Before posing his question to the visiting former South African
president last Friday at a panel discussion on constitution-making,
Steven Puro, Ph.D., of the political science department, mused at
how amazing it would be to interrogate one of the framers of the
U.S. Constitution.
“We have a distinctive opportunity here,” Puro said.
While the importance of South Africa’s new constitution may be
yet unrealized by much of the world, Frederik Willem de Klerk’s
forums at Saint Louis University last week were as close to coffee
with James Madison as St. Louisans were going to get, short of a
flying DeLorean.
De Klerk, who served as president from 1989 to 1994, lead his
National Party, along with Nelson Mandela’s African National
Congress and 24 other factions, in dismantling white-minority rule
in South Africa and establishing, in 1993, multicultural democracy.
For their work, de Klerk and Mandela received the Nobel Peace Prize
in 1993.
With his keynote address last Thursday afternoon, de Klerk
capped off Atlas Week, discussing the importance of parties in
political negotiations taking initiatives and risks that ensure
their commitment to the process. He also spoke about the need for
compromise.
“The ANC was ready to end armed struggle, which had been (its)
rallying point,” de Klerk said, adding that the NP had made a
commitment to ending the Apartheid system it tried to preserve for
decades. “Those two initiatives created the scene for
negotiation.”
His opening remarks focused on the convergence of multiple
parties, both indigenous and Afrikaner (descendants of Dutch
settlers), in agreement upon the final constitution.
“There was a common acceptance that whether we liked one another
or not, there could be no long-term solution that did not involve
all the major parties and population groups of our country,” de
Klerk said.
“Our problems could be solved only through negotiation,” he
said. “Any attempt by any party to continue to impose its will on
its opponents by force would simply lead to the destruction of the
country and the economy.”
De Klerk noted the timing of the reforms, coinciding with the
collapse of global communism, were ideal, and compared the delicacy
with which Afrikaners in the NP needed to cede power without losing
their rights to a man trying to dismount a tiger without being
eaten.
He said by the end of the 1980s, the ANC and its allies had
realized a revolutionary overthrow of the white power structure was
looking less and less feasible.
De Klerk concluded that the first prerequisite for peaceful
negotiations was a commitment for a nonmilitary solution–and a
movement beyond radicalism.
“If the balance of forces is such that any side believes that it
can secure or indefinitely maintain itscore interests by military
force, it will probably not be willing to make the very painful
compromises required for genuine settlements,” de Klerk said. “All
of the major parties to the conflict in South Africa had reached
this conclusion by the late ’80s.”
He characterized peace as a frame of mind as well as a
jointlyconstructed framework of agreements and laws.
“In the final analysis, I personally believe that the greatest
peace is the peace which we derive from our faith in God,” de Klerk
said. “Crises might beset us … but if we have faith and the
certainty it brings, we will enjoy peace–the peace that surpasses
all understanding.”
The former president also fielded questions that dealt with
terrorism, global capitalism, constitution-making in Iraq and the
war in Israel and Palestine.
“Terrorism is a scourge and I support strong action against
[it],” de Klerk said, though he added, “I don’t like the concept of
a war against terrorism–it elevates terrorists to be something
more than the criminals they are.”
He said the world must “recognize that certain situations play
into the hands of [terrorists ] … situations like hunger and
poverty, situations like terrible regimes,” adding: “The long-term
solution is to rob the terrorists of their ammunition by waging the
war against poverty, by waging the war against destitution.”
De Klerk often incorporated his belief in the superiority of
free- market systems into his emphasis on human rights and
democracy.
“You also can’t have true democracy when there is no economic
hope,” de Klerk said. “The free market system is the best economic
system … it has the right policy but it needs to be implemented
openly … and with sensitivity to those who are becoming poorer
and poorer.”
He said a solution in Israel and Palestine hinged upon
initiative and risk on the part of all parties involved. He
suggested Israelis show their good will by removing Jewish
settlements from Palestinian lands and Arafat truly make every
effort to end violence against Israelis.
De Klerk also warned against negotiating parties being deterred
by radical factions, and even acts of terrorism, for fear of giving
extremists a veto in the peace process.
Friday morning, de Klerk and Theuns Eloff, the man who acted as
an outside administrator to the negotiation process, spoke before a
panel of three SLU professors on the subject of “The Politics of
Constitution-Making.”
Emmanuel Uwalaka, Ph.D., of the political science department,
and Alan Howard of the School of Law joined Puro in asking
questions of the two men.
“Indiscrimination guaranteed, in the end, that the total
political leadership in South Africa … accepted co-ownership for
the agreement which we reached,” de Klerk said of the multiparty
negotiation. “[It] accepted the constitution as its own and
therefore defended it.”
He conceded that the South African constitution had yet to be
completely tested, but it had been partly tested. “We are slowly
developing a body of constitutional court and supreme court
decisions that is assuring the court is adhered to.”
Before leaving Friday afternoon, de Klerk also spoke on “Public
Service in a Global Context.”
