Mandela’s philosophy and Africa’s under-development

mandela & tyson

By Princewill Alozie

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)