A defeat would pave the way for a whites-only general election. And a Conservative victory in that vote could trigger new economic sanctions, a diplomatic quarantine and possibly full-scale civil war. “This is the most gripping moment in my political career,” said the Conservatives’ Andries Treurnicht after the Potchefstroom vote. “It is a message to the white nation not to despair because the future is ours.” In Cape Town, however, liberal political scientist David Welsh said that if Treurnicht is right, “this country is doomed.”
But de Klerk is no fool: his move was carefully calibrated to call the rejectionists’ bluff. The idea of a whites-only referendum is not new, but now he has caught the right by surprise. When de Klerk legalized the African National Congress, stated his intention to free Nelson Mandela from prison and declared he was ready to open negotiations with legitimate black leaders, he also promised to let whites sign off on the eventual deal. The “overwhelming majority, " he said, would support his drive to “rid our country of suspicion and steer it away from domination and radicalism of any kind.” The real bargaining finally began this year in constitutional talks known as the Conference for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA). While big differences remain, the government and the ANC have already found a surprising amount of common ground, including agreement on the need for a multiracial transitional government. Both the Conservative Party and radical black groups have boycotted the talks. But de Klerk’s National Party and the ANC appear to enjoy what South African observers call “sufficient consensus” to negotiate on behalf of the whole country. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK (following page), Mandela said the main obstacle to reform is the Conservatives’ “growing power.”
Indeed, de Klerk’s 1989 mandate from white voters has appeared to slip. His party’s by-election defeat last week was its third in 10 months, and the vote was a personal rebuke to the president, who went to school in Potchefstroom and considers it his hometown. And unlike the smaller towns where the National Party lost earlier by-elections, it is an economically diverse community that offers a genuine cross section of Afrikanerdom. “There has been a swing [to the Conservatives],” de Klerk said after announcing the referendum. “To be effective in negotiations, we cannot be tainted even by an impression–however wrong it is-that we do not represent the power base which elected us.” In a NEWSWEEK interview, de Klerk said that his refusal to sugarcoat the implications of reform has cost him support, but that by being honest “I’ve gained new support.”
South Africans are indeed unhappy with the course de Klerk has set. Reform has brought them few tangible benefits. The end of the cultural and athletic boycotts has raised morale. But both blacks and whites are economically worse off than they were when whites elected de Klerk. In spite of the lifting of sanctions, foreign capital has not flooded back into the country. The price of gold, traditionally the engine of South Africa’s economic growth, has been flat. New technology abroad threatens the country’s dominance in the industry. Crime is rampant. And the nation is in the throes of its worst drought in recent memory; production of the national staple, corn, is expected to drop by 75 percent this year. “You don’t have the levels of government repression that you used to have, but that benefit is not on the bread-and-butter level,” says Dennis Davis, a law professor at the University of the Witwatersrand. “There has got to be a lot of concern among blacks and whites in the street about ‘What’s in it for me?”’
But dissatisfaction with de Klerk’s economic leadership may not translate into support for the Conservatives. In a November survey of 800 whites, only 20 percent named the Conservatives as their first choice. Nearly three times as many people picked the National Party, and the rest supported the liberal, antiapartheid Democratic Party, which can be expected to support de Klerk in the referendum. Had the Conservatives been confident that the tide was shifting in their favor, they could already have triggered a de facto referendum by resigning as a group from Parliament.
De Klerk also enjoys an important tactical advantage: he can virtually dictate the wording of the referendum question. “Winning a referendum is much easier than winning a general election,” says Welsh. And de Klerk’s promise to resign if he loses will force voters to confront the consequences of a “no” vote in a quite different way than they do when casting their ballots in by-elections that don’t affect the power balance in Parliament. They won’t simply be sending a protest message to de Klerk, they will be risking a return to international isolation and condemnation. The Afrikaner establishment-the Dutch Reform Church, the secret council of elders called the Afrikaner Broederbond and leading Afrikaner academics-has endorsed reform. De Klerk also has foreign allies. The Bush administration last week announced it will lift one of Washington’s last remaining sanctions against Pretoria, an eight-year-old congressional amendment blocking South Africa’s access to International Monetary Fund credits.
Treurnicht’s Conservatives can’t run on their economic program-they don’t have one-so he must rely on an appeal to whites’ fears. Not surprisingly, he wants some control over how the referendum question will be phrased. Late last week he proposed that whites choose between “self-determination” and a “one-person, one-vote” election system, the catch phrase for unalloyed black domination. But without the votes in Parliament, this demand will go nowhere. He also demanded equal access to the state-owned broadcast media. Meanwhile, Treurnicht’s threats that Afrikaners will rise up in protest should the reform drive continue have so far been empty. Although there have been scattered bombings, the radical right has proved largely toothless, and the Afrikaner-dominated security forces have stood fast.
De Klerk clearly provoked the fight on purpose. His decision to chop funding for white schools just before the by-election can hardly have been an accident. The country’s grossly inadequate spending on black education is one of the pressing problems a reformed South Africa must address. If he wins his bet, he will be able to move even faster toward a political settlement with blacks. His decision to conduct yet another whites-only vote grated on black leaders; the ANC called such elections “hallmarks of racism.” But if de Klerk wins, this will be the country’s last whites-only election. “I am absolutely confident that we will get a majority because we are doing the right thing for South Africa,” de Klerk said. “It is the only workable alternative.” That’s obvious to nearly everyone outside South Africa. They can only hope that de Klerk has gambled well.
title: “The Gambling Man” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-07” author: “William Cruz”
A defeat would pave the way for a whites-only general election. And a Conservative victory in that vote could trigger new economic sanctions, a diplomatic quarantine and possibly full-scale civil war. “This is the most gripping moment in my political career,” said the Conservatives’ Andries Treurnicht after the Potchefstroom vote. “It is a message to the white nation not to despair because the future is ours.” In Cape Town, however, liberal political scientist David Welsh said that if Treurnicht is right, “this country is doomed.”
But de Klerk is no fool: his move was carefully calibrated to call the rejectionists’ bluff. The idea of a whites-only referendum is not new, but now he has caught the right by surprise. When de Klerk legalized the African National Congress, stated his intention to free Nelson Mandela from prison and declared he was ready to open negotiations with legitimate black leaders, he also promised to let whites sign off on the eventual deal. The “overwhelming majority, " he said, would support his drive to “rid our country of suspicion and steer it away from domination and radicalism of any kind.” The real bargaining finally began this year in constitutional talks known as the Conference for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA). While big differences remain, the government and the ANC have already found a surprising amount of common ground, including agreement on the need for a multiracial transitional government. Both the Conservative Party and radical black groups have boycotted the talks. But de Klerk’s National Party and the ANC appear to enjoy what South African observers call “sufficient consensus” to negotiate on behalf of the whole country. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK (following page), Mandela said the main obstacle to reform is the Conservatives’ “growing power.”
Indeed, de Klerk’s 1989 mandate from white voters has appeared to slip. His party’s by-election defeat last week was its third in 10 months, and the vote was a personal rebuke to the president, who went to school in Potchefstroom and considers it his hometown. And unlike the smaller towns where the National Party lost earlier by-elections, it is an economically diverse community that offers a genuine cross section of Afrikanerdom. “There has been a swing [to the Conservatives],” de Klerk said after announcing the referendum. “To be effective in negotiations, we cannot be tainted even by an impression–however wrong it is-that we do not represent the power base which elected us.” In a NEWSWEEK interview, de Klerk said that his refusal to sugarcoat the implications of reform has cost him support, but that by being honest “I’ve gained new support.”
South Africans are indeed unhappy with the course de Klerk has set. Reform has brought them few tangible benefits. The end of the cultural and athletic boycotts has raised morale. But both blacks and whites are economically worse off than they were when whites elected de Klerk. In spite of the lifting of sanctions, foreign capital has not flooded back into the country. The price of gold, traditionally the engine of South Africa’s economic growth, has been flat. New technology abroad threatens the country’s dominance in the industry. Crime is rampant. And the nation is in the throes of its worst drought in recent memory; production of the national staple, corn, is expected to drop by 75 percent this year. “You don’t have the levels of government repression that you used to have, but that benefit is not on the bread-and-butter level,” says Dennis Davis, a law professor at the University of the Witwatersrand. “There has got to be a lot of concern among blacks and whites in the street about ‘What’s in it for me?”’
But dissatisfaction with de Klerk’s economic leadership may not translate into support for the Conservatives. In a November survey of 800 whites, only 20 percent named the Conservatives as their first choice. Nearly three times as many people picked the National Party, and the rest supported the liberal, antiapartheid Democratic Party, which can be expected to support de Klerk in the referendum. Had the Conservatives been confident that the tide was shifting in their favor, they could already have triggered a de facto referendum by resigning as a group from Parliament.
De Klerk also enjoys an important tactical advantage: he can virtually dictate the wording of the referendum question. “Winning a referendum is much easier than winning a general election,” says Welsh. And de Klerk’s promise to resign if he loses will force voters to confront the consequences of a “no” vote in a quite different way than they do when casting their ballots in by-elections that don’t affect the power balance in Parliament. They won’t simply be sending a protest message to de Klerk, they will be risking a return to international isolation and condemnation. The Afrikaner establishment-the Dutch Reform Church, the secret council of elders called the Afrikaner Broederbond and leading Afrikaner academics-has endorsed reform. De Klerk also has foreign allies. The Bush administration last week announced it will lift one of Washington’s last remaining sanctions against Pretoria, an eight-year-old congressional amendment blocking South Africa’s access to International Monetary Fund credits.
Treurnicht’s Conservatives can’t run on their economic program-they don’t have one-so he must rely on an appeal to whites’ fears. Not surprisingly, he wants some control over how the referendum question will be phrased. Late last week he proposed that whites choose between “self-determination” and a “one-person, one-vote” election system, the catch phrase for unalloyed black domination. But without the votes in Parliament, this demand will go nowhere. He also demanded equal access to the state-owned broadcast media. Meanwhile, Treurnicht’s threats that Afrikaners will rise up in protest should the reform drive continue have so far been empty. Although there have been scattered bombings, the radical right has proved largely toothless, and the Afrikaner-dominated security forces have stood fast.
De Klerk clearly provoked the fight on purpose. His decision to chop funding for white schools just before the by-election can hardly have been an accident. The country’s grossly inadequate spending on black education is one of the pressing problems a reformed South Africa must address. If he wins his bet, he will be able to move even faster toward a political settlement with blacks. His decision to conduct yet another whites-only vote grated on black leaders; the ANC called such elections “hallmarks of racism.” But if de Klerk wins, this will be the country’s last whites-only election. “I am absolutely confident that we will get a majority because we are doing the right thing for South Africa,” de Klerk said. “It is the only workable alternative.” That’s obvious to nearly everyone outside South Africa. They can only hope that de Klerk has gambled well.
title: “The Gambling Man” ShowToc: true date: “2023-01-25” author: “Helen French”
It’s not easy being the most famous athlete in the world. The drive to excel, to compete, to win, evidently is as hard to turn off as it is awesome to behold. Jordan’s father says that if anything, his son has “a competition problem,” an understandable flaw in a player who’s better than anyone who’s ever pulled on a pair of shorts. But Jordan’s search for challenges now threatens to cause him an image problem. He began the season with a reprimand from the National Basketball Association for gambling on golf games with a cast of unsavory characters, including a convicted felon. Now he’s ending the season with a remarkable series of playoff performances sullied by more off-the-court gambling disclosures. Two weeks ago, on the eve of a big playoff game against the New York Knicks, he limousined to Atlantic City, N.J., for a night of casino gambling that The New York Times reported lasted until 2:30 a.m. And then last week Richard Esquinas, a San Diego businessman, alleged that Jordan lost $1.2 million to him during a 10-day golf binge in 1991.
Jordan denies any wrongdoing. After playing in Atlantic City he was back in his hotel room by I a.m., he said. He admitted gambling with Esquinas, though he claimed to have no records or memory of the amounts. He deemed “preposterous” the million-plus figure, which, of course, is preposterous regardless of whether it is accurate. And, he said, the press had no business poking around in his private affairs, so he cut off all interviews.
Back on the court he was merely extraordinary. One night against the Knicks he scored 54 points; the next he stepped back and fed his teammates. When they tired, he scored 17 consecutive points.
As every fan knows, gambling and basketball can be a lethal combination. For 40 years the sport has periodically been disgraced by point-shaving scandals. But there is no suggestion that Jordan has ever wagered on basketball. “I am no Pete Rose,” he has said. The Bulls insist that the only thing on the team’s mind is its quest to become the first franchise to win three straight titles in almost three decades. “I have complete confidence in [Jordan] as a person,” said Bulls general manager Jerry Krause. So, apparently, do his corporate masters. “In his private life,” says Dusty Kidd, spokesman for Nike, which pays Jordan an estimated $20 million annually, “he should be able to do what every other person can do. He’s not the president or the pope.”
No, he’s far bigger than that, a flying international conglomerate who last year, according to Forbes magazine, earned $35.9 million. While his fans may not care that he gambles, Jordan is in danger of becoming the subject of talk-show monologues-the winner who off the court loses to every small-time hustler coast to coast. (What do they call it when Michael Jordan bets on a golf game? Err Jordan!) In the macho arenas where Jordan soars, it can hardly be image-enhancing to lose $1 million, or even $1, to a nonathlete who gives away eight years and several inches. Suddenly Jordan’s current McDonald’s ad, in which he and Larry Bird trade shots to see who will win the Big Mac, takes on a new spin. Now we know Bird will win, swishing the shot off the Hancock Building, and Jordan will plead to go double or nothing off the Sears Tower.
His longtime friends say his lust for competition and willingness to gamble on virtually any game-from tiddlywinks to Monopoly-is nothing new. “He’s always had this thing ever since he was a kid: ‘I’m not gonna let you beat me’,” says a friend from Jordan’s hometown of Wilmington, N.C. About five years ago Jordan bought a summer home in Hilton Head, S.C., where he hosts Mike’s Time, a pre-NBA-training-camp gathering of golf and high-stakes poker. On the golf course, says one regular, “any Joe Blow can get in if he throws down the challenge. Michael was shark meat.”
Payoff: According to Esquinas’s self-serving and self-published book, “Michael and Me: Our Gambling Addiction . . . My Cry for Help!”, the two men met in 1989. They discovered they were both avid golfers with handicaps “between 5 and 7” who liked to put money on their putts. By 1991, Esquinas says, they were playing for thousands and paying off on every hole. The trouble actually began when “E-man,” as he says the basketball star called him, lost $98,000 to Jordan playing golf in North Carolina.
According to the book, that debt was postponed until Jordan visited San Diego, and the two commenced a series of double-or-nothing matches. When Jordan was down $626,000, Esquinas says, he wanted to double again. Esquinas insists now that he kept trying to “pump it down.” He writes that he warned Jordan: “Michael, are you prepared to pay $1.2 million? I’m doing my best to get the f— out of this.” He says Jordan demanded the match and lost, escalating his debt to $1,252,000.
Not only did Jordan gamble, charges Esquinas, he also refused to pay up. Still, the two continued to play golf for money until last summer, with Jordan cutting his debt down to $900,000. Esquinas says Jordan asked to pay it off in smaller increments because his wife bar, access to their financial records. For nine months, Esquinas says, the two negotiated by phone. Finally, Esquinas says, he settled for a dollar on three-and claims Jordan still owes him $100,000, an amount he apparently intends to collect through book sales.
In a statement, Jordan admitted to wagering with Esquinas but said he had no records of the amount. He added that “it is extremely disappointing . . . that an individual whom I caused no harm . . . would shamelessly exploit my name for selfish gain.” He also apologized for “the distraction this story has caused.”
Jordan has been embarrassed by gambling before. Last fall he was subpoenaed to testify for the prosecution at the money-laundering trial of James (Slim) Bouler, a convicted drug dealer. Under oath, he admitted losing $57,000 to Bouler at golf. Previously he had insisted the money was just a “loan.” Also last year, $108,000 in checks linked to Jordan’s gambling-related debts was discovered in the estate of a Gastonia, N.C., businessman who was shot to death.
Apart from gambling, Jordan’s image is exemplary. Chicago Tribune columnist Bob Greene, who hung out with Jordan to write “Hang Time,” says he was amazed by how disciplined Jordan was in his public life. Though Jordan drinks moderately, he never takes a drink in public because someone might think he was drunk. And no matter how thirsty or hungry Jordan was, he refused-even in those rare moments out of the camera’s eye-to taste a product that competed with one he endorsed. While Greene doesn’t know if Jordan has a gambling problem, Jordan did tell him about repeated nightmares in which he is an alcoholic and loses everything he has. “And let me put it this way,” Greene says. “He’s not an alcoholic.”
The NBA would appear to have as much at stake in all this as Jordan. If ever a superstar transcended a league and overshadowed a commissioner-even one as shrewd as the NBA’s David Stern-Jordan is the one. Not wanting to step on the dramatic playoff games, or Jordan’s sensibilities, Stern has yet to comment publicly on Jordan’s latest travails. But if pressure builds, the commissioner may take steps to curb Jordan’s off-court activities.
Those close to Jordan say he really doesn’t have a gambling problem, just a problem in choosing friends. Maybe he should stick to Spike and Bugs. The issue now is not his privacy, not the press, nor even the amount he supposedly lost. He’s gambling with something far more precious than money-his good name. And that appears to be another wager he is beginning to lose.
