Cape Town - Former president FW de Klerk says he’s not letting the controversy over renaming a Cape Town road after him upset him.
“I don’t allow it to get under my skin,” he told the Cape Argus on Tuesday.
And former president Kgalema Motlanthe and IFP president Mangosuthu Buthelezi have come out in support of the street renaming at a conference on 25 years of nation-building. This follows the unbanning of political organisations and the release of Nelson Mandela, which De Klerk announced on February 2, 1990.
Motlanthe said: “If my views were canvassed, I would have expressed support for the renaming of the street after FW de Klerk.” He added that struggle stalwart Ahmed Kathrada did “the right thing” in voicing his support in a letter in Tuesday’s Cape Argus.
Kathrada said while he often disagreed with De Klerk, “had it not been for Mr De Klerk’s bold steps, we would perhaps have spent another decade or more in struggle, which could have left South Africa a wasteland”.
Reconciliation was a continuing process, wrote Kathrada: “It nevertheless is something that we must strive for daily. If a street renaming makes a contribution in that regard, then it should be supported. In the same vein, when a street or town needs to have a name change and serves to make us a more cohesive society, we should support it.”
Buthelezi described the vocal criticism as “shameful”, saying De Klerk should be honoured. It was necessary to act as guardians of the truth and advise the younger generation to read the records: “Neither Mr De Klerk nor I are strangers to propaganda.”
Under scrutiny at the FW de Klerk Foundation conference came recent comments by Western Cape Cosatu secretary and ANC councillor Tony Ehrenreich: “The phase of reconciliation that brought together fair-minded white and black people is over. We are now engaged in a struggle for economic and social justice.”
Motlanthe said although it was necessary for Ehrenreich to have the space to express himself, there was a duty also not “to be alarmed” by, or over-invest in, pronouncements. If they were wrong, they needed to be corrected.
Motlanthe also recalled an incident from his days as ANC secretary-general when the Potchefstroom council wanted to rename Kruger Street. The assumption had been that it was named after Paul Kruger, state president and president of the Transvaal Republic, but there was no evidence that it was the case. It subsequently emerged it was named after the Kruger who had laid out the town’s streets, he added.
Meanwhile, speaking at the same FW de Klerk Foundation conference on Tuesday, Motlanthe, De Klerk, an Afrikaans business tycoon and a British diplomat said frank public debates rather than racial rhetoric were needed to forge social cohesion and a unique sense of South Africanness.
“The moment we are irritated, we quickly dial back to pre-1994 in the way we respond to irrationalities,” said Motlanthe.
Cyber racism was “most disheartening”, as most bloggers appeared to be young people who did not know apartheid and such comments did not come from a lunatic fringe, but the mainstream. “In a constitutional democracy, the boundaries for clear, open and robust speech are open, but do not accommodate racial insults and incitement to racial violence… This serves as a barometer for our social cohesion.”
De Klerk said he was concerned over “a new bitter and confrontational tone” in the national discourse – the antithesis of reconciliation. South Africa was “in for a rough five years, but it should be better if we stick to the rule of law and the principals and value of the constitution”.
However, he lambasted the SACP as “a potentially fatal threat” to South Africa’s constitutional democracy. “It continues to hide behind the ANC banner and fails to seek (election) support in its own name.”
Buthelezi said the task of strengthening and protecting South Africa’s constitutional democracy remained.
“I hear the warning sirens of social fragmentation and recognise that our constitutional democracy will flounder if we fail to maintain that founding principle of non-racialism. For the sake of all we have worked for, and all we still hope to achieve, may the present leadership of our country heed this warning.”
Lord Robin Renwick, the British ambassador to South Africa in the period leading up to Mandela’s release, agreed South Africa would do best by defending its constitution and the independence of the judiciary.
If there was to be increased state intervention, he said, “then you need to have a state more efficient than we have seen anywhere in the world ever”.
Businessman Dr Johann Rupert called for “apolitical, totally open” debate led by civil society: more people needed to speak out, even if it meant being unpopular. “Instead of calling names, let’s talk,” he said.
But Rupert sharply criticised trade unions for holding the government back, particularly in education which needed to be ramped up to produce the necessary skills base. “The government has to decide if it wants the South African Democratic Teachers Union to run the country or if they want to educate the kids.” He argued many farmers would participate in the government’s land reform projects but expressed dismay at the government’s policy behaviour.
A key agreed-to announcement, involving academics, was changed without further consultation just before it was meant to be made public. “(Agriculture Minister Senzeni) Zokwana must realise he is actually the minister of food security. You take food off the table, you’ll have a proper revolution.”
Political Bureau