South Africa

In response to “Demographics Tilt Toward Change,” by Henk Roodt, Op-Ed Page, March 9:

Roodt would have us believe that “population growth, urbanization, economic growth and skilled-labor shortages have created the most important pressures for change” in South Africa’s political system; and “political pragmatism,” “socioeconomic realities,” and the need for “sociopolitical adjustments to manage . . . demographic and economic demands” now render apartheid “no longer feasible,” where it once, somehow, was deemed to be.

In fact he optimistically crows, based on the meager changes made thus far, that “South Africa (has) finally discarded the ideology of apartheid,” thus “there are no grounds to doubt President De Klerk’s sincerity.” If we are to believe Roodt’s claptrap rationale, neither international condemnation, isolation and/or sanctions nor the crescendo of black protest figured much in this momentous decision, four decades in the making; and the conspicuously immoral nature of apartheid, not even mentioned in his article, had no impact whatsoever. This raises disturbing questions as to the sincerity of the government’s intentions. If this Machiavellian system has become undesirable merely because various conditions have evolved which now make it economically burdensome, what might happen if alternative measures are developed to neutralize, counter or remedy these conditions, thus renewing its viability?

While the white government’s motivation for ending apartheid is solely economical, devoid of any distaste for or even awareness of its vile composition, blacks and the international community would be wise to react with caution and restraint. Apartheid’s balance on the scale of justice will never change. The scale of economics, however, has been known to fluctuate perversely.

ALPHONSO S. QUASHIE

Santa Monica