The deceased leaders of Southern Africa: heroes, populists or villains?

The past few months have seen the deaths of two key leaders in South Africa.  The first was relatively low key, and his achievements were subject to mixed acclamation.  The second death was highly publicised, with the man's life feted almost to the point of beatification.

The first death, on 11 November, was that of Frederik Willem (FW) de Klerk, South Africa’s last white president.  He was a former supporter of apartheid, who eventually worked with Nelson Mandela to end it, and pave the way for multi-racial democracy.  He shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Mandela in 1993, though popular opinion overwhelmingly rated him the less venerated of the two.

Public opinion has always been lukewarm about de Klerk.  For liberals, he remained tainted by his former support for apartheid and white minority rule.  Many conservative white South Africans, on the other hand, accused him of having been intimidated into submission by sanctions, township violence, and global unpopularity/isolation (though the 1992 referendum to lift apartheid saw 68.7 per cent support from whites).  De Klerk effectively handed over power to the African National Congress (ANC) but not before he dismantled South Africa's nuclear weapons.

The second death (barely 6 weeks after de Klerk) was that of (former Archbishop) Desmond Tutu.  The tributes to Tutu have been unceasing and unrestrained.  Like Mandela, the man's sincerity, idealism, and (in his own case) gushing warmth seem beyond question.

While the character and public image of leaders is important to our assessment of them, more important is their enduring legacy.  In particular there is the issue of whether the changes they helped make will bring a lasting improvement in the living conditions of their fellow citizens.  This is particularly pertinent to South Africa, which is now widely regarded as following Zimbabwe's path towards becoming a failed state.

Effectively, while apartheid had no redeeming features, it would appear that bringing about instant black majority rule virtually guaranteed an eventual descent into corruption and a failed state.  This is a major reason for the departure of many white South Africans and Zimbabweans (who could see the writing on the wall) to places like Australia.

Here is my take on the milestone politicians of Southern Africa in the post-colonial era  We should begin with some context about differences between the former Rhodesia, and South Africa.

Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and South Africa had quite different political histories, especially in regard to how minority white rule was maintained.  Such rule only became a big issue because (in Africa) white colonialism never swamped the native population in the same way as occurred in North America, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina etc.

South Africa's white population accounted for 22.7 per cent of the national population in 1911 with the proportion declining to 7.6 per cent by 2019 (largely due to high black fertility and immigration, and white emigration).  The white population of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe on the other hand was never more than 8 per cent (mid 1970s) and declined to less than 1 per cent since.  In 1891 only about 1,500 Europeans resided there.

White settlement in South Africa began as early as 1652, when Cape Town developed as a supply centre for the East Indies trade.  The (Afrikaner dominated) National Party imposed apartheid in 1948, institutionalising previous racial segregation.  Under apartheid, blacks could not vote.  In theory they belonged (and had their citizenship assigned) to one of ten 'homelands' and required a pass to live in South Africa proper.

(Southern) Rhodesiaon the other hand was colonised much later and, in 1923, was annexed by Britain.  In 1953, it was merged into the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.  Zambia and Nyasaland (Malawi) became independent in 1964 but independence (without immediate majority rule) was denied to Southern Rhodesia.  Its government, led by Ian Smith, issued a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) in 1965 and established Rhodesia.  "The mantle of the pioneers has fallen on our shoulders," Smith said, calling on white Rhodesians to maintain standards in a "primitive country".

Some regarded the white culture in Rhodesia as paternalistic (and not merely exploitative), with many whites raised to "look after" black Africans while at the same time keeping them at arm's length.  Certain businesses (especially in Tribal Trust Lands) were reserved only for blacks, who were also exempt from national service.

Until 1961 there were technically no restrictions on the entitlement of native Africans to vote, but a high property qualification ensured that few were able.  This was altered in 1968, when blacks were limited to voting for 15 Assembly members while Europeans were entitled to elect 50.

Like apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia strictly enforced curfews and imposed a pass system to restrict the movement of Africans.  Most prime farmland had been appropriated by whites, and senior positions in public administration were reserved for whites.

In 1980, after a civil war that cost 30,000 lives the black majority took over, and Robert Mugabe became President.  Ian Smith gave in, mainly because South Africa ceased its support, and because the independence of Mozambique opened up a new military front.

Mugabe was initially feted by the international community, though his image became tarnished as the country slipped into violence, autocracy and economic chaos.  (Mugabe, while showing distain for his former colonial masters seemed to nevertheless ape them in his use of pomp and ceremony, and in the way he adorned his mansion with things European.  Shortly after independence Mugabe and his ruling party perpetrated the Gukurahundi, a program of mass killing of mainly minority Ndebele people.)

Ian Smith was a colonial through and through.  He was born in Southern Rhodesia of British immigrant parents, and was a strong supporter of the Empire and white rule.  He joined the RAF in WW2 and was shot down several times, suffering disfiguring wounds to his body and face.  He remained Prime Minister of Rhodesia for almost all of the 14 years of international isolation that followed UDI.  He considered Rhodesia as having been betrayed by Britain, and dedicated much of his 1997 memoirs, The Great Betrayal, to condemning Mugabe and several UK politicians.  Many people now believe that outcomes (even for blacks) would have been far better under Smith and continued white minority rule.

South Africa’s economy has not done well under black majority rule and unemployment has now reached about 36 per cent (46.6 per cent if hidden unemployment is added).  Covid delivered a major recession, and the country is dogged by inequality, crime, and corruption.  South Africa had functioned well in the early years of ANC rule but, as corruption engulfed its ranks (especially under Jacob Zuma), the country increasingly failed to deliver basic services to poor black townships.  Among the blacks, only the elites prospered.  (The black elites are said have looted the country to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.)  In 2021 Zuma's jailing on contempt of court charges sparked the worst street violence in a generation, claiming 354 lives and destroying thousands of businesses. 

Current President and ANC leader, Cyril Ramaphosa, was elected on a platform to clean up the corruption but to date has made limited headway.

Overall, it would seem that decolonisation in Africa has hardly been an economic or social triumph.  There have been regular coups in African nations, and the extent of economic and social problems is reflected in large numbers seeking asylum and a better life in Europe.  This is partly because many African countries were never unitary nations in the first instance.

Botswana is the most commonly cited success.  It is considered the most stable democracy in Africa, though it has been dominated by a single party since independence.  Botswana has transformed itself into an upper middle income country (ranked 78thin the world based on GDP per capita).  It has the advantage that about 85 per cent of its population is made up of the same ethnic group (Tswana).

Ghana is sometimes also mentioned, though its first president, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah was deposed in a coup in 1966, and a series of alternating military and civilian governments followed from 1966 to 1981.

One of the lessons of Africa is that the accepted paradigm in the West, that democracy should be implemented across the globe, is too idealistic.  The reality seems to be that western-style democracy has rarely prospered outside the developed world.  It has struggled in Africa, and in Central and South America.  In Asia, democracy has mainly been successful in Japan, India, South Korea, and Taiwan.  Less perfect democracies have persisted in Malaysia, PNG, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka.

South Africa and Zimbabwe would be far better off today, if there had been a much longer transition to black majority rule.  Given that an instant transition to black majority rule was being pushed by Western countries (especially Britain), could black leaders have been reasonably expected to settle for anything less?  There have been few cases of political figures (especially resistance leaders) turning down the prospect of political power.

I don't believe than Ian Smith and FW de Klerk could have continued resistance to black majority rule in the circumstances.  (This situation was foreseen in Harold McMillan's "Winds of Change" speech in 1960.)  Similarly, I think it would have been politically impossible for Mandela, Tutu or any other South African leader to suggest that black majority rule be delayed.  Politicians in the West, who had little at stake themselves, are indirectly responsible for the economic and social collapse of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, and sending South Africa down the same path.

The main mistake made by de Klerk was not abandoning apartheid much earlier, and not setting in place an earlier transition to gradual black majority rule.  In this respect his predecessor PW Botha must take much of the blame.  De Klerk, however, did the world a big favour when he got rid of South Africa's nuclear weapons.

Rhodesia seemed to have a better record of including (in a very limited way) black politicians within its parliamentary institutions.  In this respect it is hard to understand why it was dealt with more severely than South Africa (the only explanation is that it was not already independent).

In all the chaos in Southern Africa from the mid 1960s to the early 1990s, Western democracies naively ignored the risks involved in instantly overturning the political order.  Britain's colonial territories by that time were of little economic benefit to it, and the West had relatively little to lose, except perhaps the risk of growing Soviet and Cuban influence in Africa.

In my opinion, if there was to be a prize for the most hypocritical country at that time, then Australia would probably deserve it.  Malcolm Fraser was strutting the world stage as a so-called "eminent person" tut-tutting white South Africa and the former Rhodesia to the glowing approval of the political class internationally and back home.  (Even South African liberals were contemptuous of Fraser.)

The hypocrisy in (farmer) Fraser's lack of empathy with white colonials in Southern Africa is that, if Australia had an Indigenous population of say 20 million during the 1970s or earlier, Australia itself would have faced the same predicament as South Africa.  Under such circumstances it is almost certain that white Australians would have adopted a less than liberal attitude themselves.

On our own doorstep a similar issue arose with PNG.  Many of those involved in administering PNG before its independence believe that Whitlam rushed independence for PNG, and that its political and administrative structures would have been stronger, if it had been permitted a longer transition.

In conclusion, given the actions of the international community, white leaders in Southern Africa were almost powerless in preventing the change, that ultimately drove their countries into increasing chaos and decay.  Similarly black leaders were as much the beneficiaries of changing international attitudes by the West, as they were instruments of change themselves.  Overall, decolonisation has been far less successful in Africa than in other parts of the world, especially Asia.