From: mark@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: Scandal(s) of the day
Date: 16 Nov 92 09:57:30 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

linda@frcs.Alt.ZA (Linda Jacobson) writes:
> .... 
> De Klerk's strategies are malevolent and clever. In the past it was
> pretty easy to know exactly what was what, and who stood where: PW was
> at least pretty straightforward about his approach - there was no
> question that he was a "bad guy". FW, on the other hand, cleverly
> manages to cloud a number of issues. His commissions of enquiry seem
> central to the myth that he is interested in seeing justice done. My
> impression is that the commissions are essentially a smokescreen for
> "business as usual". Have you noticed:  
> 
> (a) the timing of these reports (particularly re publication)? 
> (b) the ratio of media coverage to action taken against people and 
>     institutions implicated?
> (c) the fact that their existence doesn't stop the same kinds of practices 
>     from continuing?

Yes. 

> The problem is that some people have been convinced that De Klerk is a
> statesman and an honest broker, and they want to believe it, and his
> smooth publicity helps perpetuate the myth. I don't think there's any
> question any more about the dishonesty of his politics, or their
> cynicism.
> 
> The good news - his term of office expires in 1994, so he has to do
> something about an interim government before then.

The bad news, there was apparently an article in the Sunday Telegraph in
Britain yesterday quoting "National Party sources" as saying that
De Klerk will stay in power after March 1995 - the present constitutional 
date for elections - and rule with "moderate blacks" in his cabinet if
there is no agreement on power sharing.

Mr De Klerk has apparently indicated to these "sources" that he will use
recent legislation to remain in power rather than hold a whites-only
general election.  In this event De Klerk "would appoint a number of
moderate blacks to his cabinet in an attempt to deflect criticism that
he was continuing with white rule".

(there's a short article about it in this morning's _Cape Times_)

In any event this is exactly what that Military Intelligence officer who
defected to the ANC said. (I think his name is Nic Basson).  Apparently
he drew up the plan in 1988, that the ANC and other organisations would
be unbanned so that the NP could confront them politically.  That they
would be drawn into protracted negotiations in order to isolate them
from the people.  That covert destabilisation and terror campaigns 
would be used in this period to undermine the ANC using organisations 
like Inkatha.

I think part of the problem is that De Klerk is the man that big
bussiness in this country are depending to get them out of the mess.
These are the groups controlling the press in this country. 
He also has the support of a range of international interests - as
is evident by the receptions he has received in all major international
capitals.

His own party is also using a strategy of distancing him from the party.
This is apparently due to the fact that he personally has significantly
more support than even the NP and Inkatha combined amoung the black 
population (Markinor poll).  

I think too often opponents of the NP have played into this strategy.
For eg Mandela's "De Klerk is an honorary man" speeches.  How about 
the leader taking some responsibility for the mess this country is in,
the corruption of his cabinet and supporters, the political destabilisa-
tion of the country.

Mark Ramsden
UCT.