home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
102593
/
1025210.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-25
|
7KB
|
138 lines
<text id=93TT0084>
<title>
Oct. 25, 1993: They Gave Peace A Chance
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1993
Oct. 25, 1993 All The Rage:Angry Young Rockers
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NOBEL PRIZES, Page 45
Thet Gave Peace A Chance
</hdr>
<body>
<p>Mandela and De Klerk are honored for bringing South Africa to
the brink of freedom for all
</p>
<p>By RICHARD STENGEL--Reported by Peter Hawthorne/Cape Town and Scott MacLeod/Johannesburg
</p>
<p> A venerable school of historiography holds that great men and
women make history, not that history makes great men and women.
It is still a chicken-and-egg argument: Who or which comes first,
the revolution or the revolutionary, the reformer or the reformation,
the parade or the person leading it?
</p>
<p> The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize last week to Nelson Mandela,
president of the African National Congress, and F.W. de Klerk,
President of the Republic of South Africa, bolsters both sides
of this timeworn debate. De Klerk is pre-eminently an individual
who has been pushed forward by the tide of events, a man of
conservative bent who has been prodded by historical forces
to act progressively, even boldly. It is not implausible to
argue that whoever succeeded P.W. Botha as President of South
Africa would have been compelled to release Nelson Mandela,
dismantle the apparatus of apartheid and pave the way to the
promised land of one-man, one-vote elections.
</p>
<p> For his part, Nelson Mandela has always taken the path of most
resistance. The son of a Thembu chief, Mandela was groomed to
be a traditional tribal leader but chose instead to become an
outlaw in his own land, a man who fought an iniquitous system,
not one who abided by it. During the 27 years he was imprisoned
by a repressive white minority government, he kept a vision
of a nonracist, color-blind society in which white and black
lived together in harmony. During his imprisonment, it was he
who first stretched out the hand of peace to the government
that deprived him of freedom. In the more than three years since
his release, he has remained true to that vision, preaching
reconciliation where others advocated revenge, advocating compromise
where others preached intransigence. Although he never fails
to emphasize that he is part of a collective leadership, Nelson
Mandela in his proud, insistent, fatherly way has shaped history
even as it shaped him.
</p>
<p> For the moment, however, it does not matter much who is the
driver and who the passenger, for these two leaders have been
bound together by historical circumstances. The Afrikaner incrementalist
and the African radical are locked in a symbiotic relationship
in which each needs the other to create a new South Africa.
To beget a democratic country, De Klerk and Mandela must bring
their respective and historically antagonistic followers to
the table of accommodation. The prize seals that partnership.
</p>
<p> To South Africans it may seem an odd time to award a peace prize
to two native sons. The country is in the midst of an orgy of
political violence that shows no sign of abating. The negotiating
process over which Mandela and De Klerk have presided like detached
yet querulous gods is, often on the verge of anarchy. Though
an election date is set, few in South Africa believe it is written
in stone. Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the political leader of
the Zulu nation, is boycotting the talks, and the new Freedom
Alliance, of which he is part, threatens to disrupt the elections.
The right-wing Afrikaner Volksfront is calling for an autonomous
white homeland and a halt to the election process. No doubt
the Nobel committee is trying to nudge history a bit itself.
</p>
<p> There is a bitterness among black South Africans that Mandela
has to share the award with De Klerk. The President may be the
man who freed Mandela, but to most blacks his is still the face
of the oppressor, the leader of the South African Defense Force,
which only last week staged a raid against alleged African terrorists
in the Transkei that killed five youths. Mandela has frequently
derided De Klerk as a man who "talks peace while making war,"
accusing him of being responsible--directly or indirectly--for the political violence in South Africa. At his press
conference in Johannesburg to acknowledge the award, Mandela
was asked what De Klerk had done to deserve it. "Just ask the
Nobel Peace Prize committee," Mandela replied. The freedom fighter
at 75 has retreated a great distance from his initial description
of De Klerk as "a man of integrity." De Klerk is now simply
the man he must do business with.
</p>
<p> The award has mixed consequences for both men. De Klerk, 57,
must worry about the Jan Smuts syndrome. Smuts was the World
War II Prime Minister of South Africa who was lionized abroad
and discredited at home. Afrikaans-speaking whites are an insular
tribe, and they turned out the urbane field marshal in 1948
for not attending to his own people. De Klerk's popularity is
lower now than ever before. It has dropped steadily since he
triumphed in the nationwide whites-only referendum on negotiations
for a new constitution enfranchising blacks last year. A recent
poll showed that only 32% of Afrikaners regarded De Klerk as
their true leader, while 36% preferred a variety of right-wingers.
To the people he needs most, the award is a sign not of his
constancy but of his perfidy.
</p>
<p> Mandela must worry about the Chief Luthuli complex. Luthuli
was the leader of the A.N.C. who was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize in 1960 at the very moment the A.N.C. was turning to armed
struggle. Even as he was receiving the award, Luthuli, noble,
stalwart, unshakable, was yesterday's man. That is how some
of today's young lions in the townships see Mandela. They do
not like Mandela's sharing even a podium with De Klerk, for
to them sharing means equating, and De Klerk is the enemy. It
is these young people who are restless with the snail's pace
of change, who wonder why freedom must be negotiated at all.
</p>
<p> This would not be the first time the Nobel Peace Prize was premature.
Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho won the award in 1973, but the
fighting in Vietnam continued for two more years. Gorbachev
got the prize in 1990, shortly before he was overtaken by events
he could not control. In this case, perhaps, the award will
be a harbinger and will prop up its recipients and the peace
process. Neither man can afford for his counterpart to fail.
De Klerk's fragility does not gratify Mandela. The skepticism
of Mandela's left wing does not comfort De Klerk. History shows
that the weaker the negotiating partners, the weaker the peace
negotiated. For Mandela, who emerged unbowed after nearly three
decades in prison, the award is a vindication of the past; for
De Klerk, more politician than statesman, the prize might just
show the way into the future.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>