The two opponents who went on to share the Nobel Peace Prize had great political and personal differences
9:45AM GMT 06 Dec 2013
These two men had just accomplished a political miracle, transforming their country into a multi-racial democracy without the civil war that so many had feared. Along the way, they had jointly collected the Nobel Peace Prize.
On Thursday night, de Klerk hailed Mandela as great unifier, saying he had been honoured to work with him on bringing an end to apartheid.
“I believe that his example will live on and that it will continue to inspire all South Africans to achieve his vision of non-racialism, justice, human dignity, and equality for all,” he said.
But his statement also recalled the deep-rooted acrimony between the two that often threatened to derail negotiations.
“Although we were political opponents – and although our relationship was often stormy – we were always able to come together at critical moments to resolve the many crises that arose during the negotiation process,” de Klerk remembered.
Mandela and de Klerk never liked or trusted one another. Instead of being a symbol of reconciliation, their fraught relationship was riven by mutual resentment.
Their disagreements began very early. When de Klerk decided to free Mandela in February 1990, they immediately clashed over the practicalities. De Klerk wanted the release to happen within 24 hours; Mandela insisted on 10 days for the African National Congress (ANC) to prepare.
So the prisoner wanted to stay behind bars for a little longer; his jailer wanted him out immediately. De Klerk also tried to deny Mandela his “walk to freedom” through the gates of Victor Verster Prison, telling him that he would be flown to Johannesburg airport and released there.
In the event, Mandela got his way, ensuring that he would be released at the prison gates, but compromising on the timing by settling for an extra week in jail instead of 10 days.
This set the pattern for their confrontations to come: Mandela would generally get his way, with just enough of a compromise to allow de Klerk to save face.
Given that the two men were negotiating a transfer of power, it was inevitable that they would clash. What almost destroyed their relationship was the violence that swept South Africa immediately after Mandela’s release. Across the country, ANC members fought supporters of the mainly Zulu Inkatha Freedom Party.
Mandela alleged that a “third force” from state security was stirring up the killing – and later enquiries established that he was right.
But Mandela went further, accusing de Klerk of being complicit in the bloodshed. His argument was simple: either de Klerk knew what his security forces were doing, in which case he was personally guilty, or he was unaware – and therefore unable to control his government and unfit to be president.
Mandela suspected that de Klerk knew exactly what was going on and brushed aside all denials.
And so the two men came bitterly to resent one another. Mandela thought his white counterpart was dishonest; worse, he decided that de Klerk was treating him like a fool by expecting him to swallow the lies. De Klerk, for his part, believed that Mandela’s saintly image was fraudulent given that the ANC leader was effectively accusing him of being a murderer day after day.
Their acrimony often spilled over in public. A minor disagreement over who would speak last at the convention on South Africa’s new constitution caused Mandela to turn on de Klerk.
“Even the head of an illegitimate, discredited minority regime – as his is – has certain moral standards to uphold,” raged Mandela. “If a man can come to a conference of this nature and play this type of politics, then very few people would like to deal with such a man.”
And that was just a spat over the speaking order. Later, Mandela accused de Klerk of allowing the “slaughter of innocent people because they are black,” adding: “It will remain a stain on him.”
De Klerk’s memoirs, “The Last Trek”, are filled with barbed references to Mandela, accusing him of “bullying tactics” and saying that his concern for the victims of violence was the “height of hypocrisy” given the ANC’s own responsibility for many killings.
Nelson Mandela and President F.W. de Klerk address a crowd in front of the Union Building in Johannesburg (REUTERS)
Yet these two men, politicians to their fingertips, knew that they needed one another. If a negotiated burial of apartheid was to be achieved, then Mandela and de Klerk would have to stay on speaking terms. And so they did – but only just.
In later years, they both mellowed. Mandela attended de Klerk’s 70th birthday party in Cape Town in 2006. Yet neither could speak of the other without choking back some barb.
In one interview, de Klerk credited Mandela with a “remarkable lack of bitterness”. He then added grimly: “But that does not mean there was no bitterness.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10140848/Nelson-Mandelas-fraught-relationship-with-FW-de-Klerk.html