By Peter Young

THIS is a tense and critical moment for the country that was called all those years ago by Archbishop Desmond Tutu of Cape Town the ‘The Rainbow Nation’ to signify its multicultural diversity. At last week’s national elections in South Africa the ruling Africa National Congress (ANC) party lost its overall majority for the first time in thirty years. This is the party of the legendary Nelson Mandela who, as the leader of the ANC after his release from prison in 1990, became president of the country in the first-ever multiracial democratic elections in 1994 after the ending of apartheid.

Following this latest election, the ANC is still the largest party with about 40 per cent of the vote, but it required at least 50 per cent to continue to rule on its own as the outright winner. At elections over the years the party has consistently won over 60 per cent so this week’s result represents a dramatic decline in its fortunes. After 30 years of political dominance, it now faces, under the existing president Cyril Ramaphosa, the need to form a coalition – or some sort of power-sharing arrangement – with one or more of the other parties that contested the election.

Its nearest rival, the pro-business Democratic Alliance (DA), won some 22 per cent of the vote while the MK party, led by the discredited former president Jacob Zuma, surprisingly gained nearly 15 per cent and the far-left Economic Freedom Fighters party (EFF) some 10 per cent. Formation of a new government is a matter of some urgency because, in accordance with the nation’s constitution, parliament must meet to choose a new president within fourteen days after the election result is declared.

So, why has the ANC failed to deliver this time around? Commentators say there is a grim national mood because of the high cost of living, chronic levels of unemployment, corruption, the prevalence of violent crime and the never-ending power cuts. The general perception appears to be that the political reforms achieved in 1994 have not been accompanied by real economic improvements for the majority of people.

The ANC has always benefited from voters’ appreciation of its freedom-fighting history, as well as from its unmatched organizational power and the advantage of incumbency. But, according to reports, younger voters have become disillusioned by continuing poverty, lack of housing and jobs and the erratic supply of electricity which has become a major issue.

In considering coalition partners, observers are speculating that working with the DA as the largest opposition party looks to be the best option. Apparently, the DA is ready for a ‘full-blown’ coalition or a ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement with a minority ANC government. However, the DA is seen by some as favouring the interests of white people – or even representing them -- although the party claims to be multi-racial. It is said in the South African press that, as a former liberation movement, some in the ANC leadership might not wish to link up with the DA. Whites are still in a relatively small minority in a country of some 62 million, but this could still be a significant factor despite claims of the successful move towards reconciliation between the races after the ending of apartheid.

The present generation, in particular, may not be fully aware of the hardships, troubles and woes overcome by Nelson Mandela during his long life. An anti-apartheid activist, politician and statesman who spent a quarter of a century behind bars, he served as president of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. His autobiography, ‘Long Walk to Freedom’, has been described as acompelling story of an epic life of struggle, setback, renewed hope and ultimate triumph – and some say that Mandela’s life was one of the most remarkable of the last century. This book should surely be on people’s ‘must read’ list.

His work with the last white president of South Africa, F W de Klerk, to end apartheid and bring about a multiracial society was considered to be vital. The latter played a crucial role in bringing to an end a system that was described at the time as the means by which white South Africans had tried to entrench their right to ethnic self-determination in an overwhelmingly black continent.

It is said that to younger people, apartheid is essentially an issue of the past. But, gradually, from its introduction in 1948 by a National Party government until nearly the turn of the century, it remained near the top of the world’s news agenda as a system that was unacceptable both to many South Africans and the international community as well – and I know from personal experience that at its height one of the main tasks of British diplomats in South Africa was to convince political and other leaders that it had to be stopped.

When Nelson Mandela died, F W de Klerk described him as a “great unifier and very special man” whose emphasis on reconciliation was his “greatest legacy”; and it might be worth reminding people that, in recognition of their work, the two men shared a Nobel Peace Prize.

Over the weekend, what a pleasure it was to watch President Ramphosa deliver an excellent address at the ceremony for the formal announcement of the election results. How encouraging it was to hear him say that the people had spoken and that this must be respected. He declared that the elections had been found to be free and fair and they had been peaceful. The results reflected the will of the people – and the politicians must now look for common ground and work together for the good of the whole country. All who know and appreciate South Africa as the fine country it is can only hope his wise words will be heeded. 

Remembering D-Day

Later this week, on June 6, numerous events will be held in various countries to commemorate the the 80th anniversary of D-Day. On that day in June in 1944, the largest seaborne invasion in history was launched from England when as many as 160,000 men of the Allied forces of the Second World War (including from France) crossed the English Channel to land successfully on the beaches of Normandy in France.

Called Operation Overlord, it was the biggest and most complex operation devised and undertaken by the Western Allies during the course of the war. In his subsequent memoirs, Churchill described it as the “greatest armada that ever left our shores for the coast of France”. But the price in terms of casualties was high. 4,415 Allied troops were killed on D-Day itself. These included 2,501 from the US, 1,442 from Britain, 391 Canadians and 73 from other Allied countries – and thousands were wounded.

On D-Day, Allied airborne troops parachuted into drop zones across northern France, and ground troops landed across five assault beaches designated as Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword for, respectively, American, British and Canadian forces. By the end of the day, the Allies had established a foothold along the coast and could begin their advance into France.

People are saying that this 80th anniversary will have special resonance because of the war raging the other side of Europe and because the number of veterans, many of whom are centenarians, is dwindling as the years go by.

So this year the major ceremony on Normandy’s wind swept beaches could be one of the last of its kind. Amongst numerous dignitaries, President Biden is due to attend as part of his state visit to France, as well as King Charles, President Macron, and the German Chancellor. There will also be international 80th anniversary D-Day Beacons lit at the British Normandy Memorial, overlooking Gold Beach where British troops landed, and an event at the Normandy Victory Museum.

Each participating nation will hold ceremonies in its own country. I, for one, will follow the events in Britain with particular interest, since, as it happens, I was responsible for the civilian side of the 50th anniversary in 1994. There will be major parades and commemorative events at cenotaphs and war memorials in cities, towns and villages up and down the country, including the reading of proclamations together with special church services. These gatherings will be to recognize and pay tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of those who took part in D-Day and to honour their memory and the enduring legacy of peace and freedom they fought to secure. The events will also recognize the extraordinary international planning required for the massive undertaking of D-Day itself.

Historians say that, almost from the defeat of France by German forces in 1940 and the retreat of the British Expeditionary Force from Dunkirk, British plans and preparations began for its liberation. It was clear to Churchill and his military staff that only the liberation of France first could secure the defeat of Germany. But it was not before the entry of the US into the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 that realistic plans for an invasion were begun in earnest.

In the event the Americans and  British established a command system to plan and fight the war jointly. Given the greater US contribution to the liberation forces, there was little doubt that an American would be appointed to be in overall charge of the D-Day operation. Accordingly, at the end of 1943, General Dwight Eisenhower was named as Supreme Allied Commander Europe. The experts say that Eisenhower was considered the natural choice because of his proven skill in handling complex political problems of coalition warfare together with his relaxed style and ability to find compromises while insisting on cooperation and coordination at all levels of his command.

As they say, the rest is history – and, on Thursday, evidence of the successful D-Day landings that led to the defeat of Germany less than a year later will be on display for all to see.

Wembley Stadium the perfect venue

After writing briefly in last week’s column about the two famous football teams from Manchester facing each other at the weekend in the Football Association’s Cup Final at Wembley Stadium in north-west London, I am reluctant to return to a related topic today.

However, I am doing so because my interest was sparked by the news that another major match took place at Wembley last Saturday – the European Champions League final between the leading Spanish team of Real Madrid and the German side Borussia Dortmund. Real Madrid were the massive favourites and won 2-0 in the end – though they left it late in the game to show a familiar clinical touch in front of goal - and were thus crowned footballing kings of Europe for no less than the 15th time.

I did not watch the match but picked up some brief coverage of it in subsequent TV news programmes and saw the massive crowds. That induced thoughts about how well Wembley as a stadium seems to cope with the huge number of major and varied events it stages, in particular handling so many people – fans and supporters, visitors and guests. What a fantastic stadium it is and how proud and appreciative of it British people should be.

Built originally in 1922/23, it was re-constructed 20 years ago with the installation of new, more modern equipment and facilities and a larger crowd capacity of 90,000. There was much controversy at that time about demolition of its famous ‘twin tours’, but in the end they had to go. It is renowned for its history and grandeur, and its reputation for hosting iconic football matches goes back a long way -- not least to the World Cup Final in 1966 when England memorably defeated Germany.

Folklore has it that those engaged in building a new national stadium in 2003 were asked to produce something that the country could be proud of for many years to come. To my eyes, they succeeded admirably.