Best Prime Minister of South Africa

Which Prime Minister of South Africa was the best, if you must choose?

  • Louis Botha (1910-1919)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jan Smuts (1919-1924, 1939-1948)

    Votes: 3 75.0%
  • James Hertzog (1924-1939)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Daniel Malan (1948-1954)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Johannes Strijdom (1954-1958)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hendrik Verwoerd (1958-1966)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Balthazar "John" Vorster (1966-1978)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pieter Willem Botha (1978-1984)

    Votes: 1 25.0%

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .
Feb 2011
882
The far North
Who do you think? If you can't put it like that, then rephrase it; who would you rather have known, been subjected to (as the lowest of citizens), or worked under? Which period was best/"least worst", for the country as a whole?

Yes, I added the post-1948 goons just to see if there would be any votes for them, but no ironies please. :suspicious:

I'm guessing Smuts or Botha (the first) will take this, no voter intimidation intended.
 
Last edited:

Lawnmowerman

Ad Honorem
Mar 2010
9,842
No de Klerk??? or Mandela???

de Klerk was certainly the most important, and probably the best as well, he was a man willing to change, he knew which way the wind was blowing and bent with the breeze rather than fighting it. Without him South Africa could've very easily plunged into civil war.

Interesting question though who was more essential to the transition process De Klerk or Mandela???

I'd say de Klerk, with out a prime minister willing to change then Mandela could still easily be sitting in his prison cell on Robin Island.
 
Mar 2012
1,579
Following the breeze
No de Klerk??? or Mandela???

de Klerk was certainly the most important, and probably the best as well, he was a man willing to change, he knew which way the wind was blowing and bent with the breeze rather than fighting it. Without him South Africa could've very easily plunged into civil war.

Interesting question though who was more essential to the transition process De Klerk or Mandela???

I'd say de Klerk, with out a prime minister willing to change then Mandela could still easily be sitting in his prison cell on Robin Island.
Good point here. But I think both. The thing is, while de Klerk was willing to bend, Mandela was willing to negotiate. In my eyes, de Klerk is probably one of the most iconic figureheads South Africa has ever had, he was will to be the "bad guy" in his own peoples eyes. He was willing to be the man that gets blamed for everything that goes wrong after he had made the decision to release Mandela.

Mandela, I consider as close to being a genius. He was extremely progressive and realistic about the future of the country. These two men were willing to put the countries needs well above their own!
 
Mar 2012
1,579
Following the breeze
Who do you think? If you can't put it like that, then rephrase it; who would you rather have known, been subjected to (as the lowest of citizens), or worked under? Which period was best/"least worst", for the country as a whole?

Yes, I added the post-1948 goons just to see if there would be any votes for them, but no ironies please. :suspicious:

I'm guessing Smuts or Botha (the first) will take this, no voter intimidation intended.
I chose Smuts :)! What a man! Not only did he actually fight in the Boer War, he went on to also lead the country through the First and Second World Wars in glorious fashion!
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,382
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Smuts - not because I know much about what he did as Prime Minister of South Africa, but because I know about his reputation during the Boer War and two world wars. Plus, he might have even become PM of the UK if anything had happened to Churchill during the war.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,382
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Good point here. But I think both. The thing is, while de Klerk was willing to bend, Mandela was willing to negotiate. In my eyes, de Klerk is probably one of the most iconic figureheads South Africa has ever had, he was will to be the "bad guy" in his own peoples eyes. He was willing to be the man that gets blamed for everything that goes wrong after he had made the decision to release Mandela.
There are more than a few similarities between de Klerk and Gorbachev, methinks, and not just in their hairline.
 
Feb 2011
882
The far North
No de Klerk??? or Mandela???

I'd say de Klerk, with out a prime minister willing to change then Mandela could still easily be sitting in his prison cell on Robin Island.
Neither De Klerk or Mandela served as Prime Minister. And, I'm sure you know it, sorry, it's Robben Island (derived from the Dutch word for "seals").

And, actually, when De Klerk became President, Mandela had not been on Robben Island for several years.

I chose Smuts :)! What a man! Not only did he actually fight in the Boer War, he went on to also lead the country through the First and Second World Wars in glorious fashion!
The poll is open. :)

Smuts - not because I know much about what he did as Prime Minister of South Africa, but because I know about his reputation during the Boer War and two world wars. Plus, he might have even become PM of the UK if anything had happened to Churchill during the war.
I've heard that story several times. Any credible evidence it would actually have come to pass?
 
Last edited: