Los Angeles Times Interview : Helen Suzman : For an Enemy of Apartheid, Victory Comes at Long Last

Some years ago, one of Helen Suzman’s many enemies in Parliament found himself exasperated by the lady’s incessant criticism of apartheid and the white government. “She reminds me of a cricket in a thorn tree when it is very dry in the Bushveld,” said L.H.C. Bootha of the ruling National Party. “His chirping makes you deaf, but the tune remains the same year in and year out.”

The cricket’s loud tune has remained the same, through 36 years in South Africa’s Parliament--13 as the government’s lone liberal opponent--and even now, in her second year of what can best be described as a working retirement.

In Parliament, representing a silk-stocking district of Johannesburg, Suzman grew accustomed to being called unpatriotic. Suzman, this 5-foot, 3-inch rock of almighty principle, earned the world’s admiration, though, by fighting back.

But now, the National Party government that created apartheid, and drew Suzman’s unholy wrath, is making a dash to dismantle it. She is watching with satisfaction as the government does what she’s been telling it to do all along.

Suzman is also watching the emerging policies of the other side--her friend Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress--with unhidden concern.

At age 73, she has not lost her stubbornness, her sharp tongue or her capacity for work. She still gives speeches worldwide. She’s collected honorary degrees and, from Queen Elizabeth, an honorary knighthood. This year, she began writing her autobiography. She doesn’t plan to hold anything back, especially when it comes to now-deceased adversaries. “You know, you can’t be sued for libel in South Africa if a person is dead,” she said.

The daughter of Jewish immigrants from Lithuania, Suzman’s first job was teaching economic history at university. She and her husband of 54 years, Moses Meyer Suzman, a physician, have lived for years in a large home in the leafy northern suburbs of Johannesburg. They have two daughters, one lives in Boston and the other in London.

Suzman works in a study filled with photographs, autographed books and trophies. When Suzman relaxes, which isn’t often, she enjoys trout fishing or a game of bridge with friends.

Question: President Frederik W. de Klerk’s ruling National Party seems to have taken over the platform of the liberal Democratic Party and adopted most of the policies that you advocated for years.

Answer: They took over everything . . . . I used to get absolute hell from them. I was labeled unpatriotic, subversive, un-South African. And what was I doing? I was saying forced removals were violence against people, the pass laws were appalling because they broke up family life . . . . Now all these things have been abandoned.

Q: Is there any role left for the Democratic Party and traditional white liberals to play in this new, changing South Africa?

A: I think the DP could have a role to play in keeping a beady eye on these things, making sure that changes are expedited and that the reform movement gathers impetus, and kicking up whenever there seemed to be any sort of standstill.

Q: A split is developing in the Democratic Party between those who want it to join hands with the National Party and those who want it closer to the African National Congress. Would you join the ANC?

A: Never. As long as it’s got its links with the Communist Party, I’m not interested. I also want it to shed its views on sanctions and disinvestment. And I want to be absolutely sure that it understands the meaning of democracy . . . . This business of “rule by the people” doesn’t mean anything to me. Democracy is free press, free association, free elections, a multiparty state, an independent judiciary and a bill of rights.

Also, I don’t think as yet they (the ANC) have displayed that they understand the obligations of accountability--to the press, to the public or to the world.

Q: Yet you and the ANC have both been fighting this government for many years.

A: To me, the status quo is totally unacceptable. But what motivated me was not bleeding-heart liberalism. It was justice, simple justice. And acceptance that the black population didn’t have equal opportunity and suffered many disabilities. You have to remove those disabilities. You have to give them equal opportunities. But after, I don’t fall over backward agreeing with everything that every black leader says he wants.

There are major principles that still have to be realized (by the government), such as universal franchise and removing the remaining discriminatory laws.

But, on the (ANC) side, there’s got to be an acceptance of checks and balances. I don’t want to replace an authoritarian white minority government with an equally authoritarian--and maybe even worse--black majority government.

That’s never been my aim.

Q: You and the ANC disagree about sanctions. What is the source of that?

A: I have an absolute schism with them on sanctions. I’ve discussed this with Nelson Mandela on several occasions--we agreed to disagree, because we are good friends, and certainly I have a regard for him and I think he has some for me. I understand it is a pressure point, and he attaches far more importance to its effects on government policy than I do. I put much more emphasis on economic and internal factors than I do on sanctions, because there are ways of breaking sanctions.

And, secondly, I think it’s a very shortsighted policy to undermine the economy they hope to inherit. The unemployment situation is already very serious. I think all those thousands of (jobless) people are going to be ungovernable by anybody.

Q: Looking at the ANC today, what are your worries?

A: I think they’re being inconsistent, unreasonable and, in some instances, downright dishonest. They are not telling the truth about changes in this country. I don’t see how they now can imagine that De Klerk could go back (to old apartheid) without throwing in his cards and resigning. De Klerk has taken every chance that a politician can take. He’s gone against a large number of his own people, and I think he’s shown a lot of guts. It’s not an easy thing to do.

Q: Has De Klerk surprised you?

A: I have to admit that he’s gone much faster than I would have ever believed. He was never a liberal chap. He was just pragmatic and practical and he realized it was too expensive. The country was economically integrated, and if he wanted to rejoin the Western community of nations, he had to change.

Q: White liberals appear more nervous today than they were when De Klerk began his reform program last year.

A: I think you’re right. I’m one of them.

Q: Why is that?

A: Because of the factional violence, No. 1. The ongoing violence really shook people. It’s nerve-wracking and gives you an uneasy feeling that you are living with people who are not capable of rational behavior. Political rivalry is going to be very difficult to bring under control.

The other is the fact that the ANC hasn’t yet really determined its economic policy. There are other things I, as a liberal, would like to see. Devolution of power. I don’t like this idea of everything being hung onto from the very top and I do believe that we have to have checks and balances. I think you can do that without infringing on the basic rules of democracy. America’s done it. There’s no reason why South Africa can’t do it.

You have to look at the demography to see why (white) people are nervous. The white birthrate, you know, is negative. And young (white) people of child-bearing age, those are the ones who want to emigrate. You’ve got to be colorblind not to be nervous.

Q: Aren’t whites also justified in worrying about a drop in their standard of living, which until now has been built on the back of cheap black labor?

A: I don’t believe the economic cake is limited in size. We’ve got resources in this country, both human and material. If we get sufficient investment capital to develop those resources, the sky is the limit.

By and large, South Africa is a poor country if you take the GNP and compare it to First World countries. But if you pay people a living wage, they become valuable consumers and the whole market expands . . . . It’s true that our major exports are minerals and obviously the more you dig out the less you have left. But there’s a lot of scope for South Africa to become the industrial workshop of the continent of Africa.

Q: The government has agreed to remove racial barriers to land ownership. But 87% of the land is currently owned by the white minority. How can blacks’ desire for land ownership be accommodated?

A: It’s not easy. First, there’s not that much good land available. We have large areas that are virtual deserts, and large areas where there’s totally unreliable rainfall. And the black areas are hopelessly overpopulated and overstocked.

The whole question of land utilization has got to be coupled now with two important factors. The one is training in agricultural methods and the other is access to agricultural finance. Just opening up the land has got to be done from the point of view of justice, but this is not going to mean that blacks are going to be given the land. They’ll have to purchase and finance the land . . . .

Q: Doesn’t that mean, though, that some land will have to be taken from whites?

A: No. But a lot of (white) people are ready to go and their land can be sold to blacks. There’s a big movement from the rural areas to the urban areas as far as whites are concerned. Young people particularly like to come to the city.

Q: You began visiting Nelson Mandela in prison in 1967. What sort of relationship have you built up over the years?

A: We’ve got a warm relationship. I like him as a person. I think he’s quite nice to me, although we disagree on a number of issues, mainly sanctions. But we’ve got an absolute rapport on the question of the removal of discrimination. He knows that. And he knows that I was instrumental in getting prison conditions improved during the years that he was there.

Q: How do you assess Mandela’s performance since his release?

A: I think he’s been making some contradictory statements, but I do appreciate that the man is not entirely able to speak out on his own. He does have to worry about his organization. But I would have wished him to be much more forthright in commending the government for what it’s done . . . .

I also think he’s been out of the country too much, not necessarily by choice. I think he’s captive of the National Executive Committee and they want money and he’s their best fund-raiser, so they send him out on these expeditions. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there’s an awful lot of killing going on. And he’s the most able of the so-called leaders to control it.

I don’t think he’s shown the leadership that one hoped for, except at that ANC meeting in December where he did rap them (ANC members) over the knuckles for criticizing the ANC’s decision to negotiate with the government.

By and large, though, for a man who has been in jail for 27 years, I think he’s retained remarkable composure and a remarkable lack of any bitterness.

Q: What challenges does he face now?

A: The challenge is, first of all, to try and break the (ANC) alliance with the (South African) Communist Party, which I think is a real albatross for the ANC. And I think he’s going to have to give way on the question of an interim government (during negotiations). I think De Klerk will come a little way to meet that demand . . . but I don’t see him agreeing to an interim government. There’s no reason why he should. He’s in power.

Q: Have you seen Mandela much since he was released?

A: I’ve seen him a few times, but I just felt that I didn’t want to push myself on him. But I see now that I’ve been silly about it because he is always pleased to see me . . . .

I was amazed the first time I went to see him--when he was still in the little house in Orlando (Soweto). I trotted along and there was no security whatsoever. When I go shopping, I have to open my bag to show I have nothing lethal in it--but there I just walked through the gates. There was nobody there. There was a kid in the garden and I said, “I’m Helen Suzman, I have an appointment to see Mr. Mandela.” And then he said, “There’s the front door.” I was shocked. We had a long chat, about 40 minutes.

Q: Has the ANC been unsuccessful in communicating its policies to black youth?

A: I don’t know. I’m no heroine to the black youth. Their parents knew about me and would have some respect for the line that I took, . . . but there is strong hostility among the radical youth. They genuinely believe that the tougher the sanctions, the more the government will concede.

Q: Mandela’s support for Yasser Arafat, among others, has generated worries among South African Jews, many of whom were your constituents during your years in Parliament. How did you feel when Mandela embraced Arafat?

A: Oh well, he (Mandela) says, “Your enemies are not my enemies,” and I say, “Well your friends are not my friends.” Clearly, he’s been given money by Arafat and support by (Moammar) Kadafi. But he’s not anti-Semitic and that’s a very important thing as far as Jews are concerned . . . .

I support Zionism in that I’m a member of the South African Zionist community but I’m not an ardent Zionist . . . . I identify with them, but only because of the whole question of a home for Jews, who otherwise would have nowhere to go.

Mr. Mandela is very much motivated by loyalty toward people who have supported the black liberation movement over the years. But I personally wouldn’t welcome having either Kadafi or Arafat or (Fidel) Castro as an ally.