Has forgiving apartheid been worth the cost?

FW de Klerk’s attempt to put some distance between his regime and the crimes committed by that regime during his tenure was motivated by self-preservation after all.

For that matter, the saying goes, Ityala aliboli (an act of evil doesn’t erode with the passing of time).

According to the Mail & Guardian, the NPA is considering charging De Klerk for his role in the deaths of Mathew Goniwe, Fort Calata, Sicelo Mhlauli and Sparrow Mkhonto, known as the Cradock Four.

This case is one of about 20 apartheid-era criminal cases being considered for reopening.

In truth, the number of murders and massacres committed in the dying days of apartheid is a matter which most of us largely suppress. We attempt to forget the heinous crimes committed by the apartheid state and we file these memories in the deepest recesses of our minds. Or we did until De Klerk, precariously perched on the dividing fence of history, uncovered himself together with our raw wounds.

We are truly injured souls trying to make life work despite the debilitating effects of apartheid, whose devastation was not just political, but psychological, spiritual, economic, social and cultural as well.

De Klerk and those who think like him were exposed as apartheid apologists who quite possibly never truly understood the true horrors of apartheid.

However, it’s also possible that he understands perfectly, and it is because he understands the implications of the crimes his regime committed that he attempted to sanctify it.

But the ANC has also been exposed as complicit in the abortion of the dream which was a “new SA ”— a dream that took guts, sweat, and blood to birth. The failure to pursue people who displayed contempt for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, either by not appearing or by appearing only to present untruths, has been exposed. The failure to relentlessly pursue concurrently the ideals of nation building has effectively extended apartheid into the democratic era.

Companies which enabled apartheid, and directly or indirectly financed the wholesale terror visited by the apartheid state on the people of this country, have walked free.

They, like De Klerk, have not been called to account for their roles in propping up the reprehensible apartheid regime.

We have somewhat understood this to be our chosen path, the path to peace and coexistence.

However, at times like this we have to ask whether it has been worth the cost. At times it seems the complete lack of accountability we see in the current government has its roots in the fact that we never demanded proper accountability from apartheid enforcers and enablers.

It is perhaps apt that the NPA is considering crimes committed in the apartheid era in the same way as crimes committed in the post-liberation era.

It points to the consistency of crimes committed by successive regimes which have seen this country as a means to “enjoy” the excesses of power.

Each of these regimes, different in skin colour, took its turn to create, as much as possible, a blinded populace that tolerates looting and pillaging. However, in spite of this overarching similarity in the crimes of leadership committed, it is apartheid which was unequivocally labelled “a crime against humanity”.

Colonialism also qualifies for this label.

So, what now? Is the South African project still viable?

My hope is that we are on the verge of a new era — a postcolonial, postapartheid, and what may be referred to as postliberation democracy.

This new era must be shaped by the lessons of the past.

Central to these lessons is perhaps an understanding of the overarching failure of the last three eras — the colonial, the apartheid and the post-liberation ones.

These eras have been dominated by leadership sins that stem from misunderstanding the reason for the existence of state power.

They assumed power was a tool for their self-preservation, and for the benefit of their supporters.

If we are to make the most of this lesson, we must make sure that the emerging era is one where leadership is understood as an instrument of urgent national development and nothing else.

Those who are elected, hopefully directly, and who accept leadership, must employ state power to create an enabling environment for economic growth and social cohesion. Nothing else will do.

We must make sure that the emerging era is one where leadership is understood as an instrument of urgent national development and nothing else