Plaut then goes on to explain the rise of the African National Congress (ANC) in 1912 as a unifying force for black South Africans against the increasingly oppressive white regime. Key figures like Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo emerged, advocating for more radical tactics and forming alliances with the . 

The 1960 Sharpeville massacre in which police fired at unarmed protestors after a stray shot from the crowd fired up resistance to the apartheid regime. Many ANC leaders opted for armed resistance, which was utterly ineffectual but led to a crackdown by the apartheid regime. It banned the ANC and jailed its leaders.

After a few quiet years, the 1970s saw a resurgence of resistance, with white students, including Plaut, supporting the formation of labor unions and the United Democratic Front. These organizations, along with international pressure and the ANC’s armed struggle, contributed to the eventual downfall of apartheid. However, the ANC’s tendency to consolidate power and control other organizations came to the fore, raising concerns about its commitment to truly democratic principles.

To its credit, the ANC represented all ethnicities and stood for equality for all. It opposed discrimination and championed democracy. The post-apartheid South Africa has had many challenges, but the values of democracy, rule of law and freedom of expression run strong. The history of a prolonged independence struggle against colonialism makes South Africa resilient and gives us reason for optimism regarding the future.

[Peter Choi edited this podcast and wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Making Sense of South Africa’s Rich History appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Most reporting is from the cities and urban areas, but a third of the electorate lives in rural areas. I went to Napier, some 170 kilometers southwest of Cape Townhome. This town is home to around 5,000 people.

“I grew up in the days of ‘two doors,’” John October tells me, recalling the days of apartheid. Back then, shops, train stations and official buildings had one door for whites and another door through which people of color would be allowed to enter. They were bitter times for people like October , who was classified as “colored,” of mixed racial ancestry. He stands in front of a wall of family photographs explaining what he had to deal with over the years. Some are of weddings and births, others sports, but many show him sitting on committees where he served after the end of official discrimination in 1994. October was a councilor for the ANC in Napier from 2006 to 2011.

John October revels in his councilor days. Author’s photo.

October was also a postman. “The ANC came to see me because they couldn’t win Napier,” he explains. “But I knew everyone.” He is immensely proud of his achievements in office. October drives me around, showing the health centre, library and school that he campaigned to get built. Housing was perhaps his proudest achievement. He shows me the 250 homes that he pushed for in what is called “Smartie-town” — after the multicolored sweets, because of the brash colors the houses were painted in.

Related Reading

Why South Africa’s Poor Vote for the Now Corrupt ANC

October has retired from politics and now looks somewhat wistfully back, but without regret. He worries about his people, who still have to cope with overcrowded houses, poor education and endemic drug use. “Times are hard, but what can you do?” he says, with a broad smile. October won’t say how he will vote, but he is clearly not impressed with the ANC government’s delivery.

Napier is not Cape Town

Napier, like all South African urban areas, still bears the scars of apartheid. People of color live in one part of the town and whites in another. There is no law for this, but prices of property and differentials of wealth and income take their toll, even though there are some signs of change. 

This is a small town that attracts people who want to leave the big cities to seek a quieter life and an alternative lifestyle. Nelis Singels is one of them. He moved with his wife and two children to Napier after giving up a profession in conservation to pursue his passion for art. A skilled ceramicist and sculptor, he has a gallery on the high street, which is where we meet.

Nelis Singels poses with his art. Author’s photo.

“The ANC are playing the race card to win votes,” he tells me. “They make promises just to get people to the polls. But after the election what will happen?” Key services such as electricity and have failed across the country, and there are fears that they will fail again as soon as the election is over. Singels loves Napier, where his family can thrive. He won’t be voting for the ANC or its main rival, the Democratic Alliance (DA), which runs this town and the Western Cape in which it is situated. He worries about budget cuts for the town, which relies on grants from the central government. “I want someone who will look after the interests of my people,” he explains. As a white Afrikaner, identity is still as critical as any other factor for him.  

I meet Karen Donald in a busy café that serves the passing trade as well as locals. She’s a warm, bubbly woman, and our conversation is repeatedly interrupted as she greets people coming and going. Donald is a DA councilor for Napier. Their authority has won plaudits for running a non-corrupt, efficient administration. That’s something of a rarity in South Africa, where local governments have either collapsed or are delivering few services to their people.

Councilor Karen Donald is a personable lady and approachable by all.

Donald is anything but complacent. “How do I get government ministers to take any notice of our bridge?” she asks. “It’s in a terrible condition and needs repairs.” The bridge was a victim of local floods, but getting the resources and expertise to get it mended is no easy task.

It is just one of the issues confronting the town. It may look inviting and charming to visitors passing through, but it has real problems. There is a large shanty town, which houses the growing African population which arrives from across the country and the continent, hopeful for jobs, which this province has managed to provide while others have failed.

Related Reading

South Africa Now Faces a Pivotal Election

The DA may get the credit for running efficient administrations, but it has many critics. Parties have mushroomed, and both the governing party and the opposition have seen their vote shares eroded. The DA may win in towns like Napier, but across the nation, it looks unlikely to increase its vote share much beyond 23%. 

A coalition government is likely to emerge after this election. Coalitions have been administering a rising number of local governments across the country for some years. Many have proved to be unstable and prone to collapse. The people of quiet towns like Napier enter this year’s election with more than a little apprehension about their political futures.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post A New Political Order Is Dawning in South Africa’s Towns appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Who can forget that Jacob Zuma, the former president, faces of corruption, fraud, money-laundering and racketeering charges but is yet to be tried in court? Instead, the ANC has finally this week that the party lied to parliament when it described a publicly-funded swimming pool at Zuma’s private villa as a “fire pool” installed as a safety feature!

This year’s election will be tougher for the ANC than the earlier ones. Most recent shows that the party will get fewer than 50% of the votes. In South Africa’s proportional representation system, this means that the ANC will have to look for allies to continue governing. One outlier poll suggests that the ANC’s vote share would fall to . 

Rural realities and why the ANC pitch resonates

The black African population, upon which the ANC relies, still turns out and votes for the party, particularly in the rural areas. Under apartheid, the countryside, termed “homelands” or “Bantustans” were dumping grounds for black Africans. They could only legally leave these arrears if they could get one of the rare tightly-controlled permits. Today no such restrictions apply and there has been a migration to the cities. Yet the rural areas are still home to a third of the . 

It is here that the people still vote for the ANC in huge numbers. They have not forgotten the party that led the fight to liberate them from apartheid. The ANC-led government also brought electricity to remote areas of the country, built homes across hillsides and, above all, provided them with social security benefits. Entire families, often unable to find work, came to rely on the small, but vital payments to family members who are disabled or retired. 

The maximum monthly stands at 2 090 rand per month. That is just $122, but it keeps whole families from destitution. Maintaining this pension is vital and the ANC understands this well.

When elections come around, the ANC plays to all its strengths. The party still derives legitimacy from its decades-long opposition to the apartheid government and its previous great leaders, especially Nelson Mandela. However, the ANC’s primary appeal is simple: it warns the poor that they will lose their social security if another party comes to power. This is untrue but truth no longer matters to the ANC in its pursuit of power.

The ANC has employed this cynical tactic over several elections. A by the University of Johannesburg’s Centre for Social Development in Africa (CSDA) carried out in the run-up to the 2014 election indicated that just under half of voters were not aware that the social grants that they received were theirs by right. 

The centre’s director, Leila Patel, said the finding was “worrying” as it meant that these voters — 49% of the respondents — were not aware of their rights. The potential for political abuse is large, given that just under 16-million grant beneficiaries are receiving social grants amounting to R121bn this year. Agriculture MEC [Member of the Executive Council – provincial Minister] in KwaZulu-Natal, Meshack Radebe, for example, said in April that “those who receive grants and are voting for the opposition are stealing from the government”. He said that those who voted for another party should “stay away from the grant”, as if social grants were gifts from the ruling party. In fact, these grants are funded by taxes in order for the government to meet its constitutional obligation to provide social protection.

Summarising , Professor Yoland Sadie described the role of social grants in deciding voter behaviour as important, possibly decisive.  

…social grants can provide an incentive for people to vote for the ANC, since a large proportion of grant-holders who support the party do not think that “they will continue receiving the grant when a new party comes to power.” A majority of respondents also agreed ‘that they would vote for a party that provides social grants’. Therefore, in a situation where one party has dominated the electoral scene for such a long time, and without having the experience of other parties being in power, it is difficult for voters to ‘know’ whether these benefits will continue under a different party in power – particularly if the official opposition has the legacy of being a “White” party.

Opposition tactics in 2024

The electorate has no shortage of parties to choose from in these elections. There will be more than 100 new political parties on the ballot, including ActionSA, the Patriotic Alliance, Rise Mzanzi. For the official opposition, the Democratic Alliance [DA], this will pose a challenge. The DA has its roots in the white, Progressive Party. For many years it fought apartheid with its sole Member of Parliament, putting up doughty resistance to racist legislation. Bitterly attacked by the government for her stand, she won widespread international appreciation for her performance from 1961-1974.

Since the end of apartheid, the DA has gone through several leaders, some of them black. Today is leader of the party and, officially, of the opposition. As a white politician he can (and is) dismissed as representing an ethnic minority. 

The DA has made no secret that it is organising a coalition of opposition parties to challenge the ANC. What Steenhuisen calls the “moonshot pact.”  The ANC has used this to suggest to the electorate that, if elected, the DA will return to the policies of apartheid. ANC national chairperson Gwede Mantashe hinted as much when he Steenhuisen of organising “apartheid parties” to remove the ANC from power. “Steenhuisen is trying the impossible. He’s trying to organise all apartheid parties and parties of Bantustans to form a group that will defeat the ANC,” Mantashe said.

To resist these allegations the DA has now hit back. It is targeting the issue of benefits and grants, using a Tweet.

Steenhuisen is making a well targeted pitch. All South Africans know that their electricity supply has collapsed, the police seldom answer calls for help and unemployment has hit families hard. Will this pitch erode the ANC vote among key constituencies, including the rural communities? It is too early to tell.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why South Africa’s Poor Vote for the Now Corrupt ANC appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The first is 1.2 trillion rand ($85 billion). It is the estimate of how much money has been lost to corruption. The government’s commission, chaired by Justice Ray Zondo, has been unearthing corruption on an industrial scale.

Who Can Resolve Ethiopia’s Catastrophic Conflict?

READ MORE

Nelson Mandela himself pointed to this scourge back in 2001, when he : “Little did we suspect that our own people, when they got a chance, would be as corrupt as the apartheid regime. That is one of the things that has really hurt us.”

Yet the graft revealed by Zondo has been eyewatering. This is how The Washington Post the key finding: “[G]raft and mismanagement reached new heights during the 2009-2018 presidency of Jacob Zuma. While details remain murky, observers estimate that some 1.2 trillion rand ($85 billion) was plundered from government coffers during Zuma’s tenure.”

This is a sum that no middle-income country can afford to squander. Many hoped that President Cyril Ramaphosa could rectify the situation, but the glacial pace of his reforms has disappointed many who believed in him.

The other figure is 75%. It is the percentage of youths who are . While the ANC, and the well-connected elite that run the government, help themselves to taxpayers’ cash at will, the young languish without jobs.

Little surprise that the ANC’s appeal is fading. The party fewer than half all votes for the first time when the municipal elections were held in November last year.

Racial Classification in South Africa

Bad as this tale is, at least one could assure friends that state-enforced racial classification is a thing of the past. Gone is the notorious apartheid system that divided every man, woman and child into four racial : “African,” “Indian,” “colored,” “white.” One might have assumed that this madness was scrapped when white rule was eliminated in 1994 — or so one might have thought. Yet every South African is still racially classified by law.

Take one case. Anyone wanting to lease a state farm in August 2021 would be that: “Applicants must be Africans, Indians or Coloureds who are South African citizens. ‘Africans’ in this context includes persons from the first nations of South Africa.” No “white” South African — no matter how impoverished — would have the right to apply. Poverty is not a criterion; only race is considered. Even young men and women born years after the end of apartheid are excluded.

A complex system known as “broad-based black economic empowerment” (BBBEE) was introduced. Every South African is racially categorized and a system of incentives is applied across government and the private sector. White men face the greatest discrimination, African women the least.

Here is an example of how it in one sector. The Amended Marketing, Advertising and Communications Sector Code of 1 April 2016 specifies a black ownership “target of 45% (30% is reserved for black women ownership) which should be achieved as of 31 March 2018. The 45% black ownership target is higher than the 25% target of the Generic Code.” To win tenders or contracts, all enterprises must comply with the regulations.

Race Hate

At the same time, South Africa’s ethnic minorities face racial abuse and racial threats unchecked by the state. The radical populist Julius Malema made singing “Kill the Boers” a trademark of his rallies. In this context, the term “Boer,” or farmer, is about as toxic as the n-word is in the American South.

Malema is now on trial. Yet far from the state prosecuting him for stirring up race hate (a crime in South Africa), it was to an Afrikaans trade union to take him to court. Asked whether he would call for whites to be killed, all Malema say was that, “we are not calling for the slaughtering of white people … at least for now.”

The trial has had to be postponed because the prosecutor was so fearful of being ladled a “racist” for bringing the case that she .

Nor are whites Malema’s only target. Malema has South African “Indians” as an ethnic group, accusing them of failing to treat their African employees fairly. “Indians are worse than Afrikaners,” he in 2017. In another context, he to Indians as “coolies” — possibly the most derogatory term he might have used.  Yet the state fails to prosecute him.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

One final example. When President Ramaphosa was asked to pick the country’s next chief justice, the public some 500 names. The final four were Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, President of the Supreme Court of Appeal Mandisa Maya, Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, and Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo. All are fine legal minds. Not one of them is from among the country’s ethnic minorities.

This, despite the fact that some of the most eminent lawyers South Africa ever produced, who fought racial discrimination for years were not African. Men like George Bizos, Joel Joffe, Sydney Kentridge, Ismail Ayob, Edwin Cameron and Bram Fischer would probably not be selected today. Even Arthur Chaskalson, who defended the ANC at the Rivonia trial of 1963 and was chief justice of South Africa from 2001 to 2005, would probably be excluded.

Fighting Back

Glen Snyman — himself a “colored” or a mixed-race South African — has founded People Against Racial Classification to campaign against discrimination. “The government and private sector should deliver to all South Africans equally and not discriminate on identity,” he .

But racial classification has its supporters. Kganki Matabane, who heads the Black Business Council, that even though “democratic rule is nearly 27 years old, it is still too soon to ditch the old categories,” the BBC reports. “We need to ask: Have we managed to correct those imbalances? If we have not, which is the case — if you look at the top 100 Johannesburg Stock Exchange-listed companies, 75% or more of the CEOs are white males — then we have to continue with them.”

The ANC’s most celebrated document was the Freedom Charter of 1955. It was the statement of core principles of the ANC and its allies and memorably promised that: “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white.” With South Africa’s ethnic minorities continuing to face racial discrimination and exclusion from top jobs in government and even in the private sector, it is a promise more honored in the breach than the observance.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post South Africa’s Enforced Race Classification Mirrors Apartheid appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In December 2007, delegates at the National Elective Conference of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) took an ill-fated gamble on the party’s future. So deep was the resentment of the technocratic impulses of its former president, Thabo Mbeki, that the world’s oldest liberation movement, once led by icons like Nelson Mandela and Joe Slovo, lost its senses and elected Jacob Zuma. A highly compromised character, Zuma stood trial on 783 corruption charges at that time and shortly before had been acquitted on rape charges, after admitting to having had sexual intercourse with the daughter of a close friend.

This decision, which the ANC leadership at the time hailed as a product of the organization’s “collective wisdom,” has become its collective nightmare. Once in office, Zuma proceeded to leverage the ANC’s cadre deployment policy and a powerful presidency, bequeathed by the Mbeki administration, to entrench an intricate patronage network throughout party and state, aimed at enriching his family and sustaining those dependent on his incumbency.��Zuma never managed — nor made any serious effort — to shake off the controversy that dogged him before his ascension to the country’s highest office. For most of his presidency, it was never necessary to do so. As power shifted within the party in the wake of the 2007 elective conference, so it did within the state, where Zuma allies took up key positions within the prosecuting authorities and intelligence agencies.

While several of his patronage deployments have been turned down by the courts for being either under-qualified or unsuitable for their respective positions, many other weak appointees made their way into the governance system, resulting in the erosion of good governance practices in key departments, law enforcement agencies and state-owned enterprises (SOE).

As a consequence, the pointed to growing public anger with “the proliferation of corruption and incompetence at various levels of government.” In the foundation’s most recent Transformation Index (BTI), the country’s overall score for democracy declined from 8.70 in 2006 to 7.60 in 2016. Not surprisingly, when S&P Global and Fitch, two of the three major global ratings agencies, downgraded the sovereign along with key SOEs to junk status earlier this year, both singled out policy uncertainty as the major contributing factor to their decision.

As the ANC prepares to elect Zuma’s successor in December this year — although not incorporated in the party’s constitution, the practice of a two term presidency is entrenched��— many within the party, including some of his most vocal erstwhile supporters, are counting the cost of a toxic, predatory presidency that was unleashed upon the state. Amid conditions of anemic growth and the highest unemployment levels in a decade, the consequences of his mismanagement are increasingly widening the gap between reality and the party’s slogan of a “better life for all.”

All-Time Low

Not only will the next ANC leader inherit a morally compromised and deeply-divided party — recently, up to 35 ANC members voted in favor of a parliamentary no-confidence vote against Zuma — but there is for the first time no certainty that the organization’s next chairman or chairwoman will return to the Union Buildings in Pretoria as the country’s head of the state after the 2019 general elections. In the 2016 local government elections, the party ceded control of the country’s economic hub, Johannesburg, the administrative capital, Pretoria, and Nelson Mandela Bay, the largest metropolitan area in the home province of former President Nelson Mandela. Overall, ANC support dropped to 54% from the 66% that it recorded two years earlier during the 2014 general elections.

The reasons for this decline all point in one direction. In the , only 34% of respondents indicated trust in the office of the president — the lowest ranking for any ANC leader since the country’s political transition almost a quarter of a century ago. In a more recent poll by the 24-hour news station, eNCA, in May this year, .

But also on other fronts the tide has started to turn against Zuma. In March 2016, the country’s Constitutional Court found him to be in violation of his constitutional obligations in a matter relating to the use of government funds for the upgrading of his private residence. In May the same year, the Pretoria High Court ordered the reinstatement of the 783 corruption charges that were controversially dropped by the National Prosecuting Authority shortly after he assumed office. Just a month later, a damning report by the country’s public protector ordered a judicial inquiry into alleged improper influence by the Gupta family — three politically-connected brothers, with close ties to the president — not only in the awarding of government contracts, but even the hiring and firing of government ministers.

Importantly, it also asked pertinent questions about the extent to which Zuma may have compromised the integrity of his office through his relationship with the Gupta family, which also happened to employ his son. In 2017, the cost of his incumbency continued to exert its toll on the ANC as the systematic release of leaked email correspondence between Gupta associates gave further credence to existing allegations about their involvement in the capture of key state institutions, and more court appearances are scheduled in relation to his reinstated corruption charges.

Potential Successors

None of this bodes well for ANC attempts to revive the party’s fortunes before 2019. To do so, it will have to distance itself from Zuma and his legacy. Yet, driven by a profound fear of being prosecuted by a hostile candidate, Zuma is now in survival mode and backed by a deeply entrenched and fiercely loyal patronage network that has much to lose from his departure. The president will be pushing hard for his chosen candidate, his ex-wife and former African Union Chairperson, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, to succeed him. For the same reason, his faction will also be pulling out all stops to put obstacles in the way of Dlamini-Zuma’s main contender, deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa.

For many disillusioned South Africans, who have witnessed economic decline and a drop in governance standards under the Zuma administration, the election of Dlamini-Zuma will mean only one thing — more of the same. And more of the same will mean that the party will ultimately be dragged down below the 50% threshold in two years’ time. Given Zuma’s own prediction several years ago that the ANC will rule until Jesus Christ returns, the second coming may indeed be upon us.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post Will Jacob Zuma Drag the ANC Down With Him? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

When Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela��was born in 1918, South Africa was a country entirely different from what it is today. Since colonial times, people of color in South Africa were seen as second-class citizens despite the clear non-white majority.

In 1948, when the National Party (NP) was elected, it institutionalized racial segregation with a policy of “apartheid.” Public services, resources and even living areas were allocated based upon race. Anyone not classified as white had to deal with being treated as inferior.

Like no other, Mandela’s life had always been closely connected to the history of South Africa and the struggle for racial equality.��Already before the NP came to power, Mandela had joined the African National Congress (ANC) which fought for the rights of South Africa’s non-white population. He quickly climbed the ladder of the party’s hierarchy and when apartheid was implemented, Mandela opposed it.

The more resistance against unequal treatment grew, the more the apartheid government tightened their grip. Mandela and some other leading ANC members were arrested multiple times. He was eventually sentenced to a lifetime in prison in the Rivonia Trial of 1964 and sent to the infamous Robben Island, where he would spend the next 20 years.

However, Mandela continued his struggle to end apartheid from within his cell and became a symbol of the fight for racial equality. He was seen as one of the world’s most famous prisoners, with people worldwide supporting his release.

The impression Mandela made on the world was not only due to the cause he was fighting for, but also because of the way he handled the consequences that came with the struggle. Even during his overall 27 years in prison, he maintained his poise and did not turn bitter. He was offered conditional release multiple times, but stayed true to his beliefs.

When he was finally released under internal and international pressure in 1990, the end of apartheid subsequently followed. And even after Mandela was elected as president of South Africa in 1994, he maintained a course that fostered reconciliation between different ethnic groups in the country rather than promoting revenge for all the years of oppression. He retired after one term in office, but remained politically active and engaged in the fight against HIV and Aids.

At the age of 95, Mandela passed away at his house in Johannesburg, South Africa on December 5, 2013.

Why is Nelson Mandela Relevant?

Over the years, the ANC may have lost some support amongst South Africans but “the father of the nation” never did. In all the years since he left office, Mandela remained one of the most well-known and beloved public figures in South Africa and beyond.

When news of his death reached the public, it spread like wildfire. The world collectively mourned and heads of states across the globe condoled. Meanwhile, South Africans gathered in front of Mandela’s house to express their grief over the loss of the country’s “greatest son,” as incumbent President Jacob Zuma had called him.

It now becomes clear that Mandela was more to South Africa and the world than just a former president. He has become a symbol of what one can achieve with true dedication to a cause, and a moral authority whose name inevitably stands tall alongside other freedom fighters, including Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Without Mandela, South Africa will surely be a different country. However, his role in shaping the nation and the impression he made on the world will never be forgotten.

*[Note: This article was updated on December 9, 2013.]

The post The Legacy of Nelson Mandela appeared first on 51�Թ�.

By Paul J. H. Schoemaker

The life story of Nelson Mandela is well known, and has elevated him to the level of such widely recognized heroes as Mahatma Gandhi and Mother Teresa. There is indeed much courage, sacrifice, wisdom and nobility in his life — attributes that demand our deep respect and have much to teach us.

What is less well-known is how Mandela evolved into the kind of strategic leader who, from prisons on Robben Island and elsewhere, helped to bring genuine democracy to South Africa. For example, while isolated from his fellow prisoners by force, he steered secret government meetings toward the abolishment of apartheid and free elections. Subsequent to that, he became the country's first democratically elected black president.

Mandela's remarkable story holds valuable lessons for other leaders involved in deep struggles, foremost among which are the importance of holding firm to a morally just vision and the ability to influence a sequence of key strategic decisions over time (decades, in his case) in order to bring about truly remarkable results.

Three decisions especially stand out in Mandela's evolution as a strategic leader. To appreciate these fully, however, we need to understand some of the social and political contexts that shaped his career and values.

A Life Sentence

Mandela was born in 1918. His father was a top adviser to a tribal royal family (the ) and helped elect the tribe's new chief who later — after Mandela's father died — took the young boy into his own family. This path led Mandela from an isolated small village upbringing to the center of tribal power in his teens, which in turn awakened his interest in education and politics. He studied law at the and early on became involved in anti-colonial politics. Mandela was a founding member of the inside the African National Congress (ANC), the main black political party of South Africa, which was later outlawed and banned by the government. The country's ruling party, the National Party (NP), started to implement a strategy of strict racial segregation, later known as apartheid, after coming to power in 1948.

Mandela obtained prominence in the ANC through his liberal political views and opposition activities, especially the Defiance Campaign of 1952. He was at first committed to non-violence, inspired by Gandhi's successful opposition to British colonial rule in India. But eventually, due to the government's harsh measures against non-violent opposition, he became increasingly drawn to various forms of targeted sabotage — actions that resulted in numerous arrests. In 1961, he co-founded a militant wing in partnership with the South African Communist Party and was eventually convicted of treason. Mandela was spared the death sentence, but was condemned to life in prison. He served a total of 27 years. In 1994, he became the country's president.

While in prison, Mandela stood out — among both prisoners and guards — as highly principled, respectful, dignified and willing to sacrifice his life for his beliefs. Many of his fellow political prisoners were heroic as well. Most were well trained, and they taught each other about their respective fields of expertise while working in the limestone quarry. Prison life was harsh, with bad food, cold sleeping conditions in the winter and long periods of loneliness. Mandela fell ill intermittently and contracted nasty lung infections, including tuberculosis, due to his years in damp prison cells.

Despite these conditions, he was able to write an influential autobiography in secret titled, Long Walk to Freedom, which chronicles his life in detail against the backdrop of deep social injustice and harsh state oppression. This clandestine book was smuggled out in pieces and printed overseas when finished. It became a global best-seller. An international freedom campaign by the ANC, led by the exiled leader Oliver Tambo, had managed to make Mandela the poster child of opposition to apartheid as well as an eloquent spokesman for a new democratic South Africa.

The world took notice: International businesses as well as governments increasingly boycotted South Africa during the 1980s. The NP's unyielding stance, especially President P. W. Botha's dogmatic hardline approach and focus on law and order, made the NP a pariah on the global stage. Business leaders from Anglo America and other local companies were increasingly putting pressure on Botha and later on his successor, F. W. de Klerk, to change course. Also, young whites voiced their opposition to apartheid and racism in churches, schools, social clubs, work settings and at home with their parents. Eventually even the Dutch Reformed church, which had given apartheid proponents dubious biblical justification for the segregation of races, changed its views. Very slowly, the Afrikaner leadership started negotiations with Mandela in prison. It was a form of intermittent shuttle diplomacy, with government leaders visiting him in person, sympathetic white guards passing messages to and from the ANC, and Mandela being flown from his new prison house near Cape Town to meet in secret with Botha and later de Klerk in the capital of Pretoria.

President de Klerk's back was very much against the wall in 1990. The economy was suffering from the boycotts; business leaders wanted change; the containment strategy of carving out Home Lands for blacks was failing, and the country was on the brink of civil war in black townships. Something had to give, and it happened in de Klerk's seminal opening speech to parliament in February 1990. He called for free democratic elections (one man, one vote), as well as the unconditional release of all non-violent political prisoners. In addition, he lifted the ban on the ANC and many other outlawed parties.

This was a watershed event since whites were a minority in the country and would surely lose political power through these declarations. De Klerk kept his promises and released political prisoners, although not Mandela at first, given his violent past. De Klerk was hoping for a power sharing arrangement with the ANC, but this eventually proved to be naive on the part of this otherwise very pragmatic NP leader. De Klerk and Mandela were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 for achieving a largely non-violent, voluntary transfer of power by a strong minority group to a hostile majority, a rare event in human history.

The Face of the Opposition

Against this complex backdrop, three strategic decisions by Mandela — among many others — stand out from a leadership perspective. The first occurred when Mandela was offered a conditional release from prison by the government. In a 1985 speech to the nation, President Botha offered Mandela freedom if he renounced violence and other illegal activity. The president tried to shift the blame for imprisonment to Mandela himself; after all, he was free to go now, provided he would be law abiding. Mandela did not fall for this transparent ploy. Yes, he very much desired freedom after decades of hard labor and confinement in a small cell. But he also felt it would betray his principles, his leadership and the ANC's long struggle. Here is how Mandela replied, in part, to President Botha's disingenuous offer:

"What freedom am I being offered while the organization of the people remains banned?… What freedom am I being offered if I must ask permission to live in an urban area?… Only free men can negotiate. Prisoners cannot enter into contracts."

Mandela turned down the president and opted to stay in his cold, dark prison cell — about eight feet by eight feet in size — and was prepared to serve out the remainder of his life sentence. This key decision was strategic since it greatly elevated his position as the face of the ANC, while also drawing attention to his enormous personal sacrifice. In addition, it revealed Mandela's keen situational awareness that political change would come soon, even though he was isolated from the news media and poorly informed about developments in the country. Mandela's intuition proved right: Half a decade later, this man of deep principle was released unconditionally and rose to become the president of the ANC and then the country.

The second strategic decision occurred shortly after Mandela became a free man, but before being elected president in 1994. The trigger was the 1993 assassination of Chris Hani, a well-known and popular black leader fighting for equal rights. Hani was shot in cold blood by a far right white immigrant when stepping out of his car in the street. The killer was identified by a white woman who turned him in. This targeted killing was the flame that ignited a tinder box, resulting in widespread demonstrations against the white racist government. Many blacks wanted revenge, and the atmosphere was ripe for looting, violence and mayhem. Recently out of prison, Mandela rose to the occasion and appealed for calm. Here is part of what he said:

"Tonight, I am reaching out to every single South African, black and white, from the very depths of my being. A white man, full of prejudice and hate, came to our country and committed a deed so foul that our whole nation now teeters on the brink of disaster. A white woman, of Afrikaner origin, risked her life so that we may know, and bring to justice, this assassin. The cold-blooded murder of Chris Hani has sent shock waves throughout the country and the world… Now is the time for all South Africans to stand together against those who, from any quarter, wish to destroy what Chris Hani gave his life for — the freedom of all of us."

His third strategic decision occurred in his 1994 speech after his election as president of South Africa, which he served for only one term although two were possible under the constitution. His early decision not to stand for a second term was a remarkable gesture in a country and continent where leaders seek maximum power (such as Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe). Mandela knew that his speech would be watched by about a billion people on television around the world, and he wanted to signal clearly that he represented all the people of his country, regardless of color. Some of his lines are famous now and are inscribed in stone on Robben Island. Here is part of what he said:

"We have, at last, achieved our political emancipation. We pledge ourselves to liberate all our people from the continuing bondage of poverty, deprivation, suffering, gender and other discriminations. Never, never and never again shall this beautiful land experience the oppression of one by another… The sun shall never set on so glorious a human achievement. Let freedom reign. God bless Africa."

Mandela recognized full well that South Africa could easily fall back into civil war due to the many crimes, injustices and deep wounds inflicted by the apartheid regime. He also knew an all-out war would at best yield a Pyrrhic victory. Furthermore, much of the expertise needed to run the country's business, legal, social and educational institutions resided within the white minority population. Having seen what happened in nearby Zimbabwe under Mugabe's corrupt leadership, whites feared for their future, and many left the country (a brain drain known as white flight). Mandela's aim was to rise above past injustices, embrace Archbishop Tutu's call for truth and reconciliation, and unify the country by focusing on a shared, democratic future.

The key to Mandela's leadership was to encourage racial harmony, forgiveness without forgetting, power sharing and a strong focus on the future, not the past. As a master of symbolism, Mandela supported this strategy by being magnanimous toward his former enemies. For example, in 1995, he visited the widow of the very man who was the main architect of the apartheid regime and in effect put him in prison (Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd). He rejoiced when the national rugby team Springboks won the world championship, even though this team had been a symbol of racism and Afrikaner power for decades. He proudly wore the team's shirt during the championship match, waved his hands in support and signaled to the world at large that he truly supported a rainbow nation. Such leadership is precious and rare.

What Mandela offers aspiring strategic leaders is a living example of how complex societal forces, uncompromising values and key moments of decision can be woven together over time, and across political, legal and economic domains, into a compelling vision that can transform a political party, a nation and even the world. Strategic leadership is not just about executing an initial strategy by engendering followership, but above all about adjusting that strategy when necessary to maintain broad support. Few political leaders today master this as well as Nelson Mandela, who is also affectionately known by his tribal name, Madiba.

It seems fitting that a black teenage boy who was enthralled with the machinations around the throne of his tribe's chief, eventually occupied an even larger throne, one visible to the entire world. Mandela is a man who spanned many decades, cultures and realities in his search for freedom and justice. He sacrificed deeply and nobly, and in the process became a world icon for human rights. In political terms, he was truly a transformational leader. In the end, even his foes admire as well as respect him — and justly so. He is one of the most remarkable men of the last 100 years. 

*[Note: Paul J. H. Schoemaker is research director of Wharton's , executive chairman of Decision Strategies International and the author of numerous books and articles. He recently visited South Africa, where he met with government and business leaders to discuss Nelson Mandela's legacy. This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post Lasting Legacy: Nelson Mandela’s Evolution as a Strategic Leader appeared first on 51�Թ�.

By Jeffrey Herbst and Greg Mills

Nelson Mandela’s leadership has been justly celebrated. He is rightly recognised as one of the great figures of our time. Many will also ask how South Africa will fare without Mandela and if his passing might mark a new stage for the country. That answer is already largely in and it is not particularly attractive.

Mandela left power in 1999, graciously serving only one term and thereby consolidating South Africa’s democracy. Since then, he has largely been out of the spotlight and even before his debilitating illnesses, has not played much of a public role. His chosen successor, Thabo Mbeki, served as president until 2008 when the ruling African National Congress (ANC) decided to recall him and was succeeded by now President Jacob Zuma. Since apartheid formally ended in 1994, about 40% of the population has been born. The post-Mandela era has been upon South Africa for some time.

High Points of Post-Apartheid South Africa

The accomplishments of post-apartheid South Africa should not be understated. The country has managed to maintain political stability and retain the institutions of democracy that were established nearly 20 years ago. Most other African countries had already succumbed to a round of one party or military rule at a similar point in their post-independence history. South Africa has managed to deliver health, electricity, water and education to millions who were previously systematically denied. A burgeoning black African middle class has emerged. Economic growth has been positive and steady (although not spectacular).

South Africa has played an important role in African affairs, including peacekeeping in some difficult spots that the rest of the world has preferred to avoid. But recent years have been less impressive than when Mandela was president, and there are real concerns about the road ahead. Mbeki was a colossal failure in some regards, most notably in refusing to address the Aids pandemic that affects South Africa. His policy failures, despite that South Africa’s medical establishment was probably better equipped to address Aids than almost any on the African continent, led to perhaps 300,000 preventable deaths.

President Zuma seems mainly interested in his own self-aggrandisement. Certainly, the rise in corruption has been palpable. There was considerable corruption during the white regime (especially when sanctions-busting encouraged a climate of breaking the rules generally) but things have got worse. For instance, South Africa was ranked 34th in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index in 1999, the year Mandela left office. In 2012, the same survey ranked it 69th.

From High Ideals to High Living

The high ideals of the ANC have, it seems, been replaced by high living. It looks increasingly like a legacy party, trading much more on its past accomplishments than its future promise. To date, it has not been challenged decisively both because it has extremely broad support (more a church than a party) and because it did deliver political freedom without paying the cost of a bloody rebellion. That should change.

The Democratic Alliance (DA), the official opposition, has been a voice in the wilderness for years but has come to control the Western Cape Province, in good part because of a good record of service delivery when its leader, Helen Zille, was mayor of Cape Town. Its trajectory from under two percent of the vote in 1994 suggests that its aim to increase this from 17% now to over 30% in the forthcoming 2014 election is not far-fetched. More recently, Mamphela Ramphele, a significant figure in the struggle against apartheid, founded Agang, another political party that has been a scathing critic of Zuma.

Both of those parties have their problems — the DA still has the reputation as a white party while Ramphele is seen as trying to settle old liberation politics scores (she was the mother of Steve Biko’s children, when Biko was seen as a competitor to the ANC). But the day when the ANC will face a real opposition capable of defeating it in a free and fair election is coming. No doubt, the prospect of such a loss will increase corruption within the ANC as it uses all available patronage levers to stay in power.

At the same time, the Zuma government has not been able to adopt reforms that would put a dent in South Africa’s extraordinary unemployment. Nearly 37% of the country’s 50 million people are unemployed, and this figure is twice as high among youths. Until now, the government has reduced poverty and shored up political support through extending welfare. Social grant beneficiaries increased five-fold between 1997 and 2011 to number 16 million, more than twice those paying personal income tax. But while poverty fell dramatically, unemployment doubled and the burden on the taxpaying population increased to unsustainable levels.

Tipping Point?

Not only are there more people on welfare than employed, but in 2013 the government overtook the private sector as the single largest employer — a tipping point if ever there is one. There are real limits to the government’s ability to further redistribute from rich whites to poor, not least since this wage bill is paid for by private sector taxes. And the economy has been burdened by related challenges of low growth, direct investment, and productivity.

On the eve of the transition, it was widely noted that the ANC would have to rework its relationship with the unions because the relatively high wages that the employed in South Africa received would serve as a deterrent to potential investors. That advice was not heeded. South Africa has a wage scale that makes it uncompetitive globally, while keeping many impoverished because no one can afford to hire them.

It would have taken near perfect leadership by Mandela’s successors to solve even some of the extraordinary problems inherited from apartheid. In fact, South Africa’s leaders since 1999 have been poor and represent a sharp decline from the example Mandela set. The issue facing South Africa is no longer racial reconciliation: the white population has either left, made their peace with the new order, or have nowhere to go.

Might fundamentally South Africa create an economy and political system that allows the hopes of the peaceful transition from apartheid to be realised? The answer to date is no. South Africa will need to find a leader not in the heroic mould of Mandela, but someone who is capable of creating a political constituency to overcome the corruption and old politics that is holding the country back from realising the great man’s vision.

*[Note: Jeffrey Herbst is the president of Colgate University and Greg Mills heads the Johannesburg-based Brenthurst Foundation. This article was originally published by the .]

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post South Africa Beyond Mandela appeared first on 51�Թ�.