Mr de Klerk, who was president of South Africa until Nelson Mandela came to
power in 1994, denied that blacks in the homelands were disenfranchised.
“They voted. They were not put in homelands, the homelands were
historically there,” he said.
“If only the developed world would put so much money into Africa, which
is struggling with poverty, as we poured into those homelands. How many
universities were built? How many schools?
“At that stage the goal was separate but equal, but separate but equal
failed.”
Mr de Klerk was asked if he believed apartheid was “morally repugnant”.
“I can only say in a qualified way,” he replied. “Inasmuch as
it trampled human right, it was – and remains – morally reprehensible.
“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 fulfil their democratic aspirations in an own state, that
is not repugnant.
“The tipping point in my mind was when I realised, 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.”
His comments were met with protest from South Africans, some of whom called
for his Nobel Peace Prize to be stripped.
Eusebius McKaiser, a political commentator wrote: “De Klerk doesn’t
deserve that prize given he thinks our homelands weren’t indecent and
apartheid not obviously immoral.”
Karima Brown, another political commentator, said: “He didn’t abandon
apartheid because he thought it was wrong but because it had become too
expensive to uphold,” she said.
Mr de Klerk’s spokesman Dave Stewart said people should focus on the “180
degree turn” the former president carried out when he realised the
policies he supported were wrong.
“If he should hand back his Nobel Prize, then so should [Mikhail]
Gorbachev because he supported radical communism in his youth,” he
said.
Related posts:
Views: 0