But what happens when we ask this variation on the question: Can a politician become a saint? Mandela’s aura of sanctity preceded his exercise of politics. In our modern democracies the very idea that a politician can become a saint seems unthinkable, if not outright fantastical. If only because all politicians spend at least half their time begging for money and the other half implementing laws favorable to those who funded them, sainthood seems reserved for other classes of people. And yet, in the case of American right-wing activist Charlie Kirk’s “martyrdom” we see that a broad swath of the population is hankering to see a figure identified with politics elected to sainthood.

US President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair undoubtedly convinced themselves that, like Mandela, they had a noble mission to accomplish. They saw themselves, perhaps in the tradition of St. Louis, as crusaders defending the good vs. the evil infidel, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Their mission turned out to be mistaken when the evil they claimed to have identified for certain — weapons of mass destruction — turned out at best to be a figment of their shared imagination. And we now know that the good they believed they were executing produced manifestly evil effects.

Imagine, however, that after invading Iraq, inspectors discovered that there actually were weapons of mass destruction. Imagine equally that the regime change war executed by their “coalition of the willing” had produced the ideal fairy tale ending, an era of political bliss in the Middle East. From the Devil’s Advocate’s point of view, even if that turned out to be the case, they would still be denied sainthood. Why? Because we know they didn’t know but claimed they did. Anyone can be lucky, even a shameless liar.

British PMs and the root of all evil

Speaking of which, Blair’s successor two decades later, Boris Johnson, demonstrated his disqualification for sainthood most spectacularly in April 2022. He persuaded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy not to sign a negotiated peace deal with Russia on the pretext that thanks to the backing of the NATO alliance, Russia would be handily defeated. It’s the old story of “a friend in need.” In case there was any doubt about the ambiguity of Bojo’s motives, The Guardian has recently that Johnson’s advice to Ukraine’s president was a convenient way to secure a gift of a cool £1 million a year later thanks to the generosity of Christopher Harborne, a dear friend of Boris who happened to be in the business of selling weapons to Ukraine.

Blair has, of course, been in the news recently to demonstrate the long-term benefits of geopolitical initiatives capable of spreading havoc across an entire region, sacrificing more than a million lives in an endless war and provoking waves of desperate migrants seeking shelter in Europe. The resulting influx ensured the rise of populist xenophobic right-wing parties in multiple European democracies, whose influences have weakened their governments and economies. Blair later that he had “underestimated Iraq’s destabilising forces,” much as Johnson would later underestimate the instability of Zelenskyy’s regime or the incoherence of NATO. Simple mistakes to make from the vantage point of 10 Downing Street. But all is for the good since his net worth is now estimated at $60 million and he’s likely to receive a major payout for his constructive work rebuilding Gaza.

This Devil’s Advocate believes that Blair was still lying when he made the following statement back in 2016: “We learned that once you get rid of the dictatorship, that is the beginning of a new chapter where all these poisonous forces and influences come out and start to disrupt the situation.” Not that his description of the consequences is false. What appears false is that he “learned” anything or that he is even capable of doing so. Yes, today, so The Guardian us, Blair ”appears to have won the endorsement of the Palestinian Authority to be involved in the reconstruction of Gaza.” But does that establish his credentials as an impartial builder? Al Jazeera the subservience of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in these terms: “The PA has actively helped Israel to keep tight control over the Palestinian population. Many perceive the body as a tool of the Israeli security apparatus.”

Is Angela Merkel a European outlier?

Most people with any insider experience of politics will admit that lying is part of the job. But there is good and bad lying. There is even another category: evil, diabolical lying. Most people would describe this as lies whose visible consequences are destructive war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands or millions of people. There may be some ambiguity about whether the awareness of the ensuing consequences was real at the time of the lie. It is thanks to that generous instinct that many Democrats in the United States who opposed Bush and his pursuit of the “global war on terror” consider him today a well-intentioned purveyor of regrettably mistaken policies. Even after understanding, based on well documented historical evidence, that there was massive prevarication.

American radio host Scott Horton has written anentire about the history of lies that have contributed to fashioning the discourse of an entire generation of politicians and media commentators who have stated and continue to maintain, as if it was a verifiable truth, that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was “unprovoked.” Horton provocatively titled his book, Provoked. The consensus around the idea that there was no rational explanation built around Russia’s fear of NATO expansion has been impressive, but flies in the face of historical reality. “Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel,” Horton writes, “later told Der Spiegel that she also considered Minsk to have been a ruse all along to buy time and prevent Ukraine from being overrun.” French President François Hollande, a signatory to the agreements, was pranked into admitting that “we were playing for time to strengthen Ukraine, to improve its military capabilities.” In June 2022, former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, the principal signatory, that the Minsk accords “gave Ukraine eight years for building up [the] army, for building up [the] economy, and for building up [a] global pro-Ukrainian, anti-Putin coalition.”

More recently, Merkel demonstrated her peculiar taste for honesty, even at the risk of upsetting the quasi-unanimous consensus in Europe, when she for Deutsche Welle “the events leading up to Russia’s attack on Ukraine in February 2022.” We notably learn that “she had initiated talks between the EU and Russia in June 2021, with the intention of stabilizing the fragile ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia.” Had she been allowed to do this, a nearly four-year-old war with potentially nuclear consequences that shows no sign of ending might have been avoided.

Keeping truth at bay: sticking to the battle lines

What could have possessed Frau Merkel to promote the outdated concept of diplomacy at what the recently elected US President Joe Biden insisted on a historical “inflection point?” Historians may end up seeing that moment in history more as an “infection point” coming as it did in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic. 

What did Biden think was being “inflected?” History itself? Or maybe the geopolitical rulebook? Or perhaps Biden was just catching up with the fact that the new century was already two decades old. In any case, the veteran 20^th century politician solemnly stated a philosophical and moral position that consisted of affirming his steadfast opposition to the world’s “authoritarian” regimes. He considered them singularly unworthy of engaging in dialogue with the ever virtuous, deeply democratic members of NATO.

The US commander-in-chief was in effect ordering the world’s citizens to recognize a fundamental truth: that because the great, brave and always virtuous democracies were called upon to face off against cowardly autocracies, the time had come to eschew outdated inherited from the Cold War such as “indivisible security.” Russian President Vladimir Putin may continue to this day to insist on it as a convenient way of avoiding conflict, but that, for a leader as perspicacious as Biden, is only rhetoric. Putin’s unquestionably and officially designated “unprovoked invasion” of Ukraine proved that, at bottom, even Putin agreed with Biden that indivisible security made no sense. By lopping off four oblasts from the Ukrainian nation, Putin was practicing his brand of “divide and conquer.”

As for Merkel’s proposal in 2021 that the European Union negotiate with Russia, the media at the time apparently failed to even notice it. Since then, all commentators have erased it from their collective memory, which helps to explain their surprise when so brutally reminded of it. Worse than Merkel’s proposal, which had it been adopted would have literally saved millions of Ukrainian and Russian lives, was her citing the names of the nations that weighed in to prevent the EU from implementing it: the Baltic states and Poland. Biden wasn’t the only leader who opposed her heretical gambit.

“According to Merkel, she wanted ‘us as the European Union to talk directly to Putin.’ This was not supported by some countries, primarily the Baltic states. Poland was also against it as they were afraid that we did not have a common policy towards Russia.”

How impertinent of Merkel to remind them of that today, at a time when European leaders are united in preparing to wage a war their governments clearly cannot afford. But backing down today or acknowledging their failure to avoid a history-changing catastrophe is out of the question. It’s as if Merkel, the plain speaker, is trying to make Europe’s current breed of va-t-en-guerre leaders feel guilty. This cohort includes coalition-of-the-willing leaders French President Emmanuel Macron, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

The reaction from those nominally accused was immediate:

“‘It’s outrageous,’ Andris Pabriks, Latvia’s defense minister between 2019 and 2022, told DW. ‘Because basically, she’s accusing us of enabling the invasion. […] She’s turning things upside down and is unable to admit her own mistakes, which have actually cost a lot,’ he said.”

Note that Pabriks believes it is Merkel who is “unable to admit her mistakes.” She seems to be implying that pushing for diplomatic negotiations is a mistake. And she may be right. According to the current set of values that has possessed Europe, diplomacy is a sin.

Every devil in the lowest circles of Hell is celebrating this inversion in Europe’s scale of values.

*[The Devil’s Advocate pursues the tradition 51�Թ� began in 2017 with the launch of our “Devil’s Dictionary.” It does so with a slight change of focus, moving from language itself — political and journalistic rhetoric — to the substantial issues in the news. Read more of The 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary. The news we consume deserves to be seen from an outsider’s point of view. And who could be more outside official discourse than Old Nick himself?]

[ edited this piece.]

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

The post Martyrs, Money and the Manufacture of Political Holiness appeared first on 51�Թ�.

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�.

Universities can play an important part in fulfilling��’s much-quoted belief that: “ is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”

Mandela Day, the late South African president’s birthday, is an opportunity to reflect on how his statement of intent actually works in practice. How does education enable us to change the world?

Universities can make a contribution in two ways: through the empowerment of individuals, and through the generation of knowledge.

What universities can do for students

Universities train people to be professionals who will be able to make a positive contribution to society in various fields. They produce medical doctors, teachers, and engineers; entrepreneurs, artists and scientists. In this way, higher education is both a private good and a public good.

Individuals—especially in poorer countries—stand a better chance of getting a good job with a university degree. According to the��World Bank, the average increase in for every additional year of tertiary education is 21% in , measured over the period 1970 to 2013. South Africa’s department of higher education has picked up on��, noting: “Education has long been recognised as a route out of poverty for individuals, and as a way of promoting equality of opportunity.”

In South Africa, enrolment in higher education institutions����from 490,494 students in 1994 to 837,644 in 2009—a 71% increase. In this post-apartheid era, improvements in the university participation rate coincided with significant demographic changes in the student population. Two-thirds of university students were black in 2009, compared with just 32% in 1990.

The goal is to maintain this momentum. The government����an increase in participation rates from the 2011 figure of 17.3% to 25% by 2030—from 937,000 students to 1.6 million enrolments. And at the same time, it plans to broaden access for individuals from previously excluded and disadvantaged groups even more because the “achievement of greater social justice is closely dependent on equitable access by all sections of the population to quality education.”

What research can do for society

The second way in which ’s statement about education works in practice is through research that generates reliable and relevant knowledge. The world is faced with what are called “wicked problems”—highly complex challenges whose potential solutions require creative, interdisciplinary thinking.

Universities are well-placed to contribute to the search for solutions to these complex problems by drawing from a range of disciplines: the environment, conflict management, health, water, food security and social cohesion. Academics—and students, particularly at postgraduate level—engage in scientific research that generates new knowledge in the search for solutions to a variety of problems, including health challenges.

Consider, for example, the work of��Ronald van Toorn, a senior specialist in pediatric neurology at Stellenbosch University. As part of his��PhD , he found that certain innovative treatments offer children with tuberculosis meningitis a much better chance of survival. These treatments may also enable children who have been left paralyzed or blind by this serious condition—the most common form of bacterial meningitis in the Western Cape—to walk or see again.

A PhD represents a university’s top training product. Working toward a doctorate, you not only absorb large volumes of knowledge in a particular field of study, but you also learn to generate new knowledge yourself. This is what van Toorn has done. And this is also what our country and continent needs much more of.

The��National Development Plan��sets South Africa a of more than 100 PhDs per million by 2030, compared to the current 28 per million, which is considered low by international standards. To achieve this target, needs more than 5,000 doctoral graduates per year—considerably more than the 1,420 produced in 2010, but attainable if the growth in graduates at this level between 2008-13 (12.3% per annum) is maintained.

Earlier this year, the��Centre for Higher Education Transformation that among South African students, African doctoral enrolments (5,065) first exceeded white enrolments (4,853) in 2010, and African graduates (821) at this level first exceeded white graduates (816) in 2012. Yet with the white population making up only 8.4% of the country’s population, compared to 80.2%��, South Africa still has a long way to go to achieve better participation and throughput rates.

What society can do for students and universities

But the planned expansion of access does not only require making places available in higher education institutions. As the government��: “Education and training must also be affordable for potential students. To this end the government has significantly increased the funds available for student loans and bursaries, particularly through the National Student Financial Aid Scheme.”

But the scheme has been mired in controversy. Students have protested for not receiving funding timeously or not at all. It seems the problems go deep. In May, Higher Education and Training Minister Blade Nzimande����there would be a probe into corrupt practices. This is a welcome move.

Universities also receive and disburse financial aid from sources other than the state. More than one-third of Stellenbosch students receive some form of financial aid. In 2014, the university paid out bursaries and loans to nearly 55% of its revenue from student fees. Bursaries are an excellent way to ensure that young people from across the class, and in South Africa’s case color, divides are offered the opportunity to develop as individuals and to contribute to the country’s knowledge bank.

When Madiba was awarded an honorary doctorate from Stellenbosch University in 1996, he said in his acceptance speech: “This occasion is testimony to the fact that we South Africans have struck out on the road of building a joint future, that we are in the process of breaking down the divisive bulwarks of the past and building up a new nation—united in all its rich diversity.”

Almost two years after Mandela’s��,��the challenge remains to use education to change South Africa and the rest of the world. This makes bursary donations—the gift of education—an appropriate tribute to the man who continues to teach us about the virtue of selfless service to others.

*[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.

Photo Credit: ��/��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your ��is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Mandela’s Belief That Education Can Change the World is Still a Dream appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On Sunday, we bid a final farewell to this generation’s most beloved leader. Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, a man for the ages, will be laid to rest. Leaders and dignitaries from all over the world have flocked to little-known Qunu, in South Africa, to see Mandela return to his roots, to the home of his people and the place of his childhood. Last Tuesday, a sea of world leaders arrived in Soweto to pay their final respects to a leader whose appeal transcended race, borders and beliefs. People turned up in the thousands and even a heavy downpour did little to dampen their spirits.

The Boy From Qunu

Mandela was a worthy heir to Mahatma Gandhi. He lives on in the hearts of many. His story is woven in bright colors that will refuse to fade with time. So profound was his influence and the reach of his example, so consummate was his work in altering the arc of history that the whole world mourns his loss whilst celebrating his life.

Throughout generations, in Africa and around the globe, many have heeded the call to serve and fight for freedom. Yet some precious few stand apart. Mandela is unique even in this group. His courage of conviction was such that he was prepared to die. His loyalty to those around him was absolute. His integrity was legendary. Despite its best efforts, the apartheid regime could never co-opt him. He carried himself with much pride and grace. Yet he was modest, engaging and courteous. He was Africa’s most celebrated son, and one of the greatest leaders to have ever graced the earth.

In 1918, Africa’s most challenging century bore its greatest son in Transkei, South Africa. “Rolihlahla,” which means troublemaker, rose to face the harsh repression of apartheid facing his people. Burdened by the weight of destiny, he stood up to be counted and became a willing advocate against the senseless chains clamping down on the rights of his people. A man with a wealth of flaws, he chose to pick up the gauntlet of a people’s struggles and carry the burden of their hopes. By so doing, he acquired the status of a saint.

He lived up to the immortalized words that he uttered at his trial before conviction:

"During my lifetime, I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized. But… if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

Chained But Free

Throughout his 27-year incarceration, Mandela remained unbowed by the backbreaking inclement habitat designed to shatter his resolve for the realization of an indivisible free nation. Through many a long day and night of confinement and the punishment of hard labor, he soldiered on and carried forth the indefatigable hope for a brighter tomorrow. In detention, he refused to settle for the allure of anything less than the Promised Land. Eventually, it was Mandela’s captors who recognized that they were in chains and set free a man whose spirit was always free.

Like the biblical David against Goliath, he unflinchingly took on the behemoth of intolerance and domination. He slayed the beast with the help of others — some well-known like Oliver Tambo, some who lived to see the day and fruits of freedom, and some who paid the ultimate price in terms of their lives for emancipation.

Father of the Nation

Upon his release, he opened the iron fist of oppression and by shaking hands with it, melted the grip of its ideology. By his indomitable courage, Mandela led his country to freedom. His empathy, compassion and magnanimity saved it from chaos, violence and civil war. A new and bright South Africa was thus born and Mandela came to be regarded as Tata, the father of this nation.

A nation is only as strong as its foundation. Mandela was the catalyst that brought divergent and apprehensive groups onto the negotiating table to hash out a new constitution. The negotiations demonstrated that unity was possible, true freedom for all was accessible, common ground was ample, and dialogue indispensable. Mandela inspired the promulgation of one of the most revolutionary constitutions in the world. Under South Africa’s constitution, the inherent right of equality of all people is sacrosanct — civil and political rights and socioeconomic rights are intrinsic.

During his "self-imposed" single-term presidency, Mandela focused on the task of uniting stubbornly disparate groups and peoples under the banner of a rainbow nation. Recognizing that healing and restoration was paramount, his government set up the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission to enable the nation to examine and acknowledge its painful past. Citizens were encouraged to embrace each other in the light of forgiveness, and to create a harmonious and inclusive society.

Mandela demonstrated by word and deed that all races could coexist in a unified country, sharing the same fundamental values. The powerful symbolism of his incarcerators sitting in the front row at his inauguration, shall forever prove that the power of forgiveness enables people to bridge any gap and heal any scar.

By voluntarily serving for only a single-term — a rare act in history — Mandela set an example to leaders across the globe, that power was but a means to an end and that leaders were merely servants of their people. He showed that for democracy to flourish, power must be relinquished even before one’s allotted constitutional mandate. He demonstrated that stepping down from power is a moral imperative, even if the masses clamor for a leader to continue in office.

Across the globe, Mandela stood for the oppressed and downtrodden with disregard to political correctness. He made no alliances out of political expediency. Instead, he championed the cause of peace and security, freedom and self-determination, and the recognition of the inherent rights and dignity of all humanity.

Flaws

Admittedly, as with all great leaders, it is important to interrogate all aspects of Mandela’s legacy. Even though he was a model statesman and charmed the world and a nation, he was far from a model father to his children. He is known to have engaged in infidelity, and his three marriages bring to question his commitment to the institution.

He regretted not having done more to stem the tide of HIV infection in South Africa while he was in office. During the freedom struggle, he abandoned Gandhian non-violence, and was the co-founder of Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) — the armed-wing of the ANC — which engaged in acts of violence.

The man maketh the legend. Nonetheless, it is important to distinguish between the man and the legend. As a man, Mandela is thus blameworthy. His blemishes must be spoken of for the wider society to cite, criticize and learn from, as well as for all to appreciate the fact that he too was immensely flawed.

Greatness

Mandela’s courage in fighting against injustice and his compassion — even for those who wanted him dead — makes him a great man. A tall and handsome man, he was that rare book that could be judged by both its cover and its contents. At once, warm, humble and delightful to all and sundry who were fortunate to meet him in person, Mandela was also unremitting, ferocious and singular in the quest of his life’s mission.

As the African story rattles on, with its record of less than stellar leaders, Mandela will forever be a source of pride to his continent and a symbol for all humankind. His story shall be told in schools, at the kitchen table, in the open fields, and by the fireplace. Songs and books will continue to be written about him. He leaves but lives, especially through the ideals of peace, love, liberty, equality and harmony for all.

Goodbye, Tata.

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

The post Nelson Mandela: A Man for the Ages appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A true test of greatness is whether a person can walk away from power. George Washington could have died in office but chose to retire to his plantation. Gandhi had a near-divine status in India and chose his simple abode to the trappings of power. In a continent first ravaged by colonization and then by “big men” who clung to power until they died, Madiba set a glorious example by leaving office after a single term. He could have easily stayed on for another term – even for life – but he retired to a life of simplicity and discouraged the development of a personality cult. He started spending his holidays in Qunu, the place where he spent his childhood. The house that he built there was based on the same cottage where he spent his last days in prison.

Feet of Clay

Like all great men, Madiba had his flaws. Like Gandhi, he was not the best father and had strained relations with his children. His marital problems are well chronicled as is his reputation as a ladies’ man. His second marriage with Winnie Madikizela was tumultuous. She was a feisty opponent of apartheid but the struggle took a toll on her soul. She turned violent and vindictive, was convicted of kidnapping and fraud, and after their divorce she lashed out against him for letting “blacks down.”

Mandela’s fondness for fine scarves, beautiful ties, flamboyant shirts and well cut suits made him a dandy. Many joked about the number of times he would change his clothes throughout the day. His hobnobbing with celebrities was at times excessive.

Other mistakes had greater consequences. He admitted that, as president, he could have done more to combat HIV. In the past, his abandonment of non-violence gave the apartheid government an excuse to intensify its oppression. They shrewdly painted Madiba as a communist and both the US and UK backed the apartheid regime until its last days. In fact, it was only in 2008 that the US took Madiba off . The armed struggle of the ANC was ineffectual and put no pressure on the apartheid government. Gandhian civil disobedience would have served the ANC much better. The ANC needed to focus on its internal organization and plan its next mass movement instead of launch ill-conceived guerilla attacks.

After Gandhi’s first movement ended in 1922, he patiently focused on preparing his next move, which he only launched in 1930. In act of breathtaking symbolism, Gandhi conducted an to break oppressive salt laws. This triggered a movement of civil disobedience that captured the imagination of the country and did much to propel India towards independence.

Gandhi had studied law in England, earned his spurs in South Africa, corresponded with , had a mentor like and was a deeply spiritual man. Madiba was a different kettle of fish. A former boxer, he was more impulsive and lacked the international exposure of Gandhi. Madiba was also a product of his time when the US and the UK stood discredited and communism and socialism held sway. He was unable to realize that the Soviet Union was a brutal totalitarian state and that communism was doomed to failure. To his credit though, in later life he would prove non-dogmatic and abandon his Marxist ideas for pluralist democracy.

Africa’s Greatest Son

Just as Gandhi did not singlehandedly win independence for India, Madiba did not demolish apartheid alone. A range of reasons such as the end of the Cold War, increasing unrest, international sanctions and exhaustion of the ruling elite combined to bring down apartheid. Others like Tambo, Tutu and de Klerk played their part. Yet, it was �Ѳ��徱����’s magnanimity, empathy and vision that led to the birth of the Rainbow Nation.

South Africa still has a multitude of problems. After more than a century of oppression, the country’s problems were never going to be solved in less than two decades. Poverty is rife, crime is rampant and corruption endemic. The current president is building a worth an estimated $20 million and had tried to stop the press from talking about it. The country is an ongoing experiment in democracy and it is because of Madiba that it has been able to embark on such a journey. After nearly three decades in prison, a lesser man might have come out bitter or broken. Madiba came out of the fire as steel that had been tempered.

Even in prison, he initiated a meeting in 1985 with the then minister of justice, Kobie Coetsee. He did not inform anyone in the ANC about it and did it because he believed that at times “a leader must move ahead of his flock.” As a free man, he behaved in a Gandhian manner urging forgiveness and reconciliation. The Afrikaans that he learnt in prison charmed sworn enemies such as Botha. Without Madiba, the post-apartheid negotiations would not have been successful and the subsequent elections would not have been largely peaceful.

He had the magnanimity to praise Reagan and Thatcher, two leaders who were the strongest supporters of apartheid. When he went to prison, he was influenced by socialist economic ideas. When he came out and saw the collapse of the Soviet system, he was willing to embrace the free market and build bridges with the business community. Most importantly, Madiba exchanged the trappings of power for a life of simplicity, setting a new example for Africa.

What He Means To Us

I have spent the past couple of days reading every obituary of Madiba and it made me realize why I do what I do. I found much of the coverage about the man superficial. Most writers refused to delve deeper into the complexity of �Ѳ��徱����’s life and the context in which he operated. Too many conveniently put him on a pedestal and refused to engage with his legacy. The Economist to its credit produced an over 3,000 word obituary written with its customary panache. Yet, as I read it I could not help but wince.

Earlier this year, when Margaret Thatcher died, this 1843 publication titled its obituary, “, and declared that “the world needs to hold fast to Margaret Thatcher’s principles.” No mention was made of Thatcher’s support of apartheid. Bobby Sands, the member of the Irish Republican Army who died of hunger strike in prison, was forgotten. He died because Thatcher would not countenance demands such as the right of free association with other prisoners, and to organize educational and recreational pursuits.

The Economist��has been a brilliant voice but it is the voice of the Empire and a strong British leader like Thatcher evokes subliminal nostalgia for the past. The newspaper tries to condone her support for apartheid by blaming �Ѳ��徱����’s commitment for armed struggle, conveniently ignoring that she had no objections to the violence unleashed by the apartheid regime.��When , the wife of , was killed by a parcel bomb in Mozambique, Thatcher said nothing. She had no objection to the attempted murder of by a car bomb that left him without an arm and an eye. For those of us who come from the erstwhile colonies, Gandhi and Madiba are freedom fighters and it is their principles instead of Thatcher’s that the world needs to hold fast to.

The point that I am making is about narratives. All of history is mythology and all of news is fiction. For too long the colonizers have told the story of the world. A look at the past issues of The Economist reveals that it never examined apartheid or condemned it in the same way as it deplored communism. Even when talking of Madiba, it patronizes his “sub-Marxist drivel” whilst ignoring the ignominious record of the British government in supporting apartheid. It mentions Madiba and Gandhi in the same breath as Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle and Jack Kennedy when enumerating the greatest statesmen of the 20^th century.

From my point of view, only Roosevelt can be compared to Gandhi and Madiba. Although indubitably brilliant, Churchill was an imperial racist. He believed that if granted independence, Indians would slip “” De Gaulle was far too authoritarian, capricious and selfish. He withdrew from NATO, plunged the EEC into crisis, tried to maintain France’s imperial role, treated student uprisings brutally and resigned only after losing a referendum. Kennedy does not have any substantial achievements to even merit a consideration. Glamour alone does not make a man great. Roosevelt with his New Deal, Atlantic Charter and support for the creation of the United Nations is the only one who makes the cut.

I am making a simple point: the work of Gandhi and Madiba stands unfinished. The quest for freedom includes the expression of one’s narrative. The story of the world, which has long been told by a chosen few, now needs to be told by the world itself. In a 1994 interview, the legendary African writer Chinua Achebe quoted a – “that until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter.” Through 51�Թ�, we are setting out to ensure that “the story of the hunt will also reflect the agony, the travail—the bravery, even, of the lions.”

Madiba, we owe this to you!

[Note: Click here to��read parts�������Ի���.]

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 Mandela: Gandhi’s Heir and Africa’s Greatest Son (Part 3/3) appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The young Madiba was coming of age in the 1940s. As the rest of the world seemed to be marching to freedom, South Africa was turning back the clock. After the 1948 election in which only whites were allowed to vote, long-standing discrimination was expanded and codified into legislation, inaugurating the apartheid era. Madiba threw himself into the struggle to overthrow apartheid and embraced Marxism, partly influenced by friends and partly because the Soviet Union was supporting wars of independence in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

The apartheid government cloaked its suppression of the black majority in the garb of an anti-communist struggle. The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 led to the creation of a brutal police state where suppression became the norm. In February 1955, Madiba participated in the protest that failed to prevent the demolition of the all-black Sophiatown suburb of Johannesburg. This proved a turning point. He declared that the African National Congress (ANC) “” because “.”

After the on March 21, 1960, Madiba co-founded the ANC’s armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, or “Spear of the Nation,” which began guerilla attacks against the apartheid government. On August 5, 1962, he was captured. �Ѳ��徱����’s conduct during the trial that followed made him a hero. Instead of defending himself, he set out to make a case for the moral bankruptcy of apartheid. On October 15, he turned up in traditional garb, a made of leopard skin because, as he told his white legal adviser, “.” He did that and more. In the years to come, the subsequent , named after the farmhouse where a number of ANC leaders were apprehended, would stand as a symbol of injustice throughout the world.

�Ѳ��徱����’s in the Rivonia Trial questioned the legitimacy of the court that was sentencing him. The trial had attracted enormous international attention, which might be the reason why Madiba was not sentenced to death. Instead, he was imprisoned for life, but only after his speech exposed the toxic nature of apartheid. He pointed out the terrible human and moral cost of white supremacy. He gave a harrowing account of how black Africans were denied schooling, jobs, liberty, the right to buy land and fundamental human rights. He pointed out how whites had dehumanized blacks by treating them as an inferior race. He called for equal political rights and declared that he was ready to die to achieve “the ideal of democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.”

On June 12, 1964, Madiba was sent off to prison. He spent the next 18 years as Prisoner 466/64 on Robben Island, a South African version of Alcatraz. On this cold and windy island, Madiba lived in a damp cell measuring eight by seven feet and slept on a straw mat. He suffered verbal and physical abuse. He was not allowed to use sunglasses in the lime quarry where prisoners were forced to break stones in blinding sunlight, permanently damaging his eyesight.

It was in prison that Madiba grew to greatness. He began the “University of Robben Island,” an informal school where prisoners lectured on their areas of expertise and debated contentious topics. He grew egg plants, tomatoes and strawberries. Even in captivity, he continued to fight on. He insisted that prisoners be treated with dignity. He refused privileges that were not offered to fellow prisoners. He hated shorts but continued to wear them until other prisoners were allowed to wear trousers too.

It was at Robben Island that Madiba started learning Afrikaans in an effort to reach out to his captors and to win their respect. It was here that this hot-tempered former boxer learnt self-restraint and patience. Even when he was not allowed to attend the funerals of his mother and his firstborn son, he behaved with extraordinary dignity. In April 1982, he was transferred to Pollsmoor Prison where he created a roof garden and shared what he grew with his prison warders.

As South Africa erupted in turmoil and international pressure mounted in February 1985, PW Botha, the apartheid leader known as “the crocodile” offered to release Madiba if he renounced violence and other illegal activity. The offer was a ruse to discredit the ANC and paint it as a terrorist organization. Madiba rose to the occasion and asked Botha to renounce violence, dismantle apartheid and unban the ANC. He demanded freedom for the people and declared that he could not “”

At Pollsmoor, Madiba contracted tuberculosis because of dank conditions. Whilst he was recovering, the government moved him to Victor Verster Prison in December 1988. By this time, negotiations had begun between Madiba and the government, which decided that he should be moved to a closer location. Finally, at 70, he had some comfort in the form of a warder’s cottage and a personal cook. As the Cold War was ending and communism collapsed in Europe, apartheid started coming apart. After years of rebuffing Madiba, Botha invited him for tea. FW de Klerk, his successor, released all ANC prisoners except Madiba. When the Berlin Wall fell, de Klerk realized that the game was up and met Madiba in December. On February 2, 1990 Mandela was pardoned unconditionally and all formerly banned political parties were legalized. On February 11, Madiba walked out of prison after spending nearly 28 years in captivity.

Reconciliation, Not Revenge

When Madiba was released, South Africa was a tinderbox waiting to explode. Not only was there tension between the white minority and the black majority but also there was tension between the ANC and the Inkatha party. For long funded by the apartheid regime, it was led by Chief Mangosuthu Buthulezi who tried his best to derail the process to build a new democratic South Africa. Despite having spent years in prison, Madiba acted with incredible astuteness to navigate the tricky post-apartheid process. Although he clashed with de Klerk and even called for a UN peacekeeping force in South Africa to stop state terrorism, he was nimble enough to reach a compromise.

It is easy to forget how explosive the situation when the negotiations were going on. Even before talks began, de Klerk asked Madiba not to include Joe Slovo, the Jewish leader of the South African Communist Party, in his delegation. Madiba slapped de Klerk down. He told de Klerk that both of them could choose anyone to their delegations and de Klerk had no right to tell him who to include or exclude. Madiba turned up with a multiracial delegation that included Slovo while de Klerk’s crew consisted of 11 Afrikaner men. Negotiations were testy and were frequently in danger of breaking down. The combination of various parties and factions within them, tribal rivalries and a resentful white minority threatened to explode into cornucopia of violence.

As de Klerk and Madiba clashed, violence did break out. Far-right Afrikaner parties and black ethnic-secessionist groups like Inkatha made common cause. More people died between 1990 and 1994 than in the thirty years before. One by one, all sticking points were addressed. It was the much reviled Slovo who came up with the idea of the “sunset clause.” This led to the big breakthrough of 1992 where both sides agreed to a coalition government for five years after the first election. All sides agreed upon guarantees and concessions. Today, de Klerk and his team pay tribute to Slovo who would not have been at the negotiating table if they had their way. The Record of Understanding was signed on September 26, 1992 by the government and the ANC. Next year, Madiba and de Klerk were jointly awarded the Nobel peace prize.

The next phase of negotiations continued to be tough and violence continued. When ANC leader Chris Hani was murdered in April 1993 by a far-right white immigrant, it seemed that the country was headed for disaster. Hani was second only to Madiba in popularity. A member of parliament who opposed dismantling apartheid has lent his pistol to the murderer.

Madiba was also dealing with personal tragedy. The ailing Oliver Tambo, his closest friend who had carried the torch as president of the ANC when Madiba was in prison, died on April 24. Speaking at Tambo’s funeral, Madiba appealed for calm. He asked all South Africans to stand together for “the freedom of all of us” and pointed out that it was a white Afrikaner woman who called the police and identified the assassin. �Ѳ��徱����’s handling of the situation was one of his finest moments and contributed significantly to the successful conclusion of the negotiations.

The elections of 1994 led to ANC victory and Mandela became the first president of a post-apartheid South Africa. He graciously allowed de Klerk to retain the presidential residence and called it Genadendal, an Afrikaans word that means the valley of mercy. It was an extraordinary gesture and the years that Madiba spent learning Afrikaans came to good use to empathize with the white elite that felt insecure in the new Rainbow Nation, a term coined by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Madiba showed tremendous magnanimity in meeting senior figures of the apartheid regime declaring that “courageous people do not fear forgiving, for the sake of peace.” He even met the widow of Hendrik Verwoed, the architect of apartheid.

Perhaps his most symbolic act as president was supporting the Springboks, the much-reviled national rugby team. Black South Africans loved football – or soccer as the Americans would say. Cricket and rugby were white sports. Rugby in particular was like religion for Afrikaans, a game of muscular masculine camaraderie in which they excelled. Much to the discomfort of many of his supporters, Madiba threw his support behind the all-white Springboks team that won the World Cup at home, forging a new identity for the country.

As president, Madiba shepherded the young nation through the drafting of a new constitution. It came into effect on February 4, 1997 and has been widely regarded as one of finest constitutions in the world. It guarantees civil liberties for everyone, minority protection, separation of powers and an independent judiciary. The beauty of the constitution is that it involved massive public participation. People shared their views and sent suggestions that were incorporated in the document. It includes a famous Bill of Rights that promises the right to equality before the law and freedom from discrimination, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, color, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. Kader Asmal and Albie Sachs, two noted jurists of Indian and Jewish origin respectively, authored the bill, demonstrating that the diversity and inclusivity of the new South Africa.

�Ѳ��徱����’s greatest achievement as president was the creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Headed by Archbishop Tutu, its goal was to investigate crimes under apartheid by both the government and ANC. It was highly controversial. Many believed that it allowed people to get away with murder and more. The premise behind the TRC was exceedingly simple: the new nation had to forgive the sins of the past to forge a more harmonious future. For two years starting February 1996, the TRC conducted hearings of rapes, torture, bombings and murder.

The TRC remains controversial to this day. Many believe that it allowed the perpetrators of injustice to get off scot-free and that South Africa ought to have had trials as were conducted in Nuremberg. The reality is that the TRC could never have achieved racial reconciliation or pleased everyone. It did achieve its purpose of finding out the truth about the crimes of the apartheid era and certainly contributed to a peaceful transition of power.

[Note: Click here to��read parts�������Ի���.]

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 Mandela: Gandhi’s Heir and Africa’s Greatest Son (Part 2/3) appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Those of us who were born in former European colonies have memories of our struggles for freedom seared into our souls. Just as Madiba heard the tales of “Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni,” fighting for their fatherland, I grew up with stories of the colonized who battled their masters and often lost their lives in the process. Madiba was spoken of in the same breath as Mahatma Gandhi.

Madiba continued the struggle that, as perhaps few know, Gandhi in South Africa. Gandhi was thrown out of a train by a white ticket collector in Pietermaritzburg on June 7, 1893, for having the temerity to travel in a carriage meant only for whites. The Indian barrister spent the night shivering in the train station and proceeded to launch nonviolent civil resistance movements against the South African government for the next 22 years. It was in South Africa that Gandhi began the work of dismantling the British Empire, and it was here that Madiba finished the job by destroying its last vestige — apartheid.

Colonization was inhuman. Those who were conquered lost their land, liberty and lives. Their dignity and identity were taken away from them. Madiba was Mandela’s Xhosa clan name, by which his countrymen know him. During colonization, natives frequently lost their language as well and, with time, their narratives. Christian missionaries worked hard to civilize natives, giving them names like Nelson.

The so-called rule of law imposed by Europeans was, in reality, a system that institutionalized inequity and made people slaves in their own homes. Native institutions such as the Thembu court of village elders that Madiba referred to as “democracy in its purest form,” were ripped apart and replaced by rapacious bureaucracies characterized by oppression and corruption. Apartheid was the last surviving example of colonization.

The memories of colonization and the struggle for freedom ran strong in my family. Even as a child, I grew up listening to stories about Gandhi. The fact that he eschewed violence and office, dressed in a homespun loincloth and died a martyr at the hands of a fanatic made Gandhi an iconic figure for my father’s generation.

In fact, my father’s first memory as a child is the day Gandhi died. It was the first day he went hungry. His mother was too distraught to cook. He was two days short of his fourth birthday, and even then, he realized that something momentous had happened.

I grew up watching Madiba and reading not only about his great achievements but also about his mistakes. Now that he is dead at 95, it seems the end of an era, and I have struggled to pen down my thoughts.

The era of independence

After World War II, one colony after another gained independence. It began with India under Gandhi in 1947 and intensified after the Anglo-French 1956 misadventure. The French tried to cling to their colonies more tenaciously than the British. France failed to realize that just as it did not like living under German rule, Algeria and Vietnam might have similar aspirations for independence. Britain kept playing up close trade ties and the security provided by its control of the seas to keep the colonies loyal to the Queen.

Still, it proved less sentimental about cutting them loose and initiated a massive wave of decolonization. In February 1960, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan gave a historic in Cape Town, South Africa, where he spoke about “the wind of change blowing through this continent.”As the 1960s saw a massive wave of decolonization, South Africa slipped into the pernicious system of apartheid, a system of racial segregation enforced through legislation by its white minority.

By this time, the free-market model had been discredited in former colonies. In the past, this model included the freedom to trade slaves and the subjugation of the non-white world. In truth, under colonial masters such as the British and the French, free markets were hardly free — or even markets at all.

The colonies had experienced this policy and were now seeking alternative economic systems to address their deep problems of poverty and inequality. Even if they did not embrace communism, they were attracted by leftist ideas because they wanted to create more egalitarian societies after years of deep inequity.

The US did not quite understand these aspirations across Latin America, Africa and Asia. In 1953, it the first democratically elected government of Iran on the behest of the British. Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh had wanted 50 cents on every dollar paid to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the forerunner of BP. It was the same deal that Saudi Arabia had with the American company, Aramco, but the British wanted colonial-era exploitation to continue. By backing the British, the US established itself as the new imperial power that wanted freedom for white Europeans but enslavement for non-whites around the world.

In Africa, the US supported the interests of its imperial European allies. It backed the brutal British repression of the Mau Mau Revolt in Kenya. Over 1 million Kenyans were herded into detention camps known as , and more than 100,000 of them died. The eight-year campaign of terror in the 1950s included beatings, torture and sexual abuse.

In the Congo, the US went further. In 1960, it actively connived with Belgium and the UK to engender the murder of , the prime minister who had just led Congo to independence. , the man whom the US backed, went on to rule Congo for over three decades, murdering his opponents, looting the country and establishing a personality cult that rivaled that of North Korea.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the US also went on to play a in the 1962 arrest of Madiba. Henceforth, many saw the US as a white supremacist power and the CIA as an organization specializing in murder, torture and coup d’états.

The free-market model the US had been touting was now morally tainted. Washington was simply perceived as old European wine in a new American bottle, and the vast majority of former colonies were unwilling to drink it.

Coming of age��

The young Madiba was coming of age in the 1940s. As the rest of the world seemed to be marching to freedom, South Africa was turning back the clock. After the 1948 election, in which only whites were allowed to vote, long-standing discrimination was expanded and codified into legislation, inaugurating the apartheid era.

Madiba threw himself into the struggle to overthrow apartheid and embraced Marxism, partly influenced by friends and partly because the Soviet Union was supporting wars of independence in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

The apartheid government cloaked its suppression of the black majority in the garb of an anticommunist struggle. The Suppression of Communism of 1950 led to the creation of a brutal police state where suppression became the norm.

In February 1955, Madiba in the protest that failed to prevent the demolition of the all-black Sophiatown suburb of Johannesburg. This proved to be a turning point. He that the African National Congress (ANC) “had no alternative to armed and violent resistance” “the attacks of the wild beast cannot be averted with only bare hands.”

After the on March 21, 1960, Madiba cofounded the ANC’s armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe, or “Spear of the Nation,” which began guerrilla attacks against the apartheid government. On August 5, 1962, he was captured. �Ѳ��徱����’s conduct during the trial that followed made him a hero. Instead of defending himself, he set out to make a case for the moral bankruptcy of apartheid.

On October 15, he turned up in traditional garb, a made of leopard skin because, as he his white legal adviser, “I want our people to see me as a black man in the white man’s court.” He did that and more. In the years to come, the subsequent , named after the farmhouse where a number of ANC leaders were apprehended, would stand as a symbol of injustice throughout the world.

�Ѳ��徱����’s in the Rivonia Trial questioned the legitimacy of the court that was sentencing him. The trial had attracted enormous international attention, which might be the reason why Madiba was not sentenced to death. Instead, he was imprisoned for life, but only after his speech exposed the toxic nature of apartheid.��

He pointed out the terrible human and moral cost of white supremacy. He gave a harrowing account of how black Africans were denied schooling, jobs, liberty, the right to buy land and fundamental human rights. He pointed out how whites had dehumanized blacks by treating them as an inferior race. He called for equal political rights and declared that he was ready to die to achieve “the ideal of democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.”

On June 12, 1964, Madiba was to prison. He spent the next 18 years as Prisoner 466/64 on Robben Island, a South African version of Alcatraz. On this cold and windy island, Madiba lived in a damp cell measuring eight by seven feet and slept on a straw mat. He suffered verbal and physical abuse. He was not allowed to use sunglasses in the lime quarry where prisoners were forced to break stones in blinding sunlight, permanently damaging his eyesight.

It was in prison that Madiba grew to greatness. He began the “University of Robben Island,” an informal school where prisoners lectured on their areas of expertise and debated contentious topics. He grew eggplants, tomatoes and strawberries.

Even in captivity, he continued to fight on. He insisted that prisoners be treated with dignity. He refused privileges that were not offered to fellow prisoners. He hated shorts but continued to wear them until other prisoners were allowed to wear trousers too.

It was at Robben Island that Madiba started learning Afrikaans in an effort to reach out to his captors and to win their respect. It was here that this hot-tempered former boxer learnt self-restraint and patience. Even when he was not allowed to attend the funerals of his mother and his firstborn son, he behaved with extraordinary dignity. In April 1982, he was transferred to Pollsmoor Prison, where he created a roof garden and shared what he grew with his prison warders.

As South Africa erupted in turmoil and international pressure mounted in February 1985, PW Botha, the apartheid leader known as “the crocodile,” to release Madiba if he renounced violence and other illegal activity. The offer was a ruse to discredit the ANC and paint it as a terrorist organization. Madiba rose to the occasion and asked Botha to renounce violence, dismantle apartheid and unban the ANC. He demanded freedom for the people and that he could not “sell the birthright of the people to be free.”

At Pollsmoor, Madiba contracted tuberculosis because of dank conditions. Whilst he was recovering, the government moved him to Victor Verster Prison in December 1988. By this time, negotiations had begun between Madiba and the government, which decided that he should be moved to a closer location. Finally, at 70, he had some comfort in the form of a warder’s cottage and a personal cook.

As the Cold War was ending and communism collapsed in Europe, apartheid started coming apart. After years of rebuffing Madiba, Botha invited him for tea. FW de Klerk, his successor, released all ANC prisoners except Madiba. When the Berlin Wall fell, de Klerk realized that the game was up and met Madiba in December.

On February 2, 1990, Mandela was pardoned unconditionally, and all formerly banned political parties were legalized. On , Madiba walked out of prison after spending nearly 28 years in captivity.

Reconciliation, not revenge

When Madiba was released, South Africa was a tinderbox waiting to explode. Not only was there tension between the white minority and the black majority, but there was also tension between the ANC and the Inkatha party. For a long time, funded by the apartheid regime, it was led by Chief Mangosuthu Buthulezi, who tried his best to derail the process to build a new democratic South Africa.

Despite having spent years in prison, Madiba acted with incredible astuteness to navigate the tricky post-apartheid process. Although he clashed with de Klerk and even called for a UN peacekeeping force in South Africa to stop state terrorism, he was nimble enough to reach a compromise.

It is easy to forget how explosive the situation was during the negotiations. Even before talks began, de Klerk asked Madiba not to include Joe Slovo, the Jewish leader of the South African Communist Party, in his delegation. Madiba slapped de Klerk down. He told de Klerk that both of them could choose anyone for their delegations, and that de Klerk had no right to tell him who to include or exclude.

Madiba turned up with a multiracial delegation that included Slovo, while de Klerk’s crew consisted of 11 Afrikaner men. Negotiations were testy and were frequently in danger of breaking down. The combination of various parties and factions within them, tribal rivalries and a resentful white minority threatened to explode into a cornucopia of violence.

As de Klerk and Madiba clashed, violence did break out. Far-right Afrikaner parties and black ethnic-secessionist groups like Inkatha made common cause. More people died between 1990 and 1994 than in the thirty years before. One by one, all sticking points were addressed. It was the much reviled Slovo who came up with the idea of the “.” This led to the breakthrough of , when both sides agreed to a five-year coalition government following the first election. All sides agreed upon guarantees and concessions.

Today, de Klerk and his team pay tribute to Slovo, who would not have been at the negotiating table if they had their way. The Record of Understanding was on September 26, 1992, by the government and the ANC. Next year, Madiba and de Klerk were the Nobel Peace Prize.

The next phase of negotiations continued to be tough, and violence continued. When ANC leader Chris Hani was in April 1993 by a far-right white immigrant, it seemed that the country was headed for disaster. Hani was second only to Madiba in popularity. A member of parliament who opposed dismantling apartheid had lent his pistol to the murderer.

Madiba was also dealing with personal tragedy. The ailing Oliver Tambo, his closest friend who had carried the torch as president of the ANC when Madiba was in prison, on April 24, 1993. Speaking at Tambo’s funeral, Madiba appealed for calm. He asked all South Africans to stand together for “the freedom of all of us” and pointed out that it was a white Afrikaner woman who called the police and identified the assassin. �Ѳ��徱����’s handling of the situation was one of his finest moments and contributed significantly to the successful conclusion of the negotiations.

Historic presidency: Truth and Reconciliation Commission

The 1994 elections led to an ANC victory, and Mandela became the of post-apartheid South Africa. He graciously allowed de Klerk to retain the presidential residence, which he called Genadendal, an Afrikaans word meaning “the valley of mercy”. It was an extraordinary gesture, and the years that Madiba spent learning Afrikaans came to good use to empathize with the white elite that felt insecure in the new Rainbow Nation, a term coined by Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Madiba showed tremendous magnanimity in meeting senior figures of the apartheid regime, that “courageous people do not fear forgiving, for the sake of peace.” He even the widow of Hendrik Verwoerd, the architect of apartheid.

Perhaps his most symbolic act as president was the Springboks, the much-reviled national rugby team. Black South Africans loved football — or soccer, as the Americans would say. Cricket and rugby were white sports. Rugby, in particular, was like religion for Afrikaans: a game of muscular, masculine camaraderie in which they excelled. Much to the discomfort of many of his supporters, Madiba threw his support behind the all-white Springboks team that won the World Cup at home, forging a new identity for the country.

As president, Madiba shepherded the young nation through the drafting of a new constitution. It came into effect on February 4, 1997, and has been widely regarded as one of the finest constitutions in the world. It guarantees civil liberties for everyone, minority protection, separation of powers and an independent judiciary. 

The beauty of the Constitution is that it involved massive public participation. People shared their views and sent suggestions that were incorporated into the document. It includes a famous Bill of Rights that promises the right to equality before the law and freedom from discrimination, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, color, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. Kader Asmal and Albie Sachs, two noted jurists of Indian and Jewish origin, respectively, authored the bill, demonstrating the diversity and inclusivity of the new South Africa.

�Ѳ��徱����’s greatest achievement as president was the creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (). Headed by Archbishop Tutu, its goal was to investigate crimes under apartheid by both the government and the ANC. It was highly controversial. Many believed that it allowed people to get away with murder and more.

The premise behind the TRC was exceedingly simple: the new nation had to forgive the sins of the past to forge a more harmonious future. For two years starting February 1996, the TRC conducted hearings of rapes, torture, bombings and murder.

The TRC remains controversial to this day. Many believe that it allowed the perpetrators of injustice to get off scot-free and that South Africa ought to have had trials as were conducted in Nuremberg.

The reality is that the TRC could never have achieved racial reconciliation or pleased everyone. It did achieve its purpose of finding out the truth about the crimes of the apartheid era and certainly contributed to a peaceful transition of power.

Tryst with greatness but feet of clay

A true test of greatness is whether a person can walk away from power. George Washington could have died in office, but chose to retire to his plantation. Gandhi had a near-divine status in India and chose his simple abode over the trappings of power.

In a continent first ravaged by colonization and then by “big men” who clung to power until they died, Madiba set a glorious example by leaving office after a single term. He could have easily stayed on for another term — even for life — but he retired to a life of simplicity and discouraged the development of a personality cult. He started spending his holidays in Qunu, the place where he spent his childhood. The house that he built there was based on the same cottage where he spent his last days in prison.

Like all great men, Madiba had his flaws. Like Gandhi, he was not the best father and had strained relations with his children. His marital problems are , as is his reputation as a ladies’ man. His second marriage to Winnie Madikizela was tumultuous. She was a feisty opponent of apartheid, but the struggle took a toll on her soul. She turned violent and vindictive, was convicted of kidnapping and fraud, and after their divorce, she lashed out against him for letting “blacks down.”

Mandela’s fondness for fine scarves, beautiful ties, flamboyant shirts and well-cut suits made him a dandy. Many joked about the number of times he would change his clothes throughout the day. His hobnobbing with celebrities was at times excessive.

Other mistakes had greater consequences. He admitted that, as president, he could have done more to combat the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In the past, his abandonment of nonviolence gave the apartheid government an excuse to intensify its oppression. They shrewdly painted Madiba as a communist, and both the US and UK backed the apartheid regime until its last days.

In fact, it was only in 2008 that the US took Madiba off its of terrorists. The armed struggle of the ANC was ineffectual and put no pressure on the apartheid government. Gandhian civil disobedience would have served the ANC much better. The ANC needed to focus on its internal organization and plan its next mass movement instead of launching ill-conceived guerrilla attacks.

After Gandhi’s first movement ended in 1922, he patiently focused on preparing his next move, which he only launched in 1930. In an act of breathtaking symbolism, Gandhi conducted an epic to the sea to break oppressive salt laws. This triggered a movement of civil disobedience that captured the imagination of the country and did much to propel India towards independence.

Gandhi had studied law in England, earned his spurs in South Africa, corresponded with Russian writer and religious thinker , had a mentor like and was a deeply spiritual man.��

Madiba was a different kettle of fish. A former boxer, he was more impulsive and lacked the international exposure of Gandhi. Madiba was also a product of his time when the US and the UK stood discredited and communism and socialism held sway. He was unable to realize that the Soviet Union was a brutal totalitarian state and that communism was doomed to failure. To his credit, though, in later life he would prove non-dogmatic and abandon his Marxist ideas for pluralist democracy.

Africa’s greatest son

Just as Gandhi did not singlehandedly win independence for India, Madiba did not demolish apartheid alone. A range of reasons, such as the end of the Cold War, increasing unrest, international sanctions and exhaustion of the ruling elite, combined to bring down apartheid. Others like Tambo, Tutu and de Klerk played their part. Yet, it was �Ѳ��徱����’s magnanimity, empathy and vision that led to the birth of the Rainbow Nation. 

South Africa still has a multitude of problems. After more than a century of oppression, the country’s problems were never going to be solved in less than two decades. Poverty is rife, crime is rampant and corruption is endemic. The current president is building a worth an estimated $20 million and has tried to stop the press from talking about it.

The country is an ongoing experiment in democracy, and it is because of Madiba that it has been able to embark on such a journey. After nearly three decades in prison, a lesser man might have come out bitter or broken. Madiba came out of the fire as tempered steel.

Even in prison, he a meeting in 1985 with the then minister of justice, Kobie Coetsee. He did not inform anyone in the ANC about it, and he did so because he believed that at times “a leader must move ahead of his flock.”

As a free man, he behaved in a Gandhian manner, urging forgiveness and reconciliation. The Afrikaans that he learned in prison charmed sworn enemies such as Botha. Without Madiba, the post-apartheid negotiations would not have been successful, and the subsequent elections would not have been largely peaceful.

He had the magnanimity to praise former US President Ronald Reagan and former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, two leaders who were the strongest supporters of apartheid. When he went to prison, he was influenced by socialist economic ideas. When he came out and saw the collapse of the Soviet system, he was willing to embrace the free market and build bridges with the business community. Most importantly, Madiba exchanged the trappings of power for a life of simplicity, setting a new example for Africa.

What he means to us

I have spent the past couple of days reading every obituary of Madiba, and it made me realize why I do what I do. I found much of the coverage about the man superficial. Most writers refused to delve deeper into the complexity of �Ѳ��徱����’s life and the context in which he operated. Too many conveniently put him on a pedestal and refused to engage with his legacy. The Economist, to its credit, produced an over 3,000-word obituary written with its customary panache. Yet, as I read it, I could not help but wince.

Earlier this year, when Margaret Thatcher died, this 1843 publication titled its obituary, “”, and declared that “the world needs to hold fast to Margaret Thatcher’s principles.” No mention was made of Thatcher’s support of apartheid. Bobby Sands, the member of the Irish Republican Army who died of a hunger strike in prison, was forgotten. He died because Thatcher would not countenance demands such as the right of free association with other prisoners and to organize educational and recreational pursuits.

The Economist has been a brilliant voice, but it is the voice of the Empire, and a strong British leader like Thatcher evokes subliminal nostalgia. The newspaper tries to condone her support for apartheid by blaming �Ѳ��徱����’s commitment to armed struggle, conveniently ignoring that she had no objections to the violence unleashed by the apartheid regime. 

When , the wife of , was killed by a parcel bomb in Mozambique, Thatcher said nothing. She had no objection to the attempted murder of by a car bomb that left him without an arm and an eye. For those of us who come from the erstwhile colonies, Gandhi and Madiba are freedom fighters, and it is their principles instead of Thatcher’s that the world needs to hold fast to.

The point that I am making is about narratives. All of history is mythology, and all of the news is fiction. For too long, the colonizers have told the story of the world. A look at the past issues of The Economist reveals that it never examined apartheid or condemned it in the same way as it deplored communism.

Even when talking of Madiba, it patronizes his “sub-Marxist drivel” whilst ignoring the ignominious record of the British government in supporting apartheid. It mentions Madiba and Gandhi in the same breath as Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle and Jack Kennedy when enumerating the greatest statesmen of the 20th century.

From my point of view, only Roosevelt can be compared to Gandhi and Madiba. Although indubitably brilliant, Churchill was an imperial racist. He that if granted independence, Indians would slip “into the barbarism and privations of the Middle Ages.” De Gaulle was far too authoritarian, capricious and selfish. He withdrew from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), plunged the European Economic Community (EEC) into crisis, tried to maintain France’s imperial role, treated student uprisings brutally and resigned only after losing a referendum. Kennedy does not have any substantial achievements to even merit consideration. Glamor alone does not make a man great. Roosevelt, with his New Deal, Atlantic Charter and support for the creation of the United Nations, is the only one who makes the cut.

I am making a simple point: the work of Gandhi and Madiba stands unfinished. The quest for freedom includes the expression of one’s narrative. The story of the world, which has long been told by a chosen few, now needs to be told by the world itself. In a 1994 interview, the legendary African writer Chinua Achebe quoted a — “that until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter.” Through 51�Թ�, we are setting out to ensure that “the story of the hunt will also reflect the agony, the travail—the bravery, even, of the lions.”

 Madiba, we owe this to you!

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

The post Nelson Mandela: Mahatma Gandhi’s Heir and Africa’s Greatest Son appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This week Nelson Mandela died. As the world mourns the great man, 51�Թ� takes a . He has long been an inspiration to our entire team and we rededicate ourselves to the ideals of freedom, equality and justice for which Mandela was prepared to die.

North America

Fast-food workers in the US went on a 24-hour strike to protest low wages. The Unions want a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour and the Senate is proposing to increase it to $10.10, a move backed by President Obama. Unfortunately, it hardly has a chance of success because the Republican dominated House of Representatives will most likely shoot it down.

Real wages have in the third quarter for both men and women, and are down by 3.2% since Obama took office. This is part of a longer term trend where technological change, international trade and the decline of unions have put downward pressure on wages. Moreover, raising the minimum wage increases prices and lowers job creation, both unpleasant prospects for a struggling economy. The long terms fix is investing in skills and productivity, and that is what American policymakers have to focus on.

The US unemployment rate , a five-year low. Critics counter that this number understates unemployment because it does not take into account falling labor participation rates. The Federal Reserve has set a threshold of 6.5% as the unemployment rate when it will start considering a hike in interest rates. The Federal Reserve continues to stay in a bind. If it increases rates it might push the unemployment rate back up but at some point it has to start normalizing its monetary and stop pumping such a gargantuan amount of money in the economy.

South America

A day after an attack killed eight people, Farc, the left-wing Colombian rebel group, has announced a 30-day ceasefire starting December 15. The government insists that it will stop the fighting only when a final ceasefire is achieved. Talks have been going on since November to end a 50-year war that has killed an estimated 220,000 people.

In Brazil, growth has slowed to 1% this year. Inflation is at 5.8% and, for the first time since 2000, the country has run a trade deficit. Its deficit has increased from 2.4% in 2012 to 3.7% in 2013 and its currency has fallen by 14% this year against the dollar. Brazil needs urgent reforms such as the one it has instituted for infrastructure if it is to shore up its economy.

President Pena Nieto is pushing through a controversial energy bill in the Senate that would open up the oil sector to private investment. Nieto’s goal is to increase investment, create jobs and boost economic growth. Mexico is the 10^th largest oil producer and this is the biggest set of reforms proposed for this sector in the last 75 years. The left is calling the bill “national treason” and protesters are demonstrating outside the senate. If passed, this bill will shake up the monopoly of Pemex, the giant state owned company, and give Mexico a shot in the arm.

The most interesting news in the continent comes from Chile. It began Start-Up Chile, a program to attract entrepreneurs from around the world in an effort to build an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Outgoing President Sebastián Piñera declared 2013 as the year of innovation. This week it kicked off the inaugural Innovation and Entrepreneurship Forum of the Pacific Alliance — dubbed LAB4+ — to promote business innovation among entrepreneurs from four of the five Pacific Alliance nations — Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico.

Europe

The Ukrainian saga rolls on. President Viktor Yanukovych ordered a crackdown on protesters in Kiev’s Maidan Square. As protests intensified, so has Yanukovych’s repression. Lenin’s statue was toppled and the police are now breaking up protest camps. Not all is going for plan for Yanukovych though. In western Ukraine, the police refused to carry out his orders and local councils threatened a general strike.

Italy and Spain have new leaders of the left. Matteo Renzi will be leading the weak and divided Democratic Party of Italy. He is seen as a Tony Blair figure for Italy because he supports reforms such as cutting taxes and public sector salaries. As mayor of the historic city of Florence, this 38-year old has performed creditably. Susana Díaz became the leader of Spanish Socialists in Andalusia, which has an unemployment rate of 36%. Unlike Renzi, she has no experience in government and has no answers as to how to curb debt and spending going forward. The only new idea that her party is proposing is federalism, which Spain could do more of as it unravels centuries of centralization.

Africa

As Africa looks to China and even India for trade ties, France is trying to retain influence by guaranteeing peace and security. Its troops continue to operate in Mali and are now disarming militias in Central African Republic, where Christian and Muslim militias have been battling each other with a brutality that has led to the displacement of 400,000 people, nearly 10% of the country’s population. The fault lines are based on tribes but the conflict is exacerbated by religious fervor.

The most shocking development in Africa comes from Somalia. A woman who had complained of rape and two journalists who covered her story have been jailed. The court handed her a suspended six-month jail sentence for defamation and lying while the two journalists were sentenced for defamation and insulting state institutions. This is the third time this year when a woman reporting rape has been harassed or jailed by the authorities. Human Rights Watch has declared that the case “has been marred by mismanagement, opacity, and the harassment of the female rape survivor and support service providers.”

Middle East & North Africa

In Israel, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has announced that he will not be attending Mandela’s funeral because of high travel costs. One reason is that Netanyahu has been facing pressure recently for his opulent lifestyle. Then, Finance Minister Yair Lapid, declared that Netanyahu’s confrontation with the US “." Most unsettling, however, is that Mandela’s death has sharpened comparisons between Netanyahu’s Israel and apartheid South Africa. Israel’s are also coming under scrutiny.

The conflict in Syria continues to draw in Lebanon. A Hezbollah commander who fought in Syria was shot dead in Beirut. Hezbollah blamed Israel while an unknown Sunni organization, Ahrar al-Sunna Baalbek brigade, took credit for the attack. Meanwhile, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has linked President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to war crimes and crimes against humanity. She called for the situation in Syria to be referred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. What Pillay did not point out was that other parties in Syria are also guilty of similar crimes.

Central & South Asia

Nepal is in gridlock as parties negotiate fiercely to end the political crisis following the elections. The Maoists, having lost, are claiming electoral irregularities and are bitter about losing after winning the previous elections. The winners who represent a ragtag bunch of powerful interest groups are digging in their heels. Talks continue though and it may be that, behind the tough posturing, both sides may be inching towards a deal.

In Pakistan, Hagel met Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the new army chief, General Sharif. In a testy meeting, Hagel warned Pakistani leaders that their failure to tackle protests blocking military shipments to Afghanistan might affect the aid it receives. Sharif, on the other hand, protested that “drone strikes were counter-productive to our efforts to combat terrorism and extremism on an enduring basis.” The US and Pakistan are old allies but it is clear that the love has gone out of their relationship.

In nearby Kyrgyzstan, where the US pays $200 million per year just for jet fuel, the country has asked the US to pack up its Manas airbase. Promised $1.1 billion in military aid and $500 million in a debt write-off from Russia, Kyrgyzstan has no use for the Americans, who will leave by July. The decade-long era of direct American involvement in Central Asia is nearly over. Chinese President Xi Jinping has already proposed the “” and will be investing many billions of dollars into road, rail and pipeline projects that will connect the region with China.

Asia Pacific

In Thailand, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has dissolved parliament, called for new elections, proposed a national referendum, and even offered to resign to defuse the political crisis. Suthep Thaugsuban, leader of the opposition movement, promises to continue protests. He wants an unelected, undefined so called “people’s council” to run the country. The big question that Thaugsuban has to answer is about who would select the people’s council, if not the people. He might already have done that by calling for the new prime minister to be chosen by the monarch.

North Korea is going through some sort of purge. Leader Kim Jong-un's uncle, Chang Song-thaek, has been escorted out of a party session by uniformed guards. Pictures of this are making waves across the world. He has been accused of “forming factions against the state, corruption and "depraved" acts such as womanizing and drug abuse.”

South Korea faces a far milder problem of “silent suicides,” the term used for suicides by the elderly. In 2011, more than 4,000 people over 65 committed suicide. The on suicide makes grim reading. Suicides in South Korea have been rising dramatically and have quadrupled for the elderly. Many have often complained that the country has lost its soul.

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

The post Make Sense of the World: Weekly Roundup appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This week Nelson Mandela died. As the world mourns the great man, 51�Թ� takes a . He has long been an inspiration to our entire team and we rededicate ourselves to the ideals of freedom, equality and justice for which Mandela was prepared to die.

North America

In Canada, four soldiers who served in Afghanistan have committed suicide in one week. In 2011, 22 soldiers committed suicide and, in 2012, 13 did so. The Afghan war is clearly taking a toll on the Canadian military. The military health system is being questioned but the problem lies deeper. Soldiers can sense that their ordeal in Afghanistan is meaningless. Canadian troops serve a largely symbolic purpose in Afghanistan and soldiers probably sense the futility of the cause they serve. Obviously, Canada’s military health system has to improve but, more importantly, the government just needs to bring the troops home.

In the US, a federal judge allowed Detroit to file for bankruptcy. The city is more than $18 billion in debt and in no position to pay it off. Creditors including pension funds and retired employees will take the hit. This might clear the way for a wave of municipal bankruptcies in the US. Too many cities are groaning under debt that they can never pay back. has already filed for bankruptcy. It owes $14 million to the pension fund, CalPERS, which is challenging the city’s bankruptcy. This decision could be bad news for CalPERS. This wave of bankruptcies will be painful but it might lead to long needed reforms such as lowering pension burdens, increasing retirement age and balancing budgets.

Fast-food workers went on a 24-hour strike to protest low wages. The Unions want a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour and the Senate is proposing to increase it to $10.10, a move backed by President Obama. Unfortunately, it hardly has a chance of success because the Republican dominated House of Representatives will most likely shoot it down.

Real wages have in the third quarter for both men and women, and are down by 3.2% since Obama took office. This is part of a longer term trend where technological change, international trade and the decline of unions have put downward pressure on wages. The attempt to respond by imposing a minimum federal wage is an ill conceived move. Places like Mississippi and New York have entirely different conditions and it is madness to have a standard minimum wage across the country. Moreover, raising the minimum wage increases prices and lowers job creation, both unpleasant prospects for a struggling economy. The long terms fix is investing in skills and productivity, and that is what American policymakers have to focus on.

The US unemployment rate , a five-year low. Critics counter that this number understates unemployment because it does not take into account falling labor participation rates. The Federal Reserve has set a threshold of 6.5% as the unemployment rate when it will start considering a hike in interest rates. The Federal Reserve continues to stay in a bind. If it increases rates it might push the unemployment rate back up but at some point it has to start normalizing its monetary and stop pumping such a gargantuan amount of money in the economy.

South America

A day after an attack killed eight people, Farc, the left-wing Colombian rebel group, has announced a 30-day ceasefire starting December 15. The government insists that it will stop the fighting only when a final ceasefire is achieved. Talks have been going on since November to end a 50-year war that has killed an estimated 220,000 people. Both sides have so far agreed a tentative deal on land reform and a political future for Farc. They are now discussing the trickier issue of drug trafficking. The attack will make negotiations more difficult.

Venezuela’s governing party leads in local elections. President Maduro’s populist decisions to fix the prices of electronics, toys, clothes and cars, have won him support. Chavez’s legacy of populism is thriving and Venezuela is headed to an economic crisis in the near future.

In Brazil, growth has slowed to 1% this year. Inflation is at 5.8% and, for the first time since 2000, the country has run a trade deficit. Its deficit has increased from 2.4% in 2012 to 3.7% in 2013 and its currency has fallen by 14% this year against the dollar. Brazil needs urgent reforms such as the one it has instituted for infrastructure if it is to shore up its economy.

President Pena Nieto is pushing through a controversial energy bill in the Senate that would open up the oil sector to private investment. Nieto’s goal is to increase investment, create jobs and boost economic growth. Mexico is the 10^th largest oil producer and this is the biggest set of reforms proposed for this sector in the last 75 years. The left is calling the bill “national treason” and protesters are demonstrating outside the senate. If passed, this bill will shake up the monopoly of Pemex, the giant state owned company, and give Mexico a shot in the arm.

The most interesting news in the continent comes from Chile. For long, this country has been fostering entrepreneurship in an effort to diversify its economy and boost economic growth. It began Start-Up Chile, a program to attract entrepreneurs from around the world in an effort to build an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Outgoing President Sebastián Piñera declared 2013 as the year of innovation. This week it kicked off the inaugural Innovation and Entrepreneurship Forum of the Pacific Alliance — dubbed LAB4+ — to promote business innovation among entrepreneurs from four of the five Pacific Alliance nations — Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico. This is a promising development and Chile’s sustained efforts to foster innovation and entrepreneurship are likely to lead to a long-term boost to its economy.

Europe

The Ukrainian saga rolls on. President Viktor Yanukovych ordered a crackdown on protesters in Kiev’s Maidan Square. As protests intensified, so has Yanukovych’s repression. Lenin’s statue was toppled and the police are now breaking up protest camps. Not all is going for plan for Yanukovych though. In western Ukraine, the police refused to carry out his orders and local councils threatened a general strike. The battle for the soul of Ukraine is on in right earnest. The protest began over Yanukovych’s refusal to sign a treaty with the EU. Now it has become a battle between those who want Ukraine to become a western democracy with civil rights and rule of law, and those who want to see it preserve its ties with authoritarian states like Russia and Belarus. Even if Yanukyovich succeeds in chasing off protesters, the struggle will only intensify.

In France, after legalizing gay marriage, the government decided to make paying for sex a crime. Historically, France has had a tolerant attitude to prostitution. However, 90% of prostitutes in France are now foreigners and trafficking is rampant. The proponents of the legislation claim that it will mitigate the violence and crime associated with prostitution. Opponents believe that it will drive the problem further underground. The truth is that Europe is experimenting with what is the best way to deal with an age-old profession that raises deep dilemmas. Norway, Sweden, Finland and France have decided to tighten legal restrictions while Germany is following a laissez-faire model. Everyone will have second thoughts about their system in a few years.

Italy and Spain have new leaders of the left. Matteo Renzi will be leading the weak and divided Democratic Party of Italy. He is seen as a Tony Blair figure for Italy because he supports reforms such as cutting taxes and public sector salaries. As mayor of the historic city of Florence, this 38-year old has performed creditably. Allegations that Renzi is a slick self-promoter and a lightweight like Blair persist. Prime Minister Enrico Letta is from his party and Renzi will have to fight many battles to move the party to the center before he becomes a prime ministerial candidate. Susana Díaz is 39 and another young politician on the rise. She became the leader of Spanish Socialists in Andalusia, which has an unemployment rate of 36%. Unlike Renzi, she has no experience in government and has no answers as to how to curb debt and spending going forward. The only new idea that her party is proposing is federalism, which Spain could do more of as it unravels centuries of centralization. Over the last 35 years, decentralization has been taking place haphazardly. Creating a federal structure is a good idea but it remains to be seen if people will vote for it.

Africa

The big news in Africa is Nelson Mandela’s death. Much of Africa is in mourning and South Africa, in particular, is beginning the long process of coming to terms with the post-Mandela era. Click to read more about his life and times.

France hosted a summit of African states on peace and security. French Preisdent Francois Hollande is emasculated at home and is making up for it by intervening in Africa. Françafrique, the informal relationship between France and its former colonies involving contracts, arms and other questionable deals, is being reinvented. As Africa looks to China and even India for trade ties, France is trying to retain influence by guaranteeing peace and security. Its troops continue to operate in Mali and are now disarming militias in Central African Republic, where Christian and Muslim militias have been battling each other with a brutality that has led to the displacement of 400,000 people, nearly 10% of the country’s population. The fault lines are based on tribes but the conflict is exacerbated by religious fervor. As proselytizing continues and religious fervor grows in Africa, intensification of conflict will remain an abiding risk. For now, the French intervention has restored some order but real stability will only come when a peace deal backed by institutional arrangements is reached. For the moment, things are too chaotic for that sort of solution.

The most shocking development in Africa comes from Somalia. A woman who had complained of rape and two journalists who covered her story have been jailed. The court handed her a suspended six-month jail sentence for defamation and lying while the two journalists were sentenced for defamation and insulting state institutions. This is the third time this year when a woman reporting rape has been harassed or jailed by the authorities. Human Rights Watch has declared that the case “has been marred by mismanagement, opacity, and the harassment of the female rape survivor and support service providers.” Somalia’s internationally backed government is behaving barbarically. Instead of focusing on protecting women, establishing a better justice system and protecting the press, it is trying to sweep a major problem under the carpet. International backers need to crank up the pressure on the Somali government to reform the way it treats women.

Ethnic clashes have again broken out in Kenya. In the northern town of Moyale, rival ethnic groups have clashed over valuable grazing ground. Clashes are also occurring in the northwestern Turkana region where Tulow Oil has discovered oil deposits. Africa’s borders are arbitrary, its governance structures do not reflect tribal realities and institutional arrangements to share resources are as yet undeveloped. Clashes in Kenya demonstrate the need to build new post-imperial structures that are more rooted in the country’s grassroots realities. Meanwhile, as the pressure on resources intensifies such clashes will continue. The hope is that Africa will develop the experience and ability to defuse such clashes before they spiral out of control.

Middle East & North Africa

In Israel, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has announced that he will not be attending Mandela’s funeral because of high travel costs. Netanyahu has been facing pressure recently on many fronts. First, his opulent lifestyle has come under fire. Spending taxpayer money on flowers, gardening, laundry and water for swimming pools has not gone down well with the public. Second, Finance Minister Yair Lapid, the head of the second largest party in government, has declared on radio that Netanyahu’s confrontation with the US “.” Israelis are increasingly unsettled by poor relations with its closest ally and an increasingly poor reputation overseas. Third, Mandela’s death has sharpened comparisons between Netanyahu’s Israel and apartheid South Africa. Israel’s are also coming under scrutiny. Many of Mandela’s closest collaborators were Jewish. In fact, Jewish intellectuals played a historic role in the liberation of South Africa. Joe Slovo, the leader of the South African Communist Party, is still admired by friends and foes alike for his extraordinary ability to break the ice during the post-apartheid talks. In that light, Israel’s cozying up to the apartheid regime seems doubly cynical in retrospect and further chips away at its moral standing.

Al Jazeera reports that five Arab countries are in the in the world. Most Arab states have terrible governance structures, with authoritarian regimes based on patronage and repression. People lack education, there is an absence of useable infrastructure, capital is short, population is booming and borders are arbitrary. The Arab Uprisings are unfinished business and turmoil will continue as the region stumbles towards democracy, justice and better economic prospects. Obviously, some parts of the region are cash rich. Their challenge will be using that cash wisely to improve their societies and develop the region.

The conflict in Syria continues to draw in Lebanon. A Hezbollah commander who fought in Syria was shot dead in Beirut. Hezbollah blamed Israel while an unknown Sunni organization, Ahrar al-Sunna Baalbek brigade, took credit for the attack. With so many national, regional and international actors involved, the Syrian conflict is emerging as the modern counterpart of the Thirty Years War. Meanwhile, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has linked President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to war crimes and crimes against humanity. She called for the situation in Syria to be referred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. What Pillay did not point out was that other parties in Syria are also guilty of similar crimes. The Syrian conflict has long since become dehumanized, with atrocities on all sides are commonplace.

A most interesting development is the in the region. Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has long looked back to the Ottoman Empire with nostalgia and wants Turkey to be a model for the new democratizing societies in the region. While that goal might not be in peril, it is clear that Turkey’s reputation needs a facelift. Peace at home, economic growth and adroit diplomacy would help Erdogan greatly.

Central & South Asia

Nepal is in gridlock as parties negotiate fiercely to end the political crisis following the elections. The Maoists, having lost, are claiming electoral irregularities and are bitter about losing after winning the previous elections. The winners who represent a ragtag bunch of powerful interest groups are digging in their heels. Talks continue though and it may be that, behind the tough posturing, both sides may be inching towards a deal.

In Afghanistan, relations with the US continue to float in limbo with President Hamid Karzai’s intransigence over the Bilateral Security Arrangement (BSA). Karzai is meeting Iranian President Hassan Rouhani after US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel during ignored Karzai during his visit to Kabul. As the US winds down its tortuous ten years in Afghanistan, the chess game in the country is becoming fascinating. It is clear that the biggest external players when the US leaves will be Iran and Pakistan.

In nearby Kyrgyzstan, where the US pays $200 million per year just for jet fuel, the country has asked the US to pack up its Manas airbase. This airbase is a port from where American soldiers depart for and return from Afghanistan. Promised $1.1 billion in military aid and $500 million in a debt write-off from Russia, Kyrgyzstan has no use for the Americans, who will leave by July. The decade-long era of direct American involvement in Central Asia is nearly over. Now, Russia and China will jockey for power and influence. Chinese President Xi Jinping has already proposed the “” and will be investing many billions of dollars into road, rail and pipeline projects that will connect the region with China.

In Pakistan, Hagel met Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the new army chief, General Sharif. In a testy meeting, Hagel warned Pakistani leaders that their failure to tackle protests blocking military shipments to Afghanistan might affect the aid it receives. Sharif, on the other hand, protested that “drone strikes were counter-productive to our efforts to combat terrorism and extremism on an enduring basis.” The US and Pakistan are old allies but it is clear that the love has gone out of their relationship. Tensions between both countries are irresolvable and are only going to exacerbate in the near term.

Finally, state elections in India have led to a humiliating defeat of the corrupt Nehru family-led Congress. A newly formed anti-corruption party named the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which translates as the common man’s party, has performed creditably. India’s main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has won outright in the states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. In Delhi, neither the BJP nor the AAP have a majority. In these elections, India pioneered the “none of the above” voting option and in insurgency affected Chhattisgarh, 3.07% chose this option. After nearly six decades in power, the Nehru dynasty is weakening.

Asia Pacific

In Thailand, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has dissolved parliament, called for new elections, proposed a national referendum, and even offered to resign to defuse the political crisis. Suthep Thaugsuban, leader of the opposition movement, promises to continue protests. He wants an unelected, undefined so called “people’s council” to run the country. The big question that Thaugsuban has to answer is about who would select the people’s council, if not the people. He might already have done that by calling for the new prime minister to be chosen by the monarch.

Thaugsuban is a thug who is using the power of the mob to hold the country to ransom. He represents the avaricious Thai elite that do not want to concede an inch to the peasantry. It is reminiscent of European elites in the 19^th century trying their best to turn back the democratic tide. He wants the entire Shinawatra family out of politics despite the fact that they have popular support. Thaugsuban is overplaying his hand and fast losing credibility not only internationally but also internally. The protests might continue for a bit but they will probably be subsumed by a fractious election campaign.

North Korea is going through some sort of purge. Leader Kim Jong-un’s uncle, Chang Song-thaek, has been escorted out of a party session by uniformed guards. Pictures of this are making waves across the world. He has been accused of “forming factions against the state, corruption and “depraved” acts such as womanizing and drug abuse.” The young and chubby Kim seems to be consolidating his hold on power. North Korea is an incredibly opaque country but there is clearly a feud in the ruling family. Such a public humiliation reveals stresses in the hermit kingdom though, as yet, it does not look likely that the Kim regime will collapse.

South Korea faces a far milder problem of “silent suicides,” the term used for suicides by the elderly. In 2011, more than 4,000 people over 65 committed suicide. The on suicide makes grim reading. Suicides in South Korea have been rising dramatically and have quadrupled for the elderly. Many have often complained that the country has lost its soul. South Korea is now an incredibly materialistic society. It leads the world in the use of credit cards, plastic surgery and cosmetics. At the same time, there is a crisis of the soul. Missionaries have colonized South Korea. It is now a Christian majority nation and its Confucian social contract is dead. A society obsessed with youth, beauty, luxury and wealth has no place for the elderly who often end up taking their lives to avoid loneliness, poverty and misery.

The most interesting development in China is that Beijing will take into account the debt incurred by local governments when it rates them. This might be the start of an effort to curb the over investment that has been going on in Chinese economy for years. Many surmise that this has led to a twin crisis of a bubble in real estate and of the explosion of bad debts on the balance sheets of banks. The country is littered with grand projects that have gone nowhere from gleaming stadia in the middle of nowhere to entire cities that are empty. Local governments owe banks over 1.6 trillion and are among the biggest threats to the economy, especially because China does not have an adequate legal framework for bankruptcy. Beijing will have to show real political will to rein in the local government debt problem. It could begin with drafting decent laws for bankruptcy and letting the Chinese own version of Detroit to go bankrupt.

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

The post Make Sense of the World: Weekly Report 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�.

By Francis Njubi Nesbitt

"Who is this man Mandela?" The US News & World Report asked in January 1990. Apparently no one knew much, since the magazine could only come up with three short paragraphs about the ANC leader. This sketch of Nelson Mandela's life seemed to be drawn from a Who's Who collection, detailing his early education, legal practice, and arrest by South African authorities in August 1962. Referring to him a as a "living legend," a "martyr," and "saint," the article noted that "Mandela has not been photographed or quoted directly since his final statement from the dock."

Nobody knew what Mandela looked like after 27 years in prison. Yet, the effort by South Africa's apartheid government to ban his image and words backfired as Mandela acquired a near-messianic aura. 

The "Free Mandela Campaign," launched after he was charged with sabotage at the "Rivonia Trial" in 1963, became one of the most visible international human rights movements of the 20th century. The United Nations General Assembly repeatedly called for his unconditional release. Trade unions, political parties, and student groups around the world joined the campaign to free the leaders of the ANC. 

In 1984, both houses of the US Congress adopted a "Mandela freedom resolution." Mayor Eugene Gus Newport of Berkeley, California, proclaimed June 9, 1984, to be "Nelson and Winnie Mandela Day." Detroit's city council adopted a resolution on September 10 of that year calling for the freedom of Nelson and Winnie Mandela. On October 11, anti-apartheid organizations in the US presented the United Nations with petitions for the release of Nelson Mandela signed by over 34,000 people.

The imminent release of what the London Times called "the colossus of African nationalism in South Africa” sent media around the world into a frenzy. "Waiting for Mandela" became the standard headline. In an article titled "Awaiting Mandela," The Economist wrote: "The man jailed a quarter of a century ago on sabotage charges now holds the key to peaceful resolution of his country's racial conflict." Nevertheless, the magazine managed to spend most of the editorial giving credit to apartheid leader Frederik Willem de Klerk for his "reforms." Returning to Mandela at the end, the editor observed: "Prestige apart, this is true: when arrested 25 years ago, Mr. Mandela was merely one of the party's four provincial leaders."

The Voice of Freedom

"Nightline makes history," Ted Koppel declared from Cape Town where he had relocated to cover Mandela's release live. Koppel hosted a "town meeting" before the event, where de Klerk's henchmen were given an opportunity to promote the new, "reasonable" face of apartheid. 

From the beginning, however, it was clear that the US media was out of its depth. The Mandela story did not fit into the neat news routines of the United States. First, the release was delayed by several hours, throwing everybody's deadlines off. Then, organizers allowed members of the South African Communist Party to hang the red flag on the podium and make "radical" speeches. Finally, Mandela's first speech in 27 years began with 15 minutes of salutations to all the dignitaries assembled and freedom fighters past and present who had made that moment possible. 

But it was Mandela's visit to the United States some four months later that most highlighted how much America had yet to learn about the anti-apartheid leader.

Nelson and Winnie Mandela arrived to a tremendous reception at John F. Kennedy International Airport on June 20, 1990. An estimated 750,000 New Yorkers lined Broadway for a "ticker-tape" parade usually reserved for returning war heroes and sports teams. 

Mandela rode through New York in a specially built bulletproof vehicle nicknamed the "Mandelamobile" by New York police. That night, 100,000 people jammed Harlem's Africa Square to hear Mandela speak at the same podium where Malcolm X had called on the South African government to release Mandela, two decades before. New York also honored the ANC leader with a rally of 80,000 at the Yankee Stadium, complete with a rock concert and vendors selling Mandela T-shirts, Mandela flags, and Mandela caps. Introducing Mandela, the equally legendary Harry Belafonte said there had never been a voice more identified with freedom. Rising to the moment, Mandela donned a Yankees cap and broke into an impromptu rendition of the toyi toyi, a South African victory dance. Time editors, astonished at the reception, titled the next issue of the magazine, "A Hero in America."

During his 11 days in the United States, Mandela visited eight cities, made 26 televised speeches, attended 21 meetings and fund-raisers, and addressed five news conferences. 

The interviews sometimes produced dramatic confrontations. In a pointed exchange with Koppel during a nationally televised "town meeting" at City College of New York, Mandela defended his right to meet with leaders of "rogue states" like Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat, and Muammar Gaddafi. "They support our struggle to the hilt," Mandela told Koppel and proceeded to lecture him on gratitude and self-determination. "Any man who changes his principles according to whom he is dealing," he told Koppel to applause from the audience, "that is not a man who can lead a nation." Koppel was speechless. Breaking a protracted silence, Mandela laughed, asking: "I don't know if I have paralyzed you?" Members of the Jewish Congress at the "town meeting" argued that Mandela's support for the PLO was unacceptable, but quickly added that they appreciated Mandela's statement that he supported Israel's right to exist.

The Castro issue proved less amenable to Mandela's charm. On June 28, the Cuban-American mayors of Miami and surrounding cities refused to meet with Mandela because of his statements about Fidel Castro. The airwaves of Spanish-language radio in Miami were filled with attacks on Mandela for his comments. Outside Miami Beach Convention center, African-American activists faced off with Cuban-Americans during an appearance by Mandela, attended by some 5,000 cheering admirers.

This snub from Miami's Cuban-American community led to a three-year boycott of Miami's tourism industry by African Americans organized by the Boycott Miami: Coalition for Progress, which announced in 1993 that Miami had lost over $50 million in revenues from cancellations by black businesses. The boycott ended in August 1993 after an agreement that called on Miami's business community to commit to black empowerment through providing loans, bonding, insurance, and contracting opportunities. 

In Washington, Mandela's schedule included meetings with the President George H. W. Bush in the White House, and a rare nationally televised address by a foreigner to a joint session of both Houses of Congress. During this address, Mandela called on the United States to maintain sanctions until apartheid had been dismantled. He linked the anti-apartheid struggle to that of American freedom fighters like John Brown, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and Paul Robeson. In Atlanta, he paid tribute to the leaders of the civil rights movement and laid a wreath on the tomb of Martin Luther King Jr. 

"Can't Touch This"

Mandela's final stop in the United States was in Oakland, California, which was widely known as the "cradle of the divestiture movement." Congressman Ron Dellums was ecstatic about the visit. "I was elated when he agreed to come to Oakland to attend a rally in our municipal stadium," he said. "With tens of thousands of community activists filling the ball field and the stands, Mandela was greeted with thunderous cheers. Being able to bring Mandela home to my community and introduce him to my people brought to my mind the words of a popular rap tune 'Can't Touch This.'"

Nowhere had the anti-apartheid movement taken hold like in the San Francisco Bay Area. In the mid-1980s, longshoremen refused to unload South African cargo at Bay Area ports. Cities like Oakland adopted some of the toughest divestment laws in the country. In Berkeley, students boycotted classes, built shanties, occupied buildings, and were arrested in efforts to get the university to divest. In 1986, California Governor George Deukmejian signed legislation proposed by then-Assemblywoman Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) allowing the state's pension fund to divest its $13 billion in assets. Over 100 US companies, including IBM and Coca Cola, followed suit.

American conservatives, meanwhile, maintained a hard line against Mandela and his "maintain sanctions" campaign. President Bush and his aides in the State Department used every opportunity to praise de Klerk. At a press event during Mandela's visit, Bush took time to discuss his warm regard for de Klerk, even though the questioner had not asked about him. The White House had also tried to invite de Klerk for a state visit several times, only to reverse itself because of popular opposition. According to The Washington Post: "Mr. de Klerk can depend on a warm center of support in the White House. While Mr. Mandela has been a hero to the masses, Mr. de Klerk is officialdom's champion."

The Post argued that Bush's regard for de Klerk was based on a "habit" of supporting South African whites. Summing up Bush's position, the newspaper concluded: "Although American officials admire Mr. Mandela, they believe Mr. de Klerk is more important, and his departure from the scene would most upset prospects for peaceful change."

Forbes also joined the bash-Mandela club with an article by Michael Novak titled: "No Hard Questions Please, Nelson Mandela and the US Media." Novak accused reporters of "racism" and "double standards" for supposedly placing Mandela above criticism. "If Mandela were white — if he were Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, Fidel Castro or even Mikhail Gorbachev — his substantive views would certainly have been subjected to criticism." Novak also claimed that Mandela was merely a pleasant face of a "secretive and extremist organization" that "maintains a close alliance with the Communist Party."   

US News & World Report argued that the visit was "an unalloyed triumph within black America," but added that "much of white America wasn't paying serious attention. A riveting interview with Ted Koppel on ABC, broadcast during prime time, drew a meager 9 percent share of the television audience… Mandela discovered the same lesson as Gorbachev on his last visit: It's hard for any foreign visitor to fire the American imagination these days." 

Free at Last!

South Africa held its first democratic elections in 1994. The election featured the incumbent National Party’s F.W. de Klerk, Mangosuthu Buthelezi of the Inkatha Freedom Party, and Mandela of the African National Congress.

On May 2, 1994, de Klerk conceded defeat, saying Mandela had "walked a long road and now stands at the top of the hill. A traveler would sit down and enjoy the view but a man of destiny knows that beyond this hill lies another and another… As he contemplates the future I hold out my hand in friendship and cooperation." 

Hours later, Mandela claimed victory at a Johannesburg hotel. In a gracious speech, Mandela congratulated de Klerk and the people of South Africa, calling the moment "a joyous night for the human spirit." On May 6, the Independent Electoral Commission announced its final vote tally: 62.6 percent for the ANC, 20.3 for de Klerk's National Party, and 10.5 percent for Inkatha. On May 8, planes approached South Africa from all corners of the earth bearing the largest gathering of black heads of state ever. Three of these planes carried the 44-member official US delegation led by Vice President Al Gore and his wife Tipper, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and a congressional delegation. The overwhelmingly black delegation marked an historic stage for African-American participation in US foreign policy.

Vice President Al Gore emphasized the African-American connection in official remarks generally ignored by the mainstream US press. "The transition here and the civil rights movement in the United States have been closely intertwined longer than many realize," he said. "The lessons of the spirit which came out of America's civil rights movement have been vigorously exported to South Africa and have, in turn, been taken to the United States."

The ceremony was followed by an African and African-American healing ceremony at Johannesburg's integrated Marker Theatre, where poet Maya Angelo and South African artists raised up the names of the ancestors who had made the moment possible. Al Gore raised up the names of Du Bois and the African Methodist Episcopal Church and other African American activists, who had participated in the struggle. "To the United States, this transformation has special significance. After all, for years, Americans agonized over the horrors of our own apartheid. And the struggle for justice in South Africa and in the United States has in many ways been one struggle."

*[Note: Francis Njubi Nesbitt is a professor of Africana Studies at San Diego State University. He is the author of Race for Sanctions and has published numerous book chapters and articles in academic journals. 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 When America Met Mandela appeared first on 51�Թ�.