SOUTH AFRICA: A LAND LOSING HOPE : A historic black-white accommodation seemed so near. Today conditions remain bleak and the country appears on the brink of civil war.

Six weeks ago, South Africa seemed on the path to a historic accommodation between a ruling white minority and an oppressed black majority. President Frederik W. de Klerk, who arrives in Washington today for meetings with President Bush, had reached an agreement with Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress on the release of political prisoners and the suspension of the armed struggle. The way to negotiations on a new constitution was clear.

Today, with violence raging in black townships surrounding Johannesburg, the government announcing plans for major crackdowns by its security forces and rumblings from within ANC ranks about resuming the armed struggle, South Africa appears on the brink of a civil war.

This rapid turn of events--and last Tuesday’s indictment of Winnie Mandela on charges of assault and murder--must come as a shock to most Americans. There is now a risk that the widespread enthusiasm and optimism so evident during Mandela’s visit to the United States last June will quickly be replaced by disillusionment and, eventually, indifference. This would be tragic.

There are still plenty of reasons for hope about South Africa’s future. If Americans and others begin to turn away, moreover, that troubled land’s descent into violent chaos would be all the quicker. What’s needed is stepped-up involvement based on sober-minded assessments of the forces at work in South Africa.

The outbreak of violence there has two sets of causes.

Most directly and immediately, it is the result of a power struggle among groups and individuals who stand to lose as a democratic South Africa emerges. These include:

--Traditional, tribally oriented leaders who accepted roles in apartheid institutions, such as the so-called independent homelands, and now fear that they will lose power and privilege;

--Non-ANC, black political leaders--Inkatha leader Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi, for example--who worry that they will be locked out of negotiations on a future constitution and, as a result, be denied a role in a post-apartheid South Africa;

--Right-wing white extremists who hope to undermine the De Klerk government and prevent a transfer of power to blacks by creating chaos and disorder;

--ANC militants who are unwilling to share power with other black political parties and have attempted to silence potential challengers.

But the violence also has deep roots in South African society. Historical animosities among different tribal groups are part of the problem. But not, as many U.S. conservatives contend, the primary problem. In fact, the most intense fighting has been among Zulus in Natal province, where there are no other groups of significant numbers; and with the exception of Inkatha, none of the national black political groups in South Africa are organized along tribal lines.

Economic conditions in black areas represent a more serious underlying problem. Unemployment rates in some run as high as 80%. Millions of blacks are without homes or access to basic services. Living conditions in such urban areas as the East Rand townships, the site of recent fighting, have drastically deteriorated over the past year as blacks have moved by the thousands into already overcrowded squatter camps.

In addition, the apartheid system and the struggle to overthrow it have created a “lost generation” of youth. Uneducated, brutalized and embittered, the children who grew up in the late 1970s and 1980s form a ready pool of recruits for militants of all political stripes.

Against this backdrop, the recent violence should not be surprising. But it should not cause us to forget that there are also within South Africa strong foundations for the creation of a stable, democratic and prosperous society. The most important of these is the existence of a vibrant civil society.

Amidst the squalor and violence, and despite government repression, an amazing array of organizations sprung up in townships and rural areas in the 1980s. Child-care programs, community health organizations, rural action committees, trade unions, civic associations, legal assistance offices and church agencies were among them. Talented and committed individuals, black and white, created and sustained these programs. As in Eastern Europe, the determined resistance of these forces of civil society impelled change in South Africa.

In the enthusiasm that surrounded De Klerk’s bold abandonment of apartheid, Mandela’s release from prison and the unbanning of the ANC and other political parties, the world has become too focused on prominent personalities and political parties. As a result, the wrong forces in South Africa have been unwittingly strengthened. Opinion leaders and organizations across the political spectrum are to blame.

Conservatives have played a major role in fanning the flames of conflict between Buthelezi and the ANC. Columnists such as Jeane J. Kirkpatrick have consistently misrepresented Buthelezi as a “moderate,” “pro-capitalist,” “democratic” national alternative to the “communist-dominated” ANC. U.S. businesses have gone out of their way to curry favor with the Zulu chief and promote his cause in the United States. This has fed Buthelezi’s grandiose visions of himself as a national leader the equal of Mandela. In truth, Buthelezi is an imperious, regional leader with a limited and shrinking tribal base.

Anti-apartheid groups in the United States are equally to blame for the way they have encouraged some of the worst tendencies within the ANC. The views of ANC leaders based in Lusaka, Zambia, on such issues as the cultural boycott, sanctions, and the legitimacy of different internal black leaders were accepted as gospel by many activists here, even when those views were of questionable merit. This encouraged these leaders to expect some sort of privileged status in and out of South Africa; and it reinforced hostilities between the ANC and other less favorably treated organizations.

The sad saga of Winnie Mandela is an example of these tendencies at their worst. Despite mounting concern within the black community in South Africa about her behavior, many Americans--including, most importantly, the media--continued to treat her as a revered and authoritative leader of the anti-apartheid movement. Few reporters or activists were willing to probe below the surface. During Mandela’s visit to the United States, his wife was constantly pushed front and center by Americans. And, so far, no powerful voices have come forward in the United States to say what activists in South Africa are understandably reluctant to say: that Winnie and those within the ANC who follow her irresponsible anti-democratic lead are a threat to a democratic future.

Finally, we are at fault for placing too much of a burden on men on white horses--or, in this case, De Klerk and Mandela. Both deserve to go down in history for taking farsighted and courageous steps. But they cannot, by themselves, end the current strife and create a prosperous and democratic future for South Africa. They need help--and lots of it.

We in the United States should never exaggerate our influence. But with our many individual and institutional links with South Africans, we can encourage political tolerance and honest efforts to address difficult problems. And, possibly more important, we can stand up against demagoguery and scapegoatting in ways that will strengthen democratic forces within South African civil society.