Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseBy 1991 the apartheid laws were going, but who would rule South Africa next still had to be bargained. In July 1991 the ANC elected Nelson Mandela as its president and Cyril Ramaphosa as its secretary-general. On 20 December 1991 nineteen groups, led by the government and the ANC, met near Johannesburg for talks known as CODESA. The PAC and the white Conservative Party stayed away.
The ANC wanted majority rule: one person, one vote, and the winner governs. De Klerk wanted power sharing, with the white minority able to block decisions.
Meanwhile about 14,000 people were killed in political violence between 1990 and 1994. Most of the fighting was between supporters of the ANC and supporters of Inkatha, the Zulu movement led by Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. It raged in Natal and around the migrant workers' hostels near Johannesburg. In July 1991 the government admitted it had secretly given money to Inkatha. Mandela believed a 'third force' inside the police and army was stirring up the killing to weaken the ANC.
Key terms:
After his National Party lost a seat to the Conservative Party in February 1992, de Klerk gambled on a whites-only referendum. On 17 March 1992 about 69 per cent voted yes to continuing reform. The right could no longer claim to speak for most whites.
A second round of talks, in May 1992, ended in deadlock over how large a majority would be needed to approve a new constitution. Then came two massacres.
Both sides now saw that neither could win by force. Ramaphosa and the government's chief negotiator, Roelf Meyer, had quietly kept in touch. On 26 September 1992 Mandela and de Klerk signed the Record of Understanding. It agreed that an elected body would write the final constitution, and that hostels would be fenced and dangerous weapons banned in public. Soon afterwards the ANC accepted a sunset clause suggested by the veteran Communist Joe Slovo. This calmed white fears.
Chris Hani was the general secretary (leader) of the Communist Party and a former chief of staff of MK. He was a hero to angry young people in the townships, yet he backed the talks. That is why he mattered: he could persuade the young to accept them.
On 10 April 1993 Hani was shot dead outside his home in Boksburg by Janusz Walus, a Polish immigrant. A Conservative Party politician, Clive Derby-Lewis, had supplied the gun. Riots broke out and many feared a race war. It was Mandela, not de Klerk, who went on national television to appeal for calm. He said that 'a white man, full of prejudice and hate' had done the killing, but that 'a white woman, of Afrikaner origin' had risked her life to help catch him.
The murder was meant to stop the talks. Instead it sped them up, because the danger showed both sides how urgently a settlement was needed. Within weeks the negotiators set an election date, 27 April 1994. Even when the AWB smashed an armoured vehicle into the talks building in June 1993, the negotiators carried on. On 18 November 1993 an interim constitution was agreed. Every adult would have one vote, there would be a bill of rights, and a Government of National Unity, with the main parties sharing the cabinet posts, would rule for five years. In December 1993 Mandela and de Klerk shared the Nobel Peace Prize.
He held the army, the police and parliament, so no peaceful change could happen without him. He won the 1992 referendum, faced down the right wing and in the end gave up the white veto. But he was slow to control his own security forces, and Mandela never fully trusted him after Boipatong.
His 27 years in prison gave him a standing no one else had. He could be tough, as after Boipatong, and he could compromise, as with the sunset clause. Most of all, he kept furious supporters behind the talks while calming white fears.
He feared an ANC government would crush Zulu interests, so he demanded strong powers for the KwaZulu region. After the Record of Understanding he felt pushed aside, pulled out of the talks and lined up with white right-wing groups. His importance was mostly as a threat: fighting between his followers and the ANC came closest to wrecking the settlement.
The Archbishop belonged to no party, so all sides could listen to him. He spoke out against killings whoever did them, and in June 1993 he helped bring Mandela and Buthelezi together for talks. He gave people a hopeful picture of the future, calling South Africans 'the rainbow people of God'.
The former leader of the mineworkers' union was the ANC's chief negotiator. Years of bargaining with mine owners had made him skilled. His working friendship with Roelf Meyer kept contact alive when the leaders were not speaking, and the two men settled much of the detail of the interim constitution.
A fair judgement is that Mandela and de Klerk were both essential, because each had to deliver his own side, and neither could have done it alone. How Buthelezi was finally brought into the vote is covered in the lesson The 1994 Election and the New South Africa.
Don't write as if the years 1990-94 were peaceful. Don't say Mandela and de Klerk were friends. They needed each other but often quarrelled bitterly. And don't say de Klerk planned black majority rule from the start. He was pushed towards it during the talks.
Extract A (a practice extract written for this lesson). From a modern history textbook.
'When Chris Hani was gunned down in April 1993, South Africa stood on the very edge of civil war. De Klerk, the man who held the office of president, seemed helpless as fury swept the townships. It was Mandela who went on television and spoke to the whole nation like a head of state. With a few calm, generous words he held back the anger of millions. From that night nobody doubted who truly led South Africa.'
What impression does the author give about Nelson Mandela's leadership after the murder of Chris Hani? You must use Extract A to explain your answer. [6 marks]
The author gives the impression that Mandela was the true leader of South Africa, who saved the country single-handed. The language makes his power seem remarkable: he spoke 'like a head of state', and only 'a few calm, generous words' were enough to hold back 'the anger of millions'. The phrase 'who truly led' suggests his authority was real while de Klerk's was only a title. The author strengthens this by the way de Klerk is treated. He is described only as 'the man who held the office' and as 'helpless', so Mandela looks stronger by contrast. The author has also selected carefully. The extract stresses the danger, 'the very edge of civil war', to make Mandela's success look greater, and leaves out anyone else who appealed for calm and the riots that still took place.
What lifts this to the top level: it names one clear impression, proves it with short quotations, and explains how the author's choice of words, the contrast with de Klerk and what is left out create that impression.
Look at how the author treats the other people in an extract. Here de Klerk is made to look 'helpless' so that Mandela shines. Spotting a contrast like this, and saying why the author used it, shows you are analysing the author and not retelling events. For more help, see the Exam Skills lesson Paper 1 Question (a): What Impression Does the Author Give?