Dave Steward Transcript, South Africa 2015
Elise Slater: Hi, we are a school from California – Mount Madonna School – and we’re here in South Africa for two weeks. And we named our group Uxhumano, which means connection, because our goal is kind of to make as many connection as we can, with not only South Africa, but people in South Africa, in our short time here. And we have some questions we would love to ask you, but we’re wondering if you have anything to say to the group before we start?
Dave Steward: Well first of all, welcome to Cape Town. Welcome to the depth of the Western Cape winter. (all laugh)
Ward Mailliard: Tough life down here.
Dave Steward: Our sunny days in winter are the best time of the year to visit, in many respects. I’d also like to say, welcome home. Because only sixty thousand years ago – maybe eighty thousand years ago – there’s very strong possibility that your ancestors were living right here somewhere in Southern Africa. We have in South Africa, the prototype Homo Sapiens; they are the sun or Bushman people; virtually all our DNA, from all of the communities in the world, are deviations from the same DNA. So we can measure this with mitochondrial DNA – the Y chromosomes in males.
And our ancestors, people who went to Europe, left Africa around sixty to eighty thousand years ago. They got into Western Europe around thirty five thousand years ago, and there were only 7 females in that group that first settled Western Europe. So all of us who have roots in Western Europe are descended from 7 females. So it kind of makes a nonsense of different ideas of class, and nation, and what have you. We’re all related. And somewhere back in time we all come from Africa. So, welcome home.
Ward Mailliard: Thank you.
Dave Steward: I would be happy to answer questions, but an alternative would be for me to give you a brief overview of the way I see South Africa. To do this, I would like to draw a picture. I see we’ve got a chart there… Previous president of South Africa, Thabo Mbecky said that South Africa was like a two story house: with sort of the emerging black and white middle class in the top floor, and the huge disempowered, impoverished black majority on the bottom floor. And he said there was no stairway between the two floors. And there is some truth in that. But in fact South Africa is, in our opinion, a little bit more complex: it’s a five story house – can everybody see? Want to turn your chairs around…
What I want to do is draw you a socio-economic map of South Africa, which I hope will provide a context for the questions you’d like to ask. South Africa is in fact a five-story house. The bottom story here is made up of about 14 million people, who still live mainly in the traditional tribal areas of South Africa. They’re divided into different ethnic groups: the Zulus are the biggest group, Xhosa… And then there are nine others, different sizes: Tswana, Ndebele, South Sotho and North Sotho. There are two main language groups: the Nguni, there the Zulus, the Xhosa, the Swazi, the Ndebele… And the Sotho groups: the North Sotho who speak Peti (sp?); the West Sotho who speak Tswana (and that is also the language of Botswana); the South Sotho who live in the Orange Free State or the Free State, and who are also the same language group as the people who live in the Sotho. Then there are a few outliers, the Venda, are right in the middle of northern part of South Africa. They’re not related to anybody; and the Shangane, straddle the border with Mozambique. So you have all of these different groups – and the interesting thing here is, that about half of the people in this deep rural area, are below the age of 18. So the population growth is taking place in the black rural area, and it is deep third world.
If you go to these areas, you probably won’t go to any areas quite like this in your trip, because they’re off the beaten track… People still live in traditional housing. The Chiefs are still very important. They live in a tribal framework where the chief actually owns all the land; all the land is owned collectively by the tribe. And the Chief dishes it out to householders; which of course gives the Chief a lot of power. There’s traditional law: very often the traditional law is very different from the values in our Constitution – particularly in terms of women’s rights.
Most of the people here do not speak English very well. They speak the local language, isiZulu, isiXhosa, Venda, Tswana, whatever it may be… There is some acculturation now, with English, through TV, media and what have you. But it’s still very, very much deep third world. So this is where the Third World is in South Africa. And we’re talking about 14 million people, and this is also where the deepest levels of poverty are. Kids are in school; but the schools are not very good. It is the monotony of rural poverty, from which my ancestors and Scotland escaped in the 18th century. And there’s a description of a Scottish village from the 18th century, where the guy says, “You come to this hovel, thatched roof, with the local tribesmen chief, who welcomes you… And you complain about the fact that you weren’t welcomed really properly by his clansmen?” And he says, “Well I’ll have them executed.” Where the main form of entertainment was raiding the next clan for their cattle; where the children lived in abject poverty. So what I’m trying to say is, that any of you who come originally from Ireland, or Scotland, not so different. A few hundred years ago from the way it was, way it is now still, in the deep rural areas of South Africa. So that’s our first layer. Then our second layer is made up of about 4 million people, and it’s changing very quickly; who live and work on farms. Generally white owned farms in South Africa.
Again, you have high growth rate, and you have a division into the different population groups… And then here you start getting colored South Africans, because there’s quite a big colored community living on the farms here in the Western Cape. Now once again, this is deep poverty, but it’s not the kind of agriculture that you have in the United States – where it’s big angry businesses, or a mom and pop, and maybe one or two farm hands. In the traditional South African farm, you might have up to twenty big farm – maybe a hundred farm hands; but they brought their families with them, so you might have a community of 400 or 500 people living on a farm. Again not much is happening. The income levels are very low; they’ve been raised quite dramatically recently. Which means that there’s a huge outflow of people who used to work in the rural areas toward the cities. The number of people involved in agriculture has fallen quite dramatically by about 60-70% since 1994. So things are changing very rapidly in this area.
The farmer used to provide education; there was a farm school, he would provide housing and clothing; provide the farmers as farm hands with a little bit of ground where they could grow their own crops, one or two cattle… In fact it is the same agricultural system that they had in Western Europe, in the 18th and 19th century. Which is still prevalent in many other emerging areas, and Latin America, for example. But it’s changing very, very rapidly. The number of farmers and farms has diminished from about 75 thousand in 1994, to only 35 thousand. Now, 70% of food is produced by only 100 farms. The things are changing down on the farm. The next group – this is very much the monotony of rural poverty. So these two segments here are South Africa deep third world.
The next group is also about 12, 13 -14 million people. And this is a transitional group. These are the people who are coming into the cities. And one of the interesting things is, that as soon as people come into the city’s, population growth rate comes down. So South Africa’s fertility rate overall is 2.4 children per woman, which is about half of what it is in some of the rural areas, overall. And about half of what it is in many African countries. And some African countries, fertility rates are about 5.6 or 6; whereas in European countries, like Germany, the fertility rate is only 1.3, which is actually unsustainable. It means the Germans are going out of business in a hundred years. There aren’t going to be any more Germans – or Italians, or French, or Russians… So fertility rights are important.
Then here again, you have these are the first generation city dwellers. They come to the cities from the rural areas, and they come for economic opportunity to get a better life. These are the people who live in the shanty-towns that you’ll see on the way past the airport. Most white South Africans have never visited. Which they turn their eyes away, and pretend that it doesn’t happen. But actually it’s a very vibrant part of our community. Again, about 14 million people here. And their interest is opportunity – economic opportunity. They’ve come to the cities for a better life, because there’s a better chance of a job. Soon as they get into the cities, they start to create informal economies and what have you. Once again there are now quite a lot of colored South Africans in the Western Cape here; also part of this first generation City Dweller Group, living in shanty-towns, but in quite an exciting environment in many respects. It’s much, much more interesting living here than living down here.
This looks picturesque, if you drive past, you see these lovely old African huts, and you know, rolling green hills. But it’s really boring because there’s often no electricity, which sometimes happens in the cities too… It’s boring. Here it’s becoming exciting because you’ve got urban communities, you’ve got informal markets and economies beginning to develop. And we know that even in the shanty-towns, life is considerably better than in the rural areas; because on the whole, people don’t go back. If it was better back home they’d go back home. There’s an awful lot of traffic between these different segments; which you’ll see in taxis going between Cape Town, and Trans Sky (right word?), and what have you… Very often people living in the cities will send their kids back to the rural areas to be brought up by Granny and Granddad, because it’s more secure here. This is an insecure area – there’s a lot of crime, a lot of gangster-ism. So we have this, these are the first generation city dwellers – they come to the cities for economic opportunity. And in that they’re very similar to the people who come across the Rio Grande into the United States, or the guys who try to get across the Mediterranean into Southern Europe… These are people looking for economic opportunity for a better life.
And then the next group is about the same size, 13-14 million. And they are the guys who are the second and third generation city dwellers. Now they’ve been in cities for a few generations. They’ve achieved the goals that their parents came to the cities for; they are now plugged into modern media; kids are at high school, and often at university. And of course they now realize that there’s a lot more to be offered in the world. And the things to which their parents aspired when they came into the cities, they realize that the key to success is political power. So these are working class people, and like their counterparts throughout history, they organize, they’re solidarity people, they unionize… Their goal is to get political power so they can achieve their social and economic objectives through redistribution of wealth. This again is something that has happened throughout history and different countries. We’re going through this process now. So this is the established urban working class.
Again you have some people from the colored community here. In fact most coloreds now live in this area. But know you’ve got a third of the white population are also blue collared, working class people. They’ve got a trade union, the trade union’s called solidarity. So in this area now, here when people come into the cities, they’re still speaking Zulu as the main home language, or Xhosa, whatever they’re spoken from the homelands. But now they speak English, or they speak Afrikaans. A lot of the guys here on the farms spoke the tradition language, and then Afrikaans too, because that was the language of the farm owner. So you have now Zulu, Xhosa, Tswana, Ndebele and what have you. But now plugged into global culture: everybody is watching US TV, everybody’s watching movies. This community – black South Africans who are in this area, are very strongly influenced by American black culture, American aspirations. So kids are at high school, kids are going to university are highly politicized, solidarity people, mobilized… And their thing is equality. They want political power so that they can promote equality.
And again what I’m talking about is what happened in Britain for example: after the Napoleonic wars, you had the emergence of a working class, first trade unions, huge demands for political power. So the 1820’s in Britain were characterized by huge agitation against the outmoded constitutional system that they had at that time. Leading to the great reform bill, or act in 1832, which extended the vote to only about two or three hundred thousand people in the whole of the United Kingdom. And then during the 1830’s, there was huge division in Britain. In fact Israelis spoke about, I think the country of the two nations, and a lot of people thought that Britain would go the same way as many of the European countries at that time: with huge social revolutions and what have you, leading to the Great Chartist Movement in 1838. Now this is what we’re going through. We have been going through in South Africa about 150 years later. And most countries go through this process.
So this is the established urban working class, again 13-14 million people. And then we’ve got a new emergent middle class, which is about 8 million people. Now the fertility rate is down to 1.8 – it’s the same as the United States. You have now about 60% of this group is black, colored, or Asian South Africans. This is our first world community. So the kids are to university, they want to get good grades so they can get great jobs, make a lot of money, have a family, have winter holidays with (can’t understand) and skiing, and summer holidays with Peña Coladas and palm trees, and tropical islands. That’s what our civilization is all about. But most whites live up here, about 2/3rds of whites live up here, divided into two tribes: English speaking South Africans, like me, and Afrikaans speaking South Africans like F.W. de Klerk. There are few English speaking working class people; most of the white working class people are Afrikaans. Again, which determines to a large extent politics of the country.
My kids, I’ve got a son who’s 31, and a daughter who’s 29. And they’re completely interchangeable with first world kids anywhere in the world. I mean you could parachute them into Southern California, or to Melbourne, or to Paris… And they are indistinguishable. They have the same media exposure: they are on Twitter, or Facebook; they have the same aspirations, they want to get good grades, and get MBA’s, and stuff like that; so that they can live the great dream. So that’s the first world. And we’re talking about 8 million people here. And here it’s mainly freedom. These guys basically want to do their own thing. They want economic freedom, they’re not solidarity people any longer, they don’t think that governments can solve all of the problems of the world… And this is the kind of hybrid country we have. So if you want to see where the heartland of, let’s say the ANC is, it goes up into this first world community; because the ANC has helped to develop very rapidly a black middle class. Its heartland is in the black working class. But it is also seen as the party of liberation by most black South Africans. The liberal opposition DA party, has its homeland, not surprisingly – not the multi-racial communities, mainly freedom based. The Zulu based IFP: Inkatha Freedom Party – was primary older Zulu’s going down like that. At one stage they were 10% of the political support base.
So now this is the map of the country. Most of you guys will be visiting this part, here. Hi. You will see stuff that looks very much like the United States, or Western Europe. It really works, wifi, the whole lot. That’s not the real South Africa. The real South Africa is this very complex situation here. What are some of the big problems facing the society? We have a program called the National Development Plan, which is supposed to really promote economic growth. And economic growth is really important, because it is the engine that is pulling people up this ladder. And life gets better the higher up the ladder you go. So economic growth is important. The NDP was established to promote economic growth with it. It identified some of the biggest problems confronting our country.
The first problem – perhaps the biggest problem is education. We spend about 6% of GDP on education, which is very high internationally. And yet we have some of the worst outcomes in the world. We compare badly with the poorest African countries, in terms of education delivery. There are a whole lot of reasons, but what it comes down to is that only about one child out of eight, who entered the education systems since 1994, emerged with a decent school qualification. The government really is very proud about what it calls, the “improving percentage of kids who pass our school leaving matric (sp?) exam”. It’s now around 72-73%. And every year it goes up. But it means nothing, because you can pass that exam with three subjects at 40%; and three subjects at 30%, and one subject at 0%. So most of the guys who get that matriculation exam, have an average pass mark of less than 40%. In other words, they emerge from school with the illusion of an education. But they have very little chance of getting decent jobs. And it’s not because there isn’t enough money. We’re spending around fifteen thousand Rand per child, on education. But we’ve made mistake, after mistake; we introduce curriculums after 1994, which were really idealistic outcomes based education. Which would have been great, maybe in Sweden or Switzerland… But just didn’t play down in rural (can’t understand).
Another big problem was the Language of Education. In South Africa, language policy at school is in the hands of the local school governing body. But among black South Africans, the aspirational language is always English. So the school governing bodies say, the kids will be taught in English. What has been established throughout the world is that if you do not receive the first six or seven years of your education in the language that you understand – your mother tongue –you are educationally crippled for the rest of your life. And what we’ve had now is a whole lot of kids, a whole generation of kids being taught in the language they don’t really understand, by teachers who don’t really speak the language; which is devastating.
The second, another huge problem has been the grip that the – one of the trade unions, South African Democratic Teachers’ Union has over the whole system. One of the first things they did was to do away with school Inspectors. School Inspectors were a problem to many of the members of SADTU. And according to a survey that was done, I think 2011, 20% of teachers are absent every Monday; and 20% or absent every Friday; and average time spent teaching in the schools in this area, three and a half hours a day. And it’s not quality teaching. Schools – old white schools, which are now integrated, six a half-hours a day. So again, there’s a huge divergence in the quality of education. Still we’ve got a million kids at university. So the situation isn’t entirely dark. But it does mean that we’ve had several million kids, mainly black kids, moving into a situation where they’re almost unemployable. That brings me to our second big problem: which is unemployment.
In South Africa, our official employment rate – or unemployment rate is 25.6%. Which for people in the States would sound terrible. But it’s not the total picture, because it doesn’t include those who’ve given up working; looking for work. If you add those, it’s 35%; 35 or 36%. But even that isn’t the total picture, because all this is measured on the economically active population. The real thing you’ve got to look at is what they call, Labor Absorption. Labor Absorption is the percentage of the population between the ages of 15 and 64, who are involved in – who aren’t working in fact. And a country like the United States, Labor Absorption would be around 65%; in the United Kingdom it’s 72%; South Africa it’s 41%. So it means – 43%. So that means that 57% of the people in that age group are not working at all. And it’s even more catastrophic for black South Africans; it’s only 38 or 39% of the black population, between those age groups, are in employment. What is the problem? The roots of unemployment are the failure of the education system on the one hand; and then the fact that we have got the most radical trade unions in the world, in this established urban working class.
According to the Global Economic Forum’s World Competitiveness Report, which does a survey of 144 countries and economies around the world in terms of competitiveness, South Africa’s 144 out of 144 in terms of employer worker relations. We have a strike rate which is about six times the world average. So the labor relations are very hostile. So and the labor system is very rigid. So companies will do everything they can to avoid employing people, because it’s just too much of a hassle. And the reason for that again is because, the main trade union federation Cosatu (sp?) is part of the ruling alliance. And that means it has control of labor policy. So there’s no equality in the relationship between labor and management when it comes to labor legislation. That’s another of the reasons for low unemployment. So problem number one: education; problem number two: we have unemployment. And this leads to a very big failure, that is equality.
Our Constitution is based on foundational values, which include human dignity, the achievement of equality, and the advancement of human rights and freedoms. We have failed dismally to achieve equality. Even though we’ve had this, you know, quite radical government ANC in charge since 1994. Gini Coefficient is 6.63. Which makes us one of the most unequal societies in the world. I don’t know whether you guys know about the Gini Coefficient, but it measures inequality in a society. If the coefficient is 1, it means that everything is owned by one person, or all the income is earned by one person. If it’s 0, it means that there is completely even distribution of income. The most equal countries in the world are the Scandinavian Social Democracies, that have a Gini Coefficient of about .25. Countries like the Czech Republic, Slovakia or what have you, are also the .25-.26 region. South Africa at .63 is one of the most unequal societies in the world. United States is .43, about the same as China – .44, which is a Communist country, supposedly. Britain and France, and countries like that, are around .37, and that sort of area. So inequality is another huge challenge that we have.
A further problem we have is health, AIDS. You guys know how many people died of Ebola last year. It was 8,500 people over a year. And you were also aware of the media coverage that all of this got. It was on the TV news almost every second night. This week, 3,500 people will die of AIDS in South Africa. Last year, 170,000 people died of AIDS. In the same period that eight and a half thousand people died of Ebola. No media coverage; nothing in the newspapers. There is the perception that because we have the biggest anti retroviral program in the world right now, that we’ve solved the problem. But we haven’t. Infection rates are still catastrophically high. So among pregnant women, the instance of HIV AIDS, is still around 30%, 28-30%. Almost 1/3 of all pregnant women are HIV positive. Anti retroviral’s have brought the death rate down quite dramatically. In 2005, we lost 350,000 people from AIDS. Now it’s down to 170,000. But it still remains an enormous human tragedy. More than four million South Africans have died of AIDS since the epidemic began. Other problems we have, relate to security and crime.
Our murder rate in South Africa is 31 per 100,000. Now to put that in perspective, in the United States it’s about 6 per 100,000. The global average is around 6 per 100,000. So we have five times over. Again that’s come down quite dramatically since 1994. But it does mean that since 1994, 400,000 people have been murdered in South Africa. That is, I think about six times the number of people who were killed in Vietnam – Americans who were killed in Vietnam? So that is a big problem. At the same time, those are some of the big problems that we have experienced. We are also now experiencing increasing levels of corruption in government, and inefficiency, and increasing re-racialization of society.
The ANC, in addressing this huge problem of inequality decided that the way to go, was to promote a very pervasive policy of affirmative action – in what was called Black Economic Empowerment. Broad based Black Economic Empowerment. But what broad based Black Economic Empowerment did, was to transfer about six hundred billion Rand from white companies, in essence, to the black elite. Through affirmative action, it brought a lot of guys up, from the working class into the middle class. But it did nothing for these guys. Nothing. Our constitution and Section 9, calls on the state to take measures to advance equality for people who have been disadvantaged. In our view, in our foundations view, the appropriate steps are to empower people through decent education, and through job creation. And also, by providing the people here with decent services. Now that is already happening to a degree, but not nearly enough. So for example, the government has built three and a half million homes for people in these segments here. Which is enough to house a quarter of the population. So these are some of the problems that we face. But I just want to tell you this – it may sound bad, but it’s much, much better than it was before 1994. Much better.
If you’d woken me up on the 2nd of February, 1990, when F.W. de Klerk made the speech that started the whole transformation process, and said, “Dave this is what it’s going to look like in 2015…” I would have said, give it to me; because we have made enormous progress in so many areas. We have got a fantastic Constitution, it’s one of the best in the world… It would not allow the Patriot Act, for example (laughs). Wouldn’t happen. We have, I think really made great progress in breaking down racial barriers, with very little – very few incidents. We have achieved a situation where our economy is three times larger now, than it was in 1994. We had great economic policies until 2007. In 2005, 6, 7, the economy was growing at more than 5%. We brought our national debt down to 23%. But all of that has gone in the wrong direction since the left wing took over the ANC in 2007. So we have – we’ve also been able to do really well in some areas.
Our accounting standards are the best in the world, according to the Global Competitiveness Report. Our banks are among the top four or five countries in the world, in terms of soundness. Financial services excellent; great companies, in terms of food distribution… Chains like Pick and Pay, and what have you. We have some wonderful exports like (can’t understand), who was born and brought up in Pretoria. So we have achieved a lot of successes. Does anybody know what one of our main exports is? No? People will say gold, diamonds… We produce 700,000 cars, motor vehicles in South Africa every year. That’s much more than Sweden – twice as much as Sweden. We exported 350,000 cars from South Africa last year. That makes up almost 8% of our GDP, which is the same as mining. Tourism is now over 10%. So South Africa has made huge progress. We’ve got huge challenges, but it remains an extremely interesting country. And I hope you enjoy your visit.
Ward Mailliard: Well, we have questions. Our questions are down a very different line. I think this is incredibly valuable; what you just shared with us, because from the outside, we tend to look at things in a stereotypical fashion. But part of the process of meeting someone like you, is to try to understand the personal experience, and the values-vision process from where you happen to stand in this very unique time. We are spending time in the first world here, but we’re also spending time – we were in Langa yesterday, will be in Khayelitsha today, we’ll be in Soweto, we’ll be in Tembisa, and we’ll be visiting the children’s AIDS Project – The Botshabelo Children’s AIDS Project, where we’re bringing clothing and medicine, and equipment, to try to give people who are already doing the work, some support for the valuable work that they’re doing. So we’re not sort of the normal group.
Dave Steward: That’s great. You’re doing a lot better than most White South Africans of your age.
Ward Mailliard: So let’s, why don’t we – yeah?
Cleo Herbert: Hi, my name is Cleo. I was wondering if you could talk about some of the interesting turning point – or some of the significant turning points on your journey to becoming Chief of Staff of President de Klerk?
Dave Steward: I have never really been ambitious in terms of saying, Well look I want that job. I’m really going to work for that job. My approach, all of my career, was to be very interested in what I was doing, and to do it as best I could. To make a lot of friends, not to make enemies, and to be very flexible; that is to be able to take advantage of any opportunity that came along. And I found out that by following that approach, things happen that you don’t expect. At the relatively – very early age of 37, I was made the South African Ambassador at the United Nations. I was very embarrassed, I thought I was too young. But then I kind of got to like it. And then again, at a relatively young age, I was asked to take over the communication role – the internal communication role for the South African government under President P.W. Botha. It’s nothing that I expected, but it happened. And it was very, very difficult, as you can imagine, during the 1980’s. And then to my great surprise, in 1992, President de Klerk asked me to be his Chief of Staff – the Director General in his office. So I guess those are all important turning points.
My experience with the United Nations was, I suppose, one of the life-changing situations. Being the South African Ambassador at the United Nations was this sort of very interesting situation, at the beginning of the 1980’s; because we were the most unpopular country in the world. The Israelis limped in, in a very weak second. With the Chileans coming on down the road a little bit. But South Africa was really the most unpopular country in the world. And it is in fact a very interesting situation to be in, to be an unpopular individual in the group. Because it seems that you really have to go through a whole lot of introspection. You’ve got to say, “are we really as bad as the world says we are?” And I think it was clear that, that in many respects we were. There were things that were happening in South Africa that were indefensible. But were we aware of this, and where we’re trying to change? And the answer was yes. From the end of the 1970’s, we started with a really significant process of reform. But that was under President P.W. Botha. But President P.W. Botha, I suspect had not read the (can’t understand), and did not understand that revolutions take place in situations of rising expectations, not in situations of repression.
So I then also looked at some of our accusers. And, were we as bad as the Bulgarians? No, I didn’t think so. In fact in 1976, the U.N. adopted International Convention against Apartheid. But it transpires that of the 31 signatures – original signatures to the treaty, 27, according to Freedom House, had the worst human rights records in South Africa; because it was by and large an initiative of the Soviet Union, and the sort of geo political struggle against the United States and the West in those days… So being the most unpopular individual in the community makes you acutely aware of the shortcomings of your own society; and of the need to support genuine solutions to those problems. But it also makes you aware of the enormous hypocrisy of international discourse. It is in many respects, going across the road, First Avenue, into the United Nations was like falling down the rabbit hole in Alice in Wonderland. Because suddenly you arrived, plop, in the delegates lounge. Words no longer had meaning. And actions no longer had consequences. It was crazy.
When I was there, at the height of the Iran hostage crisis, one of the Western countries decided to launch an initiative for an international convention against hostage taking. And so the General Assembly appointed a drafting committee. And one of the countries on the drafting committee was Iran! (laughs) And the West Germans proposed an international treaty against terrorism. And by the time it had gone through the General Assembly mill, it was International Convention Against Terrorism and the Manifest Injustices. Which cause some people to take desperate action. (laughs) So it was, in a way, it strengthened by belief in a divine plan for the universe. Because my view was that the universe, quite so exquisitely ironic, could not happen by accident. (laughs) So yeah, that was a very interesting experience.
And then trying to communicate on behalf of the South African government, on behalf of P.W. Botha, was also interesting. He was a reformer, very powerful man. But like many powerful men, didn’t listen terribly well. One of the things that we initiated in the communication agency that I started, in which I (just for fun), decided to run on business lines. Which sent shivers of horror through all of my bureaucratic colleagues, was to institute really, really widespread opinion surveys among South Africans of all races. And we did door to door surveys with black South Africans, colored Indians, whites… Big samples. And from 1986 onward, they told us that the support of the ANC was between 60-63%; that the support of the National Party was around 20-22%; support of the IFP was around 10%, 11%… Almost exactly the figures that emerged from the 1994 election. But we briefed the government on this. We said, look these are the realities. And I think it was very, very important for the government to understand what the realities were in the country. Because there was a tendency to think, oh well no those are just rabble-rousers; they don’t really represent popular opinion. And I think that was one of the factors that may have contributed to the huge process of reassessment that took place within the national party leadership, toward the end of the 1980’s.
Becoming the Director General in the office of the president, was you know, really very exciting. At a time of such critical importance in our national history, to be able to play a role. And that was an enormous privilege, to be able to work with people like Nelson Mandela was, you know, an historic honor. And then to see again how the mechanics of the situation worked at that time of great, great change throughout the world. And how the events in Russia, and the Soviet Union, and in Central Europe had such a direct impact on what happened in South Africa. And to meet and to interact with so many of the people who were involved in that huge historic change process, was a great experience.
Elise Slater: Hi, I’m Elise. And we were wondering, how did de Klerk, with your support, go about building the necessary consensus to make the difficult and controversial decisions that ended apartheid?
Dave Steward: When de Klerk was elected leader of the National Party, there was a lot of pressure building up within the caucus of the ruling National Party for change. The previous president, P.W. Botha, had understood the need for reform. And had instituted many of the very fundamental reforms that had already got rid of most of the more obnoxious elements of apartheid. But he did not want to surrender white sovereignty. So he could take, he could go to Mount (can’t understand), like Moses; but he couldn’t cross the Jordan River into the Promised Land. That took somebody from a different generation. And that somebody was F.W. de Klerk.
And de Klerk realized how much pressure had been building up within the caucus, for real change when he was elected. Timing is interesting. He was elected leader of the National Party exactly a year to the hour, before he made his historic speech in (mumbling). It was at eleven o’clock on the morning of the second of February, 1989. And he won. What happened was, quite remarkably, the National Party caucus out of the blue, without any warning, received a letter from President Botha who had suffered a stroke a month or so earlier. Which he said he was resigning as leader of the National Party. He was going to stay on as president, to play a role in negotiations. But he was resigning as a leader of the National Party. So there and then they decide that rather than have a bruising leadership contest over a number of weeks, they would vote then and there for a new leader. And de Klerk won only by 9 votes – 8 votes over the more liberal candidate. So it was a clear indication of the pressure building up for real change.
There were other very, very important factors that facilitated the decision of the second of February, 1990. One of them was the fact that there had been huge socio economic changes in South Africa during the 80’s. In 1970, the black share of income in the country was only about 21%; white share was 72%. But between 1970 and 1994, there were enormous shifts as people came into the cities and became involved in the economy. By 1994, the white share was down to 50%. The black, colored, and Asian share was up to the other 50%. So that meant people were moving into the economy at higher and higher levels. It was impossible to run the South African economy on the basis of white schools. So we had more and more black South Africans working as bank tellers, or whatever it may be, in white-collar jobs… Doing exactly the same work as their white colleagues. There’s no way that they were going to go to segregated dining rooms, or segregated places of entertainment…
To a very large extent, what was happening was that economic forces were changing South Africa. The government was coming along after the event, passing legislation to give recognition to what was already happening. Huge changes are taking place in the white community. In 1948, when the National Party came to power, the vast majority of its support base were in that second tier. They were blue-collar workers, or small farmers. But between 1948 and 1990, or 1988, a whole generation of Afrikaners moved into the middle class. They went to university, they started to travel, and they were exposed to different ways of looking at things. And as a result of that, they became increasingly uncomfortable with apartheid. And this also started to develop pressures for change, with some kind of reasonable accommodation.
Another very important one was that by 1988, all of the parties to the conflict had accepted that there could not be a military outcome. There could neither be a revolutionary success, nor a continuous repression by security forces; that the only way out was negotiation. It was Nelson Mandela, who in 1987 was one of the first people leaders to recognize this, and to open a line of communication with the South African government. Other huge development was of course the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the independence of Namibia. We were very worried about the influence of the South African Communist Party on the ANC. Throughout the 70’s and 80’s, virtually all of the members of the ANC’s National Executive Committee, were also members of the South African Communist Party. The ANC’s Armed Wing Umkhonto we Sizwe, were under the control of the South African Communist Party. So when I was ambassador at the United Nations, this I took very seriously. It’s one thing to have a one-man, one vote election that leads to genuine democracy. It’s another thing if it’s seen as a route to communist dictatorship.
So the Soviet Union invested a lot of time and effort in surrogate wars in southern Africa. The most notable of which was on the border between Namibia and Angola. In October 1987, the Angolan forces led by and supported by Russians and Cubans, decided on having one major thrust: the final major thrust to eliminate Unita from the picture – Unita was an anti government guerrilla movement in Angola –from the picture, so that they would be able to move more concertedly toward the Namibian border. And our armed forces, plus Unita inflicted an absolutely crushing defeat on them. And they lost a whole brigade, which is about five or six thousand men; 94 tanks, about twenty aircraft. So it was one of the biggest battles in Africa since the Second World War. And that I think broke the willingness of the Russians to continue. Already things will get beginning to fall to pieces in Russia, in the Soviet Union, (names in Russian, can’t understand)… And I think the Russians said, “Ok, that’s it. You had your shot at a military outcome that didn’t work. So now you guys are going to reach an agreement with the South Africans. On the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola.” And that happened in 1988. And until then, the condition for the Independence of Namibia, which was accepted also by the United States, was the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. And that was achieved in an agreement between Cuba, Angola, and South Africa in 1988. And it opened the way to the relatively successful independence of Namibia.
But not a revolutionary process as the Soviet Union had wanted. But under a proper constitution with proper guarantees for minorities, with genuine elections, and that’s what happened in 1989 in Namibia. And it was in many respects a dry run for South Africa. And because it happened successfully, and Namibia is still a functioning democracy; so it worked. Wouldn’t have worked had there been a revolutionary outcome. So that was another green traffic light. So you had all these green traffic lights turning green at the right time, and creating this enormous window of opportunity. The beginning of 1990 – and de Klerk realized that what they called a balance of forces would never again be so propitious for a proper negotiated outcome. That’s quite a long answer, but there you are.
CeCe Moreno: Hi, I’m CeCe. What can you tell us about the character of President de Klerk that allowed him to stand up to the pressures that were present during those transitional years?
Dave Steward: He’s a very unusual kind of politician, because he’s actually a bit of a softy. And he’s actually quite a nice guy. Most politicians aren’t. (all laugh) Politicians are very, very strange beasts. I was never a politician myself. But they all have this incredible vision about their own destinies. You know, if you, as they say if you stand for dog-catcher, you’re actually thinking of standing for presidency. They’re odd type of people. But in de Klerk’s case, I think it was the fact that he was a very astute politician. He had managed to position himself in the center of the National Party. So he was able to take advantage of the situation as it developed.
The other factor I think was his religious background. He belonged to the smallest of the Afrikaans Reformed churches, but the one that was perhaps the most consistent in terms of Calvinist doctrine. And that was that you know, if you decide that something is wrong, you actually have to live it out. You’ve actually got to take it to the end of the road, and the logical conclusion. And I think that was a very big and important factor. And the largest factor – faction in the Reformed church are much more worldly, and more inclined to compromise. That if you’re a member of this very small church, the doctrinal position was very clear very simple: if something’s wrong you’ve going to finish it. You can’t compromise on that. I think that was a factor.
I think another factor that unable them to deal with all of this is that, unlike his predecessor, he was a listener. His predecessor P.W. Botha, ruled to a large extent by fear. Everybody would who was gathered around the cabinet, or whatever it was – state security council meeting, would look very carefully for cues from the president as to whether they should continue with a line of reasoning. They would say, well President, do you think we should do x, y, and z? And if he sort of nodded, they would go further along. If he looked negative they would immediately pull back. I don’t think this happens on a lot of corporate boards. And a lot of power situations and you know, throughout societies. You have some leaders who really are bullies. And it’s not a good leadership style. De Klerk on the other hand, really encouraged his cabinet and his caucus to express their views. And he would sum up the consensus. And I think it was the fact that he listened, and that he made his colleagues very much part of the decision making process that enabled him to go through this whole very rocky process, without any cracks in his cabinet or in his caucus. He had solid support throughout. Nobody left. So I think those were sort of some of the characteristics that helped him.
Tyler Sullens: So, I’m Tyler. Can you talk about your role as events were unfolding?
Dave Steward: Yeah. I had a really, really interesting career. And the thing that I found was that – and I think throughout my career, that whenever I have made mistakes, it was because I didn’t speak up and say what I thought was right. I didn’t believe in myself. That so many of us know what the right course is, but we think, well who are we, who am I to make this suggestion? All of these very big and powerful people are saying the opposite. And I was a junior member of the – body of a member of the working committee of the State Security Council in the early 80’s, representing the Director General of Foreign Affairs. I was a diplomat at that time.
And these guys started talking about moving black people out of Khayelitsha. And this was a big plan. They had already mobilized the tracks with Zulu speaking South Africans to come down to do these removals. And I thought, geez, this will be a catastrophe! And another of my colleagues, a very junior guy – well not, a relatively junior guy from the presidency, agreed with me. And so I said, look I’m going to speak to my guy; you speak to your guy; and tell them that this can’t happen. And he did. He spoke to President Botha, and I spoke to the Foreign Minister. I said, look, if this happens, it will be a catastrophe. You know… So fortunately, the you know, wiser Council prevailed, and they stopped, the trucks turned around. So the point here is that, even at a relatively junior level, if you see something wrong, you’ve got to say that it’s wrong. And you’ve got to try and do something about it.
At other stages and in my career, I was the spin doctor. I was the spin doctor for de Klerk, advising him on communication. And communication is really, really a core element of any government. And we had numerous, numerous communication crises. And I had a very, very simple process of advice for the president, when there was a crisis; because strangely enough, presidents are often the last people to know what’s going on. Because they whole ranks of bureaucrats and ministers who filter reality and truth from them. Nobody wants to tell the boss the bad news, you know. So they all give them a doctored version of what’s happening. And so crisis arises, we find that the defense forces been aiding the IFP, against the president’s specific instructions. With all sorts of secret projects.
So the rules that we followed were that, first of all, rule number one: find out the Hell what’s going on. The second rule: is to take the Communication Initiative. If you find out what’s going on, you don’t wait for it to break in the papers. You take the initiative, you hold a press conference, and you say look this has been happening… The third thing: is you take real and credible counteraction. And you say look, this is what we’re doing to address the problem. Fourth one, which is basic: don’t cover anything up. Put it all on the table. Because one of the golden rules is, that if you don’t, somebody will pull it out. And the problem is nearly always the cover, up not the problem. So we follow this advice on numerous occasions, and it worked. That you find out what’s going on; you then take the Communication Initiative; you don’t cover up, and you take credible counteraction. So that was maybe my contribution during the process. I also had the job of, you know, summing up the discussions that were taking place, and issuing the press statement. Which can be quite important of these circumstances. Those I think, those were perhaps the main moments that I remember.
Sophie Ortiz: Hi, I’m Sophie. I wanted to know if you were always aligned with what was going, or decisions made during this critical times of transition?
Dave Steward: Oh, I was a public servant. So my view was that I serve the government of the day. And if I couldn’t serve the government of the day in good conscience, I should resign. But that doesn’t mean that you support everything that the government does. When I was a diplomat, I saw my task as explaining the situation. Explaining what the government’s views were, explaining what the circumstances were which had created whatever situation had arisen. As a diplomat you should never become an advocate. As a diplomat, or any kind of communicator, your value is determined entirely by your credibility. If you lie, then you lose your credibility, and you lose your value completely as a communicator. So you never tell a discernible lie. (all laugh) And there are important differences.
I had a very difficult situation on the 24 of May, 1985; I remember it well, because it was the day after my 40th birthday. And unfortunately I’d had a very big party. And I’d got to bed and about four o’clock, and I was frankly seriously hung over. And I’d had a party the previous evening where my good friends from the British and American embassies were present. And when I arrived at the office, I was confronted with a huge crisis – because the Angolans had caught South African Special Forces outside of the Gulf Oil Installation in Cabinda, in Angola. And it looked to everybody as though they were there to blow them up. And our Defense Force was pumping out a story that, ‘oh no, no. These guys were just a reconnaissance group. They were on their way through the jungle to reconnoiter a swapper base in Southern Cabinda.’ And this didn’t have any credibility. And I went with the Director General of Foreign Affairs to see the head of our defense force – it was a guy called (can’t understand). And we said, look we have a crisis. Can you tell us what’s going on? And he told us this story. And I wasn’t very senior, I had about the rank of a colonel, and he was the head of the army of the defense force. And so in my very hung over state, I asked him, “General, are you telling us the truth?” And his eyes twinkled, and he said, “75%?”
And then I had the problem of briefing of my colleagues, who are also my friends from the American and British embassies. They came to see me and they said, ‘Dave what’s going on?’ And here you can’t compromise your credibility. So I said, “Look, Tim, you know about the situation that arose. At 9:20 this morning, the Director General of Foreign Affairs and I went to see the Head of the South African Defense Force, and this is what he said, and I quote (laughs): He knew exactly what I was saying… So it comes down to the situation that if you’re a communicator, you’ve got to retain your credibility. And that goes throughout life.
Max Medvedev: So, my name’s Max. And earlier on, you were discussing speaking on behalf of the president. So on that note, in an interview with Dr. Onslow you said, (with a certain level of humor), “One of the things I subsequently learned, was that if you communicate badly on behalf of others, that they will forgive you. But if you communicate well on their behalf, they’ll never forgive you.”
Dave Steward: That’s very true.
Max Medvedev: Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
Dave Steward: Well yes, it arose when I was responsible for the communication function. And this is a minefield, because you are – if you have a central communication role, you are inevitably going to be communicating on the terrain of other government departments and (can’t understand). And the rule is that, if you do this badly, they will forgive you; but if you communicate better than they would, they will never forgive you, because you are actually taking over their line function responsibility. You cannot separate responsibility for communicating, with responsibility for running the function. So what I did was, I repositioned the communication agency, not as the generator of any messages, but as the provider of central communication services, to make sure that if ministers communicated they did so as effectively as possible. So we had really good communication research people, market research people that could put together very good advertising campaigns… But we purposefully didn’t generate messages; because as soon as you do that, you step on the toes of your colleagues, and they will never forgive you.
Sophia Saavedra: Hello, I’m Sophia. Were there any memorable experiences that you can recount from your interactions with Nelson Mandela?
Dave Steward: Yes indeed. I recall, very soon after the transition, around the 11th, 12th of May, 1994: it was my honor to take Nelson Mandela to look at the various residences that he might occupy in his new capacity as president. And I took him to the Venerable Old Mansion that had served as the residence of previous governors, generals, and presidents of South Africa… And he was with Barbara Masekela, and one of his grandchildren. And it was really an experience to walk with this historic figure; very humble man, into these buildings that had been the headquarters of his enemies for so many generations. And to see how completely unimpressed by it all. He was really quite a remarkable man.
And I suppose the other thing that I remember is, that when I when I turned 50, suddenly I got a phone call and it was Mandela, the president. He said, “Dave, oh, you are now 50. You are now a real man.” (all laugh) “Congratulations.” I always had an enormous amount of respect and affection for him, but he could be a very, very bruising and brutal politician. The idea of Nelson Mandela as ‘Saint Nelson’, was the first idea that he himself would have just dismissed. But quite a remarkable man, and perhaps the most impressive politician I’ve met.
Ward Mailliard: What a privilege to get to hang out. He was on my bucket list of people we always wanted to interview. But we got going too late.
Nathan Burgess: Hello, I’m Nathan. And can you talk about the decision to prepare for re-elections in such a short time, and the tension that must have risen from that?
Dave Steward: Well it wasn’t really such a short time. You know, we had adopted our interim constitution, in December of 1993. The elections were the 27th of April. So we had a few months. And there’d been a lot of preliminary discussion, even before the adoption of the interim constitution on how the elections would be run for example; we had a transitional executive committee that would oversee all of these actions in the interim. So there was an independent electoral commission that was established immediately; that was acceptable to all of the parties involved in the elections. The existing structures of the department of (can’t understand) affairs were put at its disposal. The elections were run by Judge (can’t understand name), who subsequently became a member of our Constitutional Court. To be frank, they were pretty chaotic. The outcome, we described as being an election of the impressionist school. (laughs) Not the super realism school that close enough for everybody to recognize the broad features, and acceptable for most people. Where the national party thinks they got perhaps a million more votes than they did. Then so does everybody else.
Saniya Lakka: Hi, my name is Saniya. Was there someone who inspired or mentored you in your career?
Dave Steward: I guess Adam Smith? (laughs) You know, I don’t know real individuals… Maybe my father was a guiding spirit; our views diverged after a while. And I had some people who were in senior positions who helped me when I was in the Department of Foreign Affairs. But on the whole, I guess I looked for my role models in history.
Lily Peterson: Hi, I’m Lily. We noted in that same interview with Dr. Onslow, that you’re witness to the careers of many prominent people in the diplomatic and political arena. Can you tell us from your observations what helps people advance in their careers, and what causes them to fail?
Dave Steward: I think I’ve mentioned – the fact is that I believe are critical – and they are, really three things: you’ve got to be able to do whatever you do really well; you’ve got to be able to deliver; whether it’s a service or whatever, product. Academic qualifications mean nothing. They might help you to, you know, with some background… but you have to be able to deliver. The second thing is, you have to have good interpersonal relations. You have some really brilliant people who alienate – powerful idiots. Which most people look and are surrounded by powerful idiots. So, you can’t do that. You’ve got to have good interpersonal relations. And then the third thing is, you got to be really, really flexible. That is, you must be really aware of what’s going on around you. You’ve got to be aware of all of the opportunities and threats that confront you; and he would be able to move very quickly and decisively to take advantage of an opportunity; or to avoid a threat.
In my career, I saw that most people weren’t even aware of the opportunities that were falling around them like ripe fruit. They just went through life. Premature foreclosure. This is the way I’ve always done it, this is the way I’m going to do it… So you have to you have to be really, really, really flexible, in a period – particularly in a world that is changing as rapidly, and as dramatically as ours. There’s simply no room for those who are dosing, and who think they can continue to do things the way they’ve always done them. And the interesting thing is, that these are the survival factors in nature as well. If you’re an Impala, you’ve got to be really good at what you do, which is running. (laughs) You’ve got to be really in touch with the herd. The guy is a straggler, who’s not with the herd, who gets taken by the lion. You’ve got to be watching the herd very carefully, and you’ve got to have good relations with the herd… And then the third thing is, you’ve got to be really aware of your environment. That rustle in the grass might be the lion. And you’ve got to be able to move very, very quickly order to take advantage of an opportunity or avoid a threat.
Ward Mailliard: Words to live by.
Holden Smith: Hello, I’m Holden. Given a long and successful career, it seems that you could have retired. But you’re still working, with a declared foundation. Is there something in particular that you want to accomplish? That keeps you motivated?
Dave Steward: Yeah there is, I’m afraid: defending our Constitution. The product of F.W. de Klerk’s presidency was the final constitution. When he handed over power on the 10th of May in 1994, he didn’t hand power to Nelson Mandela, or to the ANC. He handed it to the new constitutional dispensation. The government of the day is the guardian of that dispensation. But the future happiness, prosperity of everybody in this country depends on our ability to abide by the fundamental values that the Constitution articulates. And they are very simple. They’re in section one of our Constitution. And the values are: human dignity, the achievement of equality, the advancement of human rights and freedoms, non-racialism, non sexism; the supremacy of the Constitution, and the rule of law, and a genuine multi-party democratic system with regular elections, that is open, accountable and responsive. And that is our mission statement as a country.
So for me, the prospect of continuing to work for that is huge motivation. And it’s under threat – it’s under enormous threat right now; ironically from a number of different quarters. But we are really, really worried about some of the rights in the Constitution now.
Julia Gratton: Hello, I’m Julia. On our first day in South Africa, it was youth day. Since you have done so much with your life for your country, what is it you would like to ask of our generation?
Dave Steward: Well, I think if the question is put to South African youth, I would say, get an education. However you can. Get a job, however you can. Make a life for yourself. Accept your responsibilities as a human being. One of our big problems is that 75%of our kids grow up with only one parent at home. The men are not there. And this puts an enormous burden, particularly on the shoulders of black single mothers. So I would say to young people, get an education, try and get a job, develop really good relationships, get a life.
Ward Mailliard: And what would you say to the Americans – us as Americans, this generation?
Dave Steward: I think that you should understand that you have one of the really great societies in history. I think your society has done more to promote freedom, in the world than any other country, society in history. Your institutions are admirable; you had wonderful founding fathers. You have a great constitution. I would say, abide by those values; reaffirm them. Don’t lose faith in the things that have made your country great.
Ward Mailliard: Which means we have to educate ourselves on those things. It’s not enough to get by. That’s good advice. I’m curious. We’ve heard a lot. I mean, and this is an incredible range that you have. To really help us understand more accurately where we are, and what the context is that we’re operating in. What did you guys hear, anybody want to say what you’ve heard that struck you, or had meaning for you?
Teresa Slater: I liked how you said how if you love something, and your passionate about it, and you do well in it, then you’ll go far. Regardless of any obstacles that you face; as long as you’re passionate about it, you’ll go far. I liked that.
Julia Gratton: What really struck me was when you talked about how the mistakes you made were when you didn’t speak up. That really resonated with me. Thank you.
Ward Mailliard: CeCe?
CeCe Moreno: Twice you said, whatever you do, do it well. And be flexible, and take opportunities. And I think that’s advice that we can all take as we go forward our life.
Ward Mailliard: Anybody else? Oh, we’ll go around. Katie?
Katie Okamura: I was just really impressed, like Julia said, with your humility. And just how most politicians, they seem to just exude confidence, and they’re very pride obsessed. But you understood your weaknesses, and you used them to your advantage. I thought it was really inspiring.
Louis Marshall: I liked what you said about when you were saying, that you strived to be interested in whatever you did. And that helped you like, to do well in what you did. It was really nice.
Sophia Saavedra: I really appreciated that you took the time to teach us about the socio economics of South Africa, and all of the issues. And you spoke about the progress. I really appreciated that.
Nathan Burgess: I appreciate that you came here to teach us, not to answer questions about yourself.
Max Medvedev: As you said, the socio-economics, you know you walk into this room, and you take a look at that. And it’s a very complicated thing that you know, it’s pretty hard to understand off the bat. And I appreciate how you were able to simplify that into you know, relatively speaking, laymen’s terms.
Tyler Sullens: I just kind of want to thank you for coming here to take the time to speak with us. I really appreciate it, and I know everyone else in this room really does too.
Dave Steward: Absolutely. Look, the reality is that, you think about it – if you’re not providing a service to somebody, what is your purpose? The other thing too is, that providing a service is one of the most satisfying things that you can do. If you provide a good service to somebody, you feel really good about it; they feel good about it; your organization looks good. So being a servant is often regarded as being almost a (can’t understand) term. But in fact, being a servant is the role that you can play.
Ward Mailliard: Thank you very much for taking this time with us. It’s just it’s wonderful.
Dave Steward: Thank you.