It was interesting that he would say one thing in his speeches in English, when the world was watching, and another thing when he was speaking to “his” people. The rhetoric differed substantially, with much more of a revolutionary or moderate bent depending on the audience. It was what was expected of him though, and he would not have been able to govern had he approached it any different.
“Partition of that country may have been a better solution or, perhaps, a more gradual transition to majority rule/power sharing should have been implemented.”
Very astute observations, and not too different from what De Klerk promised the whites. Unfortunately he sold out.
Saying something moderate to one audience and something radical to another sounds like Obama....
De Klerk definitely sold out his people. As I said before, Apartheid was no longer tenable, but the path forward could have and should have been very different.
If I were in South Africa, I would have emigrated by now. I know many who have. They should have seen the future by looking at what happened to the formerly prosperous country of Rhodesia.
The former South African leadership should have demanded more power-sharing etc before agreeing to changes. It’s all academic now and should serve as a lesson for future generations of people facing a similar political change. Yeah, I know the conditions were pretty unique for Rhodesians and white South Africans, but this model could be applied to any ethnic population turning over power to a different group.