South African political leaders—as either prime ministers or presidents—have an average term of office of approximately nine years. If he conforms to average, De Klerk is likely to be the dominant figure in white politics for some time, and therefore his credentials are of some significance. At 53 he is young, he comes from a background steeped in politics and he has an impressive intellectual background as an academic lawyer. In 1972 he chose to enter Parliament rather than accept the offer of a chair in law at Potchefstroom University. Having entered Parliament, his talent as a debater helped him to win his spurs quite quickly and he became Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in 1978.

The political scene in South Africa today is perhaps one of the most complex in the modern world. The easiest analysis would be to have the white minority government on the one hand, and the back resistance and liberation organizations ranged against it on the other. Unfortunately, it is not that easy. The white minority itself is torn by divisions and differences in ideology, with essentially two divisions into the right-wing and the centrists. Both camps, however, are themselves divided into various notches on the scale to the right, but never beyond to the left of centrist. That position has been reserved for black politics, which is also positioned at various points on the scale to the left.

The nature of the post-apartheid society is very much on the agenda. In the multitude of publications, conferences and debates on this agenda, the bulk of the attention is given to the need for—and the possible characteristics of—a non-racial political system. Much less attention is given to the nature of the post-apartheid economic system, and to the structural changes necessary to synchronize it with the new political system and to ensure that it will have the fiscal capacity to sustain a truly democratic parliamentary system.

Health care services in South Africa are in decline. Inadequate resources, the fragmentation of services along racial lines, their division between a confused jumble of authorities together with a growing privatization of medical care are among the many factors having grave effects on an already poorly constructed health service. The persistence of high levels of infant mortality and the widespread nature of preventable disease provide clear measures indicating that existing health services have failed to meet the needs of the majority of the population for basic medical care. The changes that are currently underway in health services are making it less likely that they can adequately contribute to providing health for all.

A century ago, Cecil Rhodes told a Dutch Reformed missionary’s mother that “your son among the natives is worth as much to me as a hundred policemen.” He was referring, of course, to the role many missionaries played in turning Christianity into an ideology which could be used to convince Africans not to resist white domination.

Rhodes’ modern-day successors—South Africa’s white rulers and their allies—have gone one dangerous step further. For them, it is not enough to use the church as a kind of ideological cheering section for white domination. Instead they are quite literally using pastors and missionaries as soldiers and policemen.

The history of US policy in Southern Africa has been depressingly consistent. Because US government agencies and major corporations were so closely tied to the ruling white minorities of the region, it was only when majority forces rose up in armed rebellion and seized power that some members of the US elite were willing to accept the fait accompli of majority rule. But even then, there were powerful conservative forces that sought to “roll back” the advance of popular movements in countries like Angola and Mozambique. The Reagan administration sought to hold back the tide of leftist victories in southern Africa by giving Pretoria the international protection it needed to bring its neighbors to their knees.