This book is mandatory reading for any political science major. In a media driven age where the truth is intentionally distorted to further political agendas, Adam-Slabbert&Moodley provide the cold-blooded truth about the hypocracy of contemporary South African politics. In so doing, they lift the veil of piousness surrounding the 'heros' of the apartheid struggle and reveal the true motives of these modern day pirates. Extemely thought provoking reading.

"This timely book is comparable to a seminar on contemporary politics in South Africa. The authors are all veteran analysts of South African political changes since the 1960's. In South African terms, they are moderate left. Thus, they avoid the triumphalism of the celebrants of the demise of apartheid and instead comment searchingly on the dilemma of promoting liberal democracy while engaging in massive attempts to reduce inequality... Part serious-popular history, part comparative political analysis, part sociology, part academic journalism, the discussion is not for a beginner but for the reader already initiated into South Africana...The conclusion is rather sober: politics in the future is no longer about race but about the underclass challenging the "liberation aristocracy." Highly recommended for upper-division undergraduates, graduate students, faculty, and researchers." -H.Glickman, Haverford College Taken from: Choice. June 1999

People gravitate towards rhetoric, forming their opinions based on snippets of information rather than after having a more exhaustive study of the issues. Luckily, Dr. Heribert Adam and Dr. Kogila Moodley don't fall under this category and offer us a well research perspective on the issues. The first three chapters "The Opening of the Apartheid Mind" sets the stage for what will be a more rational and composed examination of the issues in South Africa of the recent past. To be brutally honest, rhetoric is sexy. Rhetoric moves us and unfortunately that limits the scope of our examination and removes agency from the Other - the stereotyped. Leaving one's examination of South Africa on the level of biographies written by self serving individuals leaves one with a one sided view of the issues.

In conjunction with the issues I laid out above, I just want to reflect, for a moment on Nelson Mandela's rhetoric that what occurred in South Africa was a miracle. The common belief is that there is an ontological predisposition to violence in Africa in general and South Africa in particular - that is a very dangerous oversimplification. In as much as there is a propensity to violence anywhere, why should we privilege Africa as the hotbed of violence. Can we see things another way and formulate policies accordingly.

There was an interesting note made in the introduction that: "Reluctant reconciliation is taking shape in South Africa. The ambivalent alliance between the two major contenders for power, the National Party (NP) and the African national Congress (ANC), results from a balance of forces where neither side can defeat the other. It is their mutual weakness, rather than their equal strength, that makes both longtime adversaries embrace negotiations for power-sharing. Like a forced marriage, the working arrangement lacked love but nonetheless is consummated because any alternative course would lead to a worse fate for both sides."

Already this sets the tone that the myth of the South African miracle is false and that the rhetoric surrounding the violence as set up by Mandela is false. A deeper examination of the issues leads us to believe that is will be the realistic self assessments as opposed to slogans and threats of violence that will lead South Africa to a stable transition and to effect a sustained stability - to whatever extent that can be achieved. People, unfortunately, en masse, do not like to hear this, it detracts from the rhetoric that fills the empty chambers of their hearts - therein lies the problem. In this context, it is very difficult to make a distinction between what we can be done and what ought to be done.

It is also interesting to note that whites will be in control for along time to come. The "emancipation" rhetoric want to see the toppling of tyrannical regime and see black freedom. Unfortunately, it is this very type to drum beating that results in violence: "Though strong in symbolic support, the ANC is weak in bureaucratic resources, military capacity, and economic leverage. Real power will therefore remain in the hands of the present establishment; even if Nelson Mandela becomes president of South Africa, the economy, the civil service, and the army will have to rely on white skills, capital, and goodwill for along time to come."

Having outline this, it is clear that a more reasoned and negotiated approach would be prudent. A statement like this one certainly does not bode well for the activists or the communist. Both of their projects will not be eliminated by this realization. However, realpolitik is for the engineers, rhetoric is the fodder for the activist.

The problem of the unassailability was already laid out early in the book, what is now important to do is to deconstruct the notion of Nelson Mandela as messiah and that his political apparatus is beyond criticism. One of the possible cautions for doing so can be construed as paternalistic. An argument could be made that it might be well enough that the ANC has achieved what it has. In this light, it will be making baby steps and will need time to iron out its kinks and be allowed to make mistakes. However, more sinister is the notion that because of his charisma, Mandela and the ANC are beyond any form of criticism - as if to imply "you are either part of the problem or part of the solution."

This merely confirms empirically that a less than critical approach can lead to a less than accurate prediction. Dr. Adam and Dr. Moodley bring to light several angles that ignored by the press and public who wish to see South Africa in terms of black and white rather than shades of gray.