Omelettes, Oligarchies, and Our Future
I have been watching The Handmaid’s Tale, a television series with a modern take on the 1985 dystopian novel of the same name by Margaret Atwood. I read the original book some time ago, and this 
current series is equally as chilling if not more so. The bottom line question is this: How far will religious zealots go to “save” their country from the punishment of God? As I read The Rise and Fall of Apartheid by David Welsh, I found myself thinking about The Handmaid’s Tale but I struggled to understand why the two seemed linked in my mind.
Welsh’s book is an elegant if sometimes superficial telling of how the stage was set for South African apartheid, how apartheid created deep divisions and rage and, ultimately, the process through the racial oligarchy of apartheid gave way to democracy without the bloody race war so many were expecting. The crux of Welsh’s conclusions about the ending of apartheid is that it may never have been accomplished without the unique leadership of Nelson Mandela and F.W. De Klerk. (566-567) Welsh’s quote from Colin Eglin (566) frames Welsh’s theory well:
“…low-intensity civil wars escalate until there is a clear winner and loser. South Africa, however, took a unique route, largely because of a rare display of leadership; a relatively conservative Afrikaner leader decided to negotiate before he had lost, and an imprisoned leader of a liberation movement decided to negotiate before he had won.” (Towards Democracy, 12)
It is, of course more complex than that, but there is truth to the fact that both leaders saw the value in avoiding a vicious race war that would not serve the economy, nor would it serve the majority (the black South Africans). No one could truly “win” if the leaders chose to ride out the revolution to its 
bloody end. As Welsh notes, the government was recognizing the economic failure of apartheid repression, and the liberation movement was becoming aware that their costs in revolution would also be too much to bear. (575)
What does this struggle and ultimate “resolution” to the apartheid state have to do with Margaret Atwood’s novel or the show I am currently binge-watching? I think somewhere in the back of my mind, the two meld together into a blended cautionary tale for the world, and our nation in particular, today. How far will be go to “protect” what we believe in? What moral boundaries are we willing to cross in order to perpetuate what we see as the “right” way? In a post-9/11 world, we have already ceded some of the rights we once assumed in order to protect ourselves from terror, yet terror has not stopped. It seems we (citizens of the West) are willing to trade in some of the rights we hold dear in order to stop people who abuse those rights in order to commit acts of violence. For example, on June 6, Prime Minister Theresa May said that human rights laws may need to be changed in order to stop terrorists. How far are we willing to go? On one hand, we in America speak of arming every citizen against possible threat after passing a “Patriot Act” that allows the government to, essentially, negate many of the legal rights of anyone suspected of terrorism.
How far are we willing to go?
In one scene of The Handmaid’s Tale, the handmaid tells her commander she is not particularly happy in the new regime (an understatement, by the way) even though they claim to be giving women more respect than ever before. He gives her the old saw, “You cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs.” It seems that Mandela and De Klerk, as well as others in the opposing factions, were tired of 
breaking eggs. Rather than continuing to hash it out in the streets of South Africa, a Reconciliation Commission was formed and the hard work of building democracy was started. It has not been without its struggles and weaknesses, but it is no longer apartheid.
So where is our bottom line? At what point are we unwilling to break any more eggs, lay aside power and offense, and come to the table for a better form of our democracy? At what point can we set aside cynicism and skepticism just a bit to negotiate for what will hopefully be a better future for our children and grandchildren? I’m asking this of myself – what are my bottom lines, and what am I willing to offer in compromise? I’m afraid if we don’t begin to have real conversations about breaking down the systems that cause harm to people, regardless of their political party, we may just end up in a “war” that leaves us all at the mercy of those who could not care less about humanity but revel in their own power. And my daughters would make terrible Handmaids.
About the Author
Kristin Hamilton
16 responses to “Omelettes, Oligarchies, and Our Future”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree that leadership was critical in ending Apartheid. Both Mandela and De Klerk wanted the same result—the end of Apartheid— and were influential and mature enough leaders to be able to negotiate. Thanks for bringing this out in your post.
That kind of leadership is so crucial, isn’t it Jim? How do we teach upcoming leaders that their influence comes with responsibility to sometimes lay aside their power and use the influence to give power to another?
An interesting if not immediately obvious link between Welsh and Atwood?! Often, leaders who forge the way in such momentous times pay a high price. Mandela and de Klerk both risked a lot with their respective constituencies to reach a lasting peace agreement and the dismantlement of apartheid.
I’m amazed they were both willing to risk so much, Geoff! Both of them had the backing of powerful and deadly people and could have flipped the switch toward a race war at any moment. It was apparent that they held no great love for each other, but their love for the country and their vision of both good and bad outcomes prevailed. That’s the kind of leader I want to be.
“I think somewhere in the back of my mind, the two meld together into a blended cautionary tale for the world, and our nation in particular, today.” Very insightful, Kristin. I too am a person who sees things and then in reflecting “connects dots”.
There are definitely some disconnects between the leadership and the people. We made ‘apartheid’ illegal in this country but people still practice injustice. What sort of things do you think might help change things?
I think we need a deep wave of remorse and repentance among those of us who have long experienced privilege that was gained on the backs of others. It is not enough to say that my ancestors didn’t own slaves, or that my Irish ancestors came here as indentured servants. I still benefit from the systems of privilege built through the kidnapping, subjugation, genocide, and imprisonment of African Americans, Native Americans, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, etc. Systems must changed so that people of color are not incarcerated at alarming rates for things white people get probation (if they are charged). Systems must change so that the voices of women of color are heard as predominantly (or more so) as white women in churches and in academia. And so much more…
“At what point are we unwilling to break any more eggs, lay aside power and offense, and come to the table for a better form of our democracy?” You ask some poignant questions, Kristin. I wonder if part of the success in De Klerk’s & Mandela’s negotiations was the trust their people placed in them. Their people trusted them to work towards a solution and, when it was appropriate, they, in turn, asked the people to reaffirm their trust in the process. Who do we trust to sit at the table and work on behalf of the many demographics in America?
So true, Katy. What I see happening in our country is that white voices are coming to the table to speak on behalf of people of color rather than trusting people of color to represent themselves, or better, us.
So good! I couldn’t agree more with your post. Laying differences aside to build community and connection versus confusion and separation. You’ll see my post echoed this desire for us to find common ground.
I have often wondered what would happen if more mothers took a place at the negotiation table? War kills our sons and daughters, and a mother’s heart goes a great distance to save the life of a child, no matter whose they are. I was reminded of this a few days ago when my daughter called crying from her teaching job due to an especially hard day. I found out one of my friends happened to be visiting the room she was working in so I contacted her. It was like I hit the “mom code” button and she went right into action advocating and supporting my daughter despite the fact we hadn’t talked in years. When I thanked her later that day for her support, she replied with, “You were there for my girl years ago and I’m glad I could help yours in any way I could. She is precious!” Mothers are skilled negotiators and invested in saving a child’s life that we’ve worked so ridiculously hard to birth and nurture. How about a mother’s table in the war room? Might be more peace and less war.
Moms = wonder women! Yes, Jennifer, I love your suggestion.
Yes! There is something about the way moms view the world that makes me think God intended that a mother’s input is crucial in crisis. Would we be so likely to send in drones if moms could look through those cameras and see the faces of children? Maybe, but I think we would give it more thought.
How far are we willing to protest our beliefs?
These days many of us protest behind our postings on social media. We don’t have to face our challengers.
It was great to see the protest during and after the presidential inauguration. I am not saying because of my feelings for #45 but that people found their voice and many were not afraid to express it. The protestors included college students to senior citizens.
Some preachers protest behind the pulpit – some eloquently and some straight shooters.
We love to hide behind the thought, let your life be the bible. But even God used the noise of trumpets to break down walls. We need to make noise sometimes.
I think protest is crucial, Lynda! Without protest, those in power are free to spin whatever narrative they choose. I am suspicious of any country or organization that makes protest illegal. That can only mean they aim to silence the voices of their people and keep the narrative on track for their own purposes.
Great insight. What are the areas that we need to compromise? And what areas do we need to stand firm? These are great questions.
Great post, Kristen! I have always really appreciated one of my presbytery mentors having me read The Handmaid’s Tale – which of course, at the time seemed like pure fantasy, in a way it doesn’t now.
I liked the insight about ‘how far are we willing to go to protect ourselves and/or what we believe.’….. I also think in a related way it has something to do with how narrowly we define ‘us’ and how broadly we define ‘other’.
P.S. I have a hard time not spending my lunch hour every Wednesday watching Handmaid’s tale….So Good!
Oh good point, Chip. Maybe a broader definition of “us” could help us not be so territorial?
I agree that The Handmaid’s Tale used to seem like fantasy. When I first read it, I thought we would never allow anything like that to happen. Now, I feel like someone should be documenting events to make sure it doesn’t!
PS Right?!