Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela as a human being and as
a phenomenon was never static. He lived up to the
age of 95 years. He did not develop any particular
philosophy with the title: Mandelaism. We can distil
his political, economic, and social philosophy from
his speeches, political activities and behaviour. His
initial involvement in South African politics was
based on the non-violence principle. This stance
was changed to military intervention when he co-
founded the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe with the
South African Communist Party. He was eventually
tried and imprisoned for life, on treason charges.
After 27 years in prison, Mandela reverted to his
former non-violence political philosophy. We can
therefore say that Mandelaism encompasses:
Freedom, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation.
Considering the report that no fewer than 91 Heads
of State who attended Mandela’s burial on
December 15, it is important to remember that it
was the British Government in 1909, that passed
through her parliament The Act of Union. This Act of
Union handed over power to the whites in South
Africa, while at the same time did not protect the
owners of the land. Various White South African
leaders articulated the view: “It is our aim to make
South Africa, a white man’s country”. There was
then the Native Land Bill under which about 1 million
white South Africans will own over 90% of the land,
while about 7% is left for the more than 4 million
black populations who owned the land initially. The
very productive, fertile land was confiscated by the
white – ruled South African government. Despite
this unjust social order, the African National
Congress (ANC) as a political organization drew up
in 1955 the Freedom Charter. The Charter states
that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black
and white, and that no government can justly claim
authority unless it is based on the will of the
people”.
Chief Albert Lutuli canvassed for a better social
order through non-violent channels. He was
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The Non-violence
philosophy Mandela embraced had a knock by one
of the practitioners. Chief Albert Lutuli stated: “Who
will deny that 30 years of my life have been spent
knocking in vain, patiently, moderately and
modestly at a closed and barred door? What have
been the fruits of moderation? The past 30 years
have seen the greatest number of laws restricting
our rights and progress, until today we have
reached a stage where we have almost no rights at
all”. This statement was made in 1960.
Fundamentally, not much has changed, even after
the official end of apartheid policy.
Some tenets of Mandelaism could be drawn from
Mandela’s defence speech at the Rivonia trial in
1964. Again, the charge that Mandela betrayed his
revolutionary colleagues is not strictly correct at all
times. The four and half hours speech, as
summarized by Guy Arnold in his – AFRICA.
According to that summary, which has been
corroborated by other sources, Africans “want a
just share in the whole of South Africa; we want
security and a stake in society. Above all we want
equal political rights, because without them our
disabilities will be permanent”. What the Africans
now have is “equal political rights”. If the emphasis
had been on “equal economic rights”, then the
charge of betrayal could stand. The above summary
can fit in perfectly into the neo-liberal ideology that
helps Africa march backwards in all spheres. It was
this interpretation of the Freedom Charter that
Mandela referred to in his historic declaration:
“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 achieve. But if needs be it is an ideal for
which I am prepared to die”.
There are however, other interpretations of the
ANC’s Freedom Charter different from Mandelaism.
These include: “The People shall govern… the
national wealth of our country, the heritage of South
Africans, shall be restored to the people; the mineral
wealth beneath the soil, the Banks and monopoly
industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the
people as a whole; all other industry and trade shall
be controlled to assist the well-being of the people”.
It is widely reported that Mandela subscribed to the
tenets of the ANC Freedom Charter even before he
left the prison. That may well be so. There is need
for an explanation of how the iconic anti-apartheid
nationalist, who was prepared to pay the supreme
price for the attainment of the tenets of the Freedom
Charter will turn almost 360 degrees against the
wordings of the Freedom Charter.
It is very possible that the intense negotiation with
key ANC members, including Mandela before his
release from prison, after his release and before he
became the first black South African president, may
have contributed to this shift. The presence of
Thabo Mbeki, and Jacob Zuma were possible
factors. Mbeki spent quite some time in Britain
during the apartheid era, and drank deeply from the
neo-liberal ideology that helped Margaret Thatcher
dismantle the British economy and the economies
where Britain had influence.
During Mandela’s rule, he and his team agreed to
the independence of the Central Bank, and to the
ceding of the position of Finance Minister to the
person who held the position under the apartheid
regime. In essence, the economy was in the hands
of white apartheid disciples. The role of the big
corporations in South Africa continued as usual
without improvement for the masses. The
emergence of World Bank and International
Monetary Fund personnel as Central Bank and
Finance Minister in a country that has accepted to
implement all the dictates of the Washington
consensus is tragic for socio-economic well-being
of South Africa and for the entire developing world.
Nigeria for instance, has a Central Bank Governor
who is competing with the Finance Minister for the
mismanagement of the economy. The Central Bank
is autonomous and the World Bank functionary who
is the Finance and coordinating Minister is virtually
the political and economic head of government.
President Jonathan in this regard is unwittingly kept
aside from the effective leadership of Nigeria, while
CBN and Finance Ministry run the country according
to Washington consensus or according to the
Structural Adjustment Principles which include the
following: Fiscal discipline, reordering public
expenditure priorities, tax reform; liberalizing
interest rates; a competitive exchange rate; trade
liberalization; liberalization of inward foreign direct
investment; privatization; deregulation and property
rights.
The implementation of these policies also referred to
as neo-liberalism qualify to tag Nelson Mandela
anti-people when he was the President, despite
rhetoric’s that appear to make him look
progressive! His resentful attitude to Robert Mugabe
who is trying to teach white settlers and their
foreign supporters that independence without land
is meaningless. Mugabe had tried all the
recommendations of the Structural Adjustment
Programme with disastrous consequences for
Zimbabwe. He decided to change gear for the good
of the economy.
Direct and indirect sanctions against Zimbabwe
ruined the economy. When you mention Mugabe,
people quickly talk about his age and how long he
has been in power. People do not try to find out if
the imperialist sponsored possible alternatives are
what the country needs. What is more, attempts are
not made to find out the number of years and the
undemocratic style of governance that prevail
among friends of the owners of Structural
Adjustment Programme. Have a peep at the whole
of the Middle East in order to draw your conclusion.
In terms of anti-imperialist struggle, Robert Mugabe
stands very tall. Indigenous South Africans do not
own the land and no serious attempt has been
made to redress this anomaly.
The most damaging aspects of Mandelaism is the
stance on Reparation and the Jubilee Debt
Movement. The Jubilee anti-debt movement was
canvassing for the cancellation, of the huge debt
South Africa is assumed to owe. These debts are
obviously odious. Some victims of apartheid filed
lawsuits in New York against some corporations,
and demanding reparation for the iniquities of
apartheid. Both Mandela and Thabo Mbeki opposed
the suits on the grounds that South Africa has its
own reconciliation outfit; and that such suits and
demand for reparation will frighten foreign
investors. What is further puzzling is that the
departing white rulers ensured that there is what
Naomi Klein in THE SHOCK DOCTRINE called
“reparation in reverse”. Patrick Bond’s Looting
Africa will enable readers have continental outlook
of what is happening to Africa, while Naomi Klein’s
book touched many countries of the world.
Mandelaism as a philosophy of development and
governance incorporates as Freedom, Forgiveness
and Reconciliation.
•Professor Alozie teaches at Lagos State University,
(LASU)
No comments:
Post a Comment