PERSPECTIVE ON SOUTH AFRICA : De Klerk Needs Best Possible Hand : A ‘yes’ vote on Tuesday’s referendum would open the door to a promising future for all of the nation’s people.

On Tuesday, white South Africans will go to the polls to vote on this question: “Do you support continuation of the reform process, which the state president began on February 2, 1990, and which is aimed at a new constitution through negotiations?” The fate of their troubled, but potentially great, nation may well turn on their answer.

President Frederik W. de Klerk’s strategy in calling the referendum is risky, but risks are not new to him. In 1990, he opened Parliament with a speech pledging to eliminate the last legal elements of apartheid without delay. He then freed Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress from prison and legalized the ANC, surmising that Mandela and the more moderate elements of the organization would prevail in its councils. This has proved true, despite the strong ties of some ANC leaders to the South African Communist Party.

Mandela, De Klerk and Zulu Chief Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi of the Inkatha Freedom Party, represent the “center” in the national Convention for a Democratic South Africa, or Codesa, that is expected to draft a constitution for a one-person one-vote unitary state with a bill of rights and protections for minorities.

De Klerk has stuck by his original agenda, despite skepticism at times from black groups, battles between elements of the ANC and Inkatha and emotionally charged threats from radical white separatists.

By eliminating apartheid and following through on other pledges, the De Klerk government succeeded in getting most sanctions lifted. The result is that South Africa’s foreign trade has begun to pick up and even its Olympic team will be welcomed back to the Games this summer after a long, enforced absence.

With its excellent infrastructure and diverse economy, South Africa can be the engine of growth for the entire southern African region, provided the shift to a multiracial democracy can be managed in a context of stability and calm.

Many whites are worried about the future, as the loss of three by-elections in recent months by De Klerk’s National Party indicates. The latest one was a shock to the government, coming in a district that the party had held for more than four decades.

After that election, De Klerk decided to go to the voters for a renewed mandate. A yes vote will give him the best possible hand in the Codesa negotiations. Although the ANC publicly protested holding such a referendum, its leaders are no doubt hoping for a strong yes vote, for the alternative could derail Codesa. De Klerk has said that he will resign if the referendum loses. This would mean a general election for a new (white) Parliament, and it is possible that the opposition Conservative Party might win, since it favors a no vote. It is also firm in its commitment to a separate white “homeland.” That is not acceptable to those participating in the Codesa negotiations and an impasse would soon be reached.

While a no vote on the referendum will not automatically lead to a civil war in South Africa, it would definitely create a climate of uncertainty. In such a climate, tempers would rise and could reach the boiling point among radical elements, both black and white. Prolonged discord, at the very least, can be expected to follow a defeat of De Klerk’s referendum. A yes vote, on the other hand, will keep the negotiating process on track and, with it, a potentially promising future for all of that nation’s people.