Change is Rarely Easy
As I reflect on apartheid, I am convinced that my thoughts in this post can’t, possibly, fully address the complexed set of problems that officially drove a nation for 46 years to suppress the majority of its people. White people only made up 12% of the population yet, minority rule was the law. Was it fueled by want of power? Was it fueled by fear of communism, economic privilege, or the sinfulness of suppressing a nation of people? The answer could be yes to all of those.
From the outset, I want to acknowledge that there were numerous people who impacted the end of apartheid. Most of this post centers around two of them, Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk. Arrested in 1962 Mandela was initially sentenced to 5 years in prison. By 1964 he was sentenced to life in prison. By the time he was released in 1990, Nelson Mandela had spent 27 years of his life as a prisoner[1]. Aside from being physically confined, spending years in prison took its toll on Mandela, particularly, his family relationships. Whether through physical separation due to imprisonment or divergent approaches to social issues, Nelson and Winnie Mandela’s marriage did not survive. He also missed watching his only daughter grow into adulthood. Yet, this leader was very intentional. Prison became his place to percolate ideas and strategize the changes in his country that were needed. As example, Mandela deliberately learned the Afrikaans language. When asked why he spoke Afrikaans, his answers were diverse. It was a show of respect for the negotiators speaking with him. It showed he was an educated person able to learn multiple languages, it was a way to understand the perpetrators of white South Africans and help move him to common ground with them[2].
Mandela wanted the end of minority rule in his country that elevated Afrikaners. Once several pieces came together such as his release from prison, the African National Congress, ANC, was unbanned, and minority rule ended, Mandela was elected President in the next election. Mandela’s goal was to work toward multi-racial power sharing rather than single race rule. He sought reconciliation, collaboration, and a government that represented all the people. Cabinet meetings were difficult but even with the multiracial group that had to learn to work together, Mandela was intentional to give everyone a voice in the hope that consensus could be found[3]. He was looking not just to rule the country but to reach reconciliation [4] For a country whose people were suffering for lack of sustainable wages that could help a family put a roof over their heads and food on the table, Mandela’s insistence on reaching consensus was painfully slow. Ultimately, Mandela’s mission of reconciliation was for both those who suffered under apartheid and those who were insecure as to what the future would bring[5].
While much of my focus has been on Nelson Mandela, the last two presidents of South Africa under apartheid, P.W. Botha and F.W. de Klerk also played key roles in ending apartheid. Mandela may have been looking for justice, Botha and de Klerk were looking at the situation from a practical perspective. South Africa was suffering economically and politically. Neither initially considered ending apartheid completely but by listening to the criticism from the international stage, they recognized changes were needed. Countries throughout the world criticized South Africa on apartheid which was manifested both in embargos and repudiation in the world theater[6].
The title of Anatomy of a Miracle, infers that the culmination of the struggles and true hardships that a whole sector of society suffered would be met with triumph. Yet, After Mandela, The Battle for the Soul of South Africa had a different emphasis that did not surprise me. The end of white only rule was just a beginning, an important one but still not the whole story. Author Alec Russell addresses power struggles among early leaders, the disenchantment of ANC members who thought life would quickly be so much better than during apartheid, and the real needs that still existed among many , especially in the townships, where many were still living in sub-standard housing and earning far below a poverty level[7].
Together, both of these books led me to several considerations:
- Everyone suffers when there is injustice, even those perpetrating it. Mandela’s focus was on what he could learn and what he could do rather than taking revenge[8].
- I was reminded how costly it can be to take a stand for something that someone believes in deeply. Nelson Mandela’s life demonstrated the essence of that sacrifice, yet so did the lives of so many others, those who protested and those who worked at governing after the end of white rule.
- Leading takes courage. F.W. de Klerk was not perfect, but he was astute to recognize when something drastic was needed, even when it meant he would give up the presidency.
- Governing is different from working for change. Shifting an entire system meant some roles were filled with people who were not immediately proficient for the tasks at hand[9].
- No matter what approach is taken or how capable the leaders are, it is still nearly impossible to solve all the wicked problems that have been entrenched for years.
A question I am left with after reading both of these books is one I ask myself. Would I be willing to take a stand where the cost was that high? I hope I will, yet I am fully aware that I haven’t been asked to do this, yet.
[1] Patti Waldmeir, Anatomy of a Miracle, the end of Apartheid and the Birth of the New Sound Africa, (New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press, 1997, 141.
[2] Waldmeir, 16.
[3] Waldmeir, 259.
[4] Waldmeir, 254.
[5] Waldmeir, 142.
[6] Waldmeir, 110
[7] Alec Russell, After Mandela, The Battle For The Soul of South Africa, London, GB, Windmill Books, 2010), 97.
[8] Waldmeir, 17.
[9] Russell, 98.
About the Author
Diane Tuttle
12 responses to “Change is Rarely Easy”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Diane,
Good considerations to think through. I was hit by how many of the decisions were simply pragmatic decisions. I also have been thinking about how Mandela learned Afrikaans. That is a step of leadership that many are not willing to do. He crossed the line and engaged with the “enemy” on their own level.
Hi Adam, He was pretty amazing, wasn’t he? Yet, there was a limit to his tolerance, too. He worked to get along with everyone, even de Klerk, yet at one point, he verbally ripped him apart, which showed a different approach. Sometimes, when someone is calm and measured, a calculated escalation has a different effect than if someone were always ranting and raving. I wish I could ask him if that was his motive.
Hey Diane,
I really appreciated your synthesis of the two books and how you drew out so many thoughtful considerations—those are valuable insights. I hope you don’t mind me gently offering a different perspective on the statement you made at the end of your post. You’ve been faithfully leading a nonprofit that serves people society often overlooks—not because they don’t matter, but because too often others don’t stop long enough to notice. You’ve given so much of your time and energy to making sure staff are cared for and paid. No, it may not be 27 years in prison, but there has still been a real cost to that kind of commitment.
As you’ve worked with such a diverse group of people, have you noticed whether everyone is given space to truly have a voice? Or, setting work aside, have you seen areas in church or community life where inclusivity could be strengthened?
Looking forward to catching up soon.
Hi Elysse, you are very kind. I do think we have come a long way in having people living with disabilities have a voice and acceptance in society on a number of fronts. When I first started in this field, people we serve in the community were shut away in institutions. That progress helps, yet there are still people who don’t want them living next door to them. For your question, my world, both at work and church, seeks to be inclusive. However, that isn’t true everywhere. There is a church in our city that made a statement that people who are homosexual are not welcome in their church. I think it is okay to have parameters around membership. Still, the statement made me wonder, isn’t the church about taking sinful people and, through the teaching, prayer, and worship of God, drawing all people to repent? The standard they set tells me no one would measure up to be a member. Very sad. A chance for grace could be lost.
Diane, You bring out some great leadership points from Apartheid and the leaders. Mandela is often used as an example of an African leader who used servant leadership. His learning of Afrikaans is one of the ways he “served” his community and his perpetrators. When I hear of challenging situations in history, I always ask myself your question, “Would I be willing to take a stand where the cost was that high?” Then I am reminded that we must live that out now in what situations we are put in (Luke 12:48). I would love to hear an example in your life when you did take a stand in spite of the costs.
Hi Kari, good question – I hope you are okay with a personal response. When I was in college, my sister stopped speaking to me for about 2 years. I never knew why, then one day she started talking again. I didn’t know for a long time why; however, she finally told me it was because I was a Jesus freak, and it embarrassed her because she didn’t believe. Fast forward several years – when I was engaged, I wanted my sister to stand with me. But when I asked her, I gave her the caveat that my wedding was a worship service, and if she didn’t believe it would be a hypocrisy, I would reluctantly ask one of my younger sisters. She then told me that when she went to Villanova for a master’s in embryology, seeing fetuses struck her that only God could have created something so intricate as people. I felt like it was a chance when I spoke to her that the fragile relationship we had rebuilt could have fallen apart again, but I needed to – not – start my marriage with something that wasn’t the truth.
Diane,
I appreciate your 5 considerations. In regard to solving wicked problems, do you feel there really has been one problem that has truly been resolved? I watched a video a couple years ago that suggested that white people were now being discriminated against by the country’s leadership. I know lots of progress has been made, but I wonder what has truly been resolved.
Hi Jeff, I have to say that I think it is basic, sinful, human nature for people in power to be tempted to wield power over others. That there could be people discriminating against white people would not surprise me. Even in our country, we have neo-racism being promoted by some individuals and groups.
Great synthesis of the books Diane. I also am left wondering what I would be willing to do, how much I would be willing to surrender, if I were in a similar situaton. Of course, we have Bonhoeffer’s book, “The Cost of Discipleship” that poses that same question, especially with regard to standing up for our belief in Christ. How do you think you might make the decision? In other words, what would you count, if you had to count the cost?
Hi Debbie, that is a very interesting question. Currently, disclosing my stance on certain issues that could be politicized could harm the people our organization serves. That is a very high cost to me. I am very practiced at appearing neutral. Once I retire, I might have to start slow and build different patterns.
Thanks Diane. I appreciate your thorough post, but also its humble tone. This shows you again as such a wise leader and learner. What is a question you are hoping to ask when we arrive in Cape Town?
HI Diane,
Thank you for sharing your takeaways.
In what ways did the practical motivations of leaders like F.W. de Klerk and Mandela’s justice-driven vision, would light your journey if you have to stand for the voiceless and for the unrepresented?