ALLAN BOESAK | A tale of two regimes: PW Botha and Cyril Ramaphosa

Last week, at a media conference in Upington, I said it was never clearer to me how little difference there is between the PW Botha regime and that of Mr Cyril Ramaphosa. Many, in the media and on social media expressed outrage or shock. How could I say there is no difference between South Africa today and apartheid South Africa? That is not what I said and it is a lazy, politically inspired generalisation. For my generation, which is also that of the president, “the apartheid regime”, will always be most closely connected to the name of PW Botha. He was the one in charge when our generation fought the struggle — not Strijdom, Verwoerd or Vorster.  

The similarities between the old apartheid regime, most pertinently represented by PW Botha, and the Ramaphosa regime are quite startling, but the most distressing experience I had last Tuesday morning at the Upington Correctional Centre is the main reason for this analogy. I happened to be in Upington that weekend, at the invitation of some schools and churches. When minister Lindiwe Sisulu invited me to accompany her, I gladly did.

When it became clear Sisulu would not be allowed entry into the prison, despite having made the arrangements for permission, I requested entry as a minister of the gospel and a pastor to pray for convicted fraudster John Block. I was expressly denied. I found that deeply distressing.

The last time the church was prohibited to pray for those in prison was in the 1980s, under the rule of PW Botha. I think that is not only unconstitutional, it is a deliberate effort to curtail and control the work of the Church of Jesus Christ for political gain. It is the state overriding the word of God. It is a direct challenge to the authority of God and the most fundamental belief of the church, namely that Jesus Christ alone is Lord.

There is no other authority on earth above his, and the church’s greatest obedience and highest loyalty are owed to him. Because of this belief, the church has fiercely resisted the apartheid regime and will do so again, whenever and wherever this challenge arises. In 1979, in a letter to justice minister Alwyn Schlebusch, I told the apartheid regime so. So, standing outside those closed gates, I prayed anyway.  

But there are some other similarities that should be the cause of deep concern for all South Africans.

1. One of the most scandalous characteristics of the apartheid regime were the socioeconomic inequalities that racked SA society and especially the lives of the poor. Today, under Mr Ramaphosa, South Africa has the greatest socioeconomic inequalities in the world, which means the scandal has not only continued, it has become greater.
   
   
2. Apartheid’s dogged pursuit of capitalism, together with its inbuilt racism, was one of the greatest causes of these inequalities and the generational impoverishment of the masses of South Africans. Under Mr Ramaphosa, the single-minded pursuit of neoliberal capitalism has worsened the generational impoverishment of the black masses.
   
   
3. Under apartheid, government ministers, generals and police regarded themselves not accountable to parliament or the people since their majority was assured, but also because of the arrogance and the belief that they were above the law and untouchable. Today, under Mr Ramaphosa, and with the president as one of the greatest offenders, accountability to parliament and public is non-existent. Those who question this, such as parliamentary committee member Mervyn Dirks, or the public protector, Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane, are either suspended or fired. Such authoritarian and unconstitutional behaviour seems to have become Mr Ramaphosa’s stock-in-trade. Impunity, not constitutional faithfulness, is their body armour.
   
   
4. During apartheid rule, the courts and judicial system were blatant instruments of authoritarianism and selective justice. The result was a unique form of legalised lawlessness. They were profoundly distrusted. That judicial selectivity has become a hallmark of Mr Ramaphosa’s rule. So has the concomitant and growing mistrust of the public in judicial systems and structures.
   
   
5. Under Botha, even the most ardent apartheid supporters among the white economic and business elites could no longer deny that South Africa had become a pariah state, heading towards a failed state. Today, even some of Ramaphosa’s most ardent supporters among the economic and political elite are sounding the alarm: South Africa is fast becoming not just a pariah state but a failed one.
   
   
6. Under the darkening cloud of his “Rubicon”, when everyone could see Botha’s stubbornness was doing grave harm not only to his political party but to the country, his arrogance did not permit him to see this, to put the interests of the country first and resign. Instead, he clung on, refusing to see how his personal crisis has become the country’s crisis, making the harm infinitely greater.
   
   Botha was not prepared to understand or accept the erosion of his legitimacy and authority. Ramaphosa’s Rubicon is much more serious. The harm he is doing to the ANC is incalculable, the harm to the country and our people indescribable. Unlike Botha, who thought that as long as those racist South Africans who benefited from apartheid continued to back him he was all right, Ramaphosa seems to believe that as long as those discredited leaders of the West back him as their chosen instrument for our continued subjugation, he is safe. Both of them completely disregard the cries and the anger of the vast majority at home.
   
   He still believes that it is Joe Biden, or King Charles, or the G-7 who will keep him in power. Like Botha, Ramaphosa does not understand, and completely underestimates, the power of the love of the people for freedom, justice and dignity. PW Botha thought the world’s opinion did not matter. Cyril Ramaphosa thinks the legitimate expectations of his people do not matter. The thought processes here are opposite, but the effect is the same. How tragic is it when the pat on the back from great white leaders is what you long for, but the love of your people is what you lose? So in his arrogance and hubris he refuses to abide by the rules of his own party, to step aside. Neither is he able to do the right and decent thing, namely to resign, to give the ANC some breathing space and the country a chance at survival. Even Boris Johnson and Liz Truss understood this better.
   
   
7. There is, though, a great and much more consequential difference between the Botha regime and that of Cyril Ramaphosa. Under apartheid, South Africa had a shambolic, racist constitution that served only the interests of white South Africa. In that regard, it can be argued PW Botha was a faithful servant of that constitution. South Africa’s constitution today is regarded as one of the most progressive in the world.
   
   The Bill of Rights enshrined in the constitution is without peer. It is, uniquely, based on the admirable principles of ubuntu and reconciliation. To me it is clear Ramaphosa and his clique of untouchables have utter disregard for the constitution, for the principles of parliamentary rule, and for the rights of South Africa’s citizens, unless they are members of the economic ruling classes and the political elites. In this regard, Botha was a better servant of white South Africans, his real constituents, than Ramaphosa is of South Africa’s people, especially the poor and the marginalised, who are his real constituents.
   
   
8. The similarities are mind-boggling and deeply depressing. Of the decaying Roman Empire, they said that while Rome burns, Emperor Nero fiddled. Here, South Africa burns while Nero goes to the auctions. The difference is that Botha’s demise was a sign of the demise of apartheid, an infinitely good thing. Ramaphosa’s demise is the demise of the ANC and the country, an infinitely tragic thing.