‘Unrepentant De Klerk must face the music’

De Klerk and his cohorts should be brought to book just as the Nazi leaders were in the Nuremberg trials

APARTHEID-ERA president FW de Klerk has come under fire recently for saying that he does not believe that apartheid was a crime against humanity.

Just like the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials after World War II, he must be brought to book, along with the many apartheid co-conspirators and perpetrators who were let off the hook by the TRC in the 1990s.

De Klerk, on national TV, continued to perpetuate a right-wing, white supremacist narrative, often maintained by apartheid apologists and the hate group AfriForum, that apartheid was not a crime against humanity – this despite all the statutes and the UN resolutions that have confirmed it was.

There is, and can be, no debate that apartheid was a crime against humanity.

De Klerk has since been forced to retract and apologise for his comments after widespread condemnation, largely thanks to the EFF who challenged his presence at the State of Nation Address last week.

Other prominent individuals and organisations such as the Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu and the ANC have also strongly condemned him.

It now begs the question of how we hold to account those that were responsible for a crime against humanity.

In the case of De Klerk, people are focused on the fact that he entered into negotiations with former president Nelson Mandela and the ANC, which led to the 1994 elections.

They have never focused on the destruction that happened with De Klerk as a right-wing, conservative member of the then National Party.

De Klerk, in his capacity as a rightwing nationalist and apartheid leader, directly and indirectly inflicted physical, emotional and psychological social turmoil to millions of black South Africans.

If De Klerk were a Nazi after World War II, he would have been held to account in the Nuremberg trials and found guilty of crimes similar to those perpetrated here under apartheid. He would have served a jail term and possibly been executed.

In choosing not to take action against De Klerk, South Africans have forgiven him.

However, we haven’t forgotten. It is only now, under the current political environment, groupings such as AfriForum, Solidarity, the DA and various other such groupings and individuals have become emboldened to be unapologetic about the institutionalised racism of the past, and the racism that they continue to display today.

Along similar lines, there is another question that requires an answer: Is Naspers chairperson and billionaire Koos Bekker any different to De Klerk?

What about the likes of the Serbian Branko Brkic from the Daily Maverick and his band of amaBhungane allies?

These white-owned, white-run platforms continue to serve as a medium for mainly white journalists and editors to actively drive apartheid-era style propaganda machines – all aimed at targeting black businesses, black executives, black academics, black political leaders and black professionals. These

De Klerk, as a right-wing nationalist and apartheid leader, brought turmoil to the lives of millions of black South Africans

entities and others, controlled, owned and managed by white minorities, appear to be hell-bent on destroying black excellence and the economic emancipation of our people.

Naspers was the propaganda arm of the apartheid regime, serving to defend the interests of the white minority in South Africa.

The only difference between then and now is that they hide behind the mask of Naspers and Media 24, using only a sprinkling of black executives in their effort to mask their true intentions, which are to cement the economic power of the white establishment in South Africa today and make sure that they continue to dominate through economic means via their media channels, and control the political power in South Africa in the process.

If we look at the funders who contributed to the CR17 campaign, we begin to find the answers. These are mainly white people of “influence” and corporates which were closely aligned to those who supported the brutal apartheid regime of De Klerk, PW Botha, BJ Vorster and all the others who came before them.

In the case of Naspers, there is apparent historical proof and documents that factually demonstrate how the group had supported the apartheid regime.

For their support of the apartheid regime, Naspers benefited through commercial preferences such as textbook contracts for state schools – all funded by the apartheid government.

Some, after imbibing Mandela’s rainbow nation elixir, argue that we should forgive Naspers as they are now playing a vital role in the country’s economy.

Let us assume that there is merit in that argument; my view is that they are still permitted to continue to dominate the media narrative in South Africa.

While we embrace a “free” economy in South Africa under democracy, I must wonder what would have happened had Naspers been held accountable for apartheid.

Imagine if the Reich minister of propaganda in Germany, Joseph Goebbels, had continued to own the media in a post-war Germany? Yet, that is precisely what has happened here. It is an almost absurd situation that we find ourselves in.

We are in a country where the apartheid media continues to dominate, much to the devastation of black excellence and progress.

For more, see www.iol.co.za.