANC said De Klerk was poisoning South Africa with his remarks and could not acknowledge Mandela's bravery because the former president was black.

Keith Khoza, an ANC spokesman, said: "De Klerk should acknowledge Mandela and his achievements and understand that his time has passed as a president."

De Klerk spoke glowingly of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and her policies.

He praised her as a great leader who "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," De Klerk said.

De Klerk, who runs a charitable foundation, warned last month against ANC plans for a "second transition" amid concerns that South Africa's post-1994 constitution will be subverted.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2012/04/11/mandela-was-no-saintlike-figure

De Klerk slams Zuma, Malema

2011-06-02

Former president FW de Klerk believes it is unacceptable to sing "shoot the boer", according to a report published in Beeld newspaper on Thursday.

De Klerk also criticised President Jacob Zuma for failing to rebuke ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema.

"It is unacceptable to sing songs that ask that somebody gets shot," De Klerk said.

Historical context
"The historical context is irrelevant. It will be equally unacceptable if Afrikaners started singing songs from the Anglo Boer war that ask that English people be shot."

De Klerk also spoke about Malema's statements - made in Kimberley ahead of the local government elections - that white people were criminals because they had stolen land.

"It is unacceptable for Malema to call white people criminals.

"It is even more unacceptable for Zuma to sit smilingly on the same stage while Malema, an important ANC official, makes such racist comments.

"Malema's conduct is irreconcilable with the Constitution, which Zuma promised in an oath to protect."

Malema has been hauled before the Equality Court for singing "shoot the boer". Judgment is yet to be handed down.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/De-Klerk-slams-Zuma-Malema-20110602