Blame Mandela’s successors for our ills, not him or his legacy

NELSON Mandela has been getting a bum rap lately. Almost three years after his death, the undisputed icon of our struggle against apartheid is coming in for searing criticism from certain quarters.

As our democracy sours or loses its sparkle, people look around for scapegoats. And of course, as the Chinese would say, the tallest tree tends to catch the most wind.

The trouble with Mandela, we’re told, was that he was just too nice, too eager to turn the other cheek, he bent over backwards or just about prostrated himself in front of his enemies. In their telling, it’s almost as though Mandela was complicit in apartheid crimes or that, instead of ridding us of the scourge, in 1994 he had compounded our difficulties. That’s a sellout, in short. Well, defaming the dead comes at no cost.

Such a canard is often uttered by people who would hardly recognise the inside of a jail if they were to happen upon it. Peacetime heroes, Mandela used to call them.

But that’s the beauty — and irony — of freedom. The critics are able to speak their mind, even excoriate Mandela harshly, because he — and many others — selflessly devoted his life to the attainment of that freedom. Beneficiaries of the fruits of his sacrifice are merrily displaying their ingratitude. But that’s par for the course.

People are casting about and trying to make sense of their current predicament. Mandela is simply a scapegoat for the failure of our freedom to deliver, or the inadequacies of his successors.

As things unravel, people tend to look back to find fault. The 1994 settlement is thus faulted for being skewed in favour of the status quo ante, and Mandela’s policy of national reconciliation is seen as akin to turning the other cheek.

This is self-serving nonsense by the very people who’ve brought the country to such a pretty pass. The problem is not the agreement, but the mismanagement of affairs since. The situation was always going to be a work in progress, regardless of the nature of the agreement.

A settlement is by definition a compromise. But it was not supposed to be the final destination or a perfect solution. It was the beginning of a journey to a better life. Things were meant to improve; instead they’ve deteriorated, and that cannot be blamed on Mandela, but on the recklessness of his successors.

The ANC could not have imposed their will at Codesa. They did not shoot their way into power. They didn’t have the will or might to do so. The much-vaunted armed struggle was more a propaganda weapon, if not a façade.

Even the ANC’s intelligence was so poor that they were taken by complete surprise when FW de Klerk suddenly gave them permission to come home in 1990. Jacob Zuma, the erstwhile head of ANC intelligence, was accordingly rewarded with the leadership of party and country. And we scratch our heads wondering why the country is falling apart!

People talk as if Mandela was a lone ranger, taking major decisions on his own. If that were the case, Cyril Ramaphosa, not Thabo Mbeki for instance, would have succeeded him as president.

But nothing sticks in such people’s craw like Mandela’s policy of reconciliation. It leaves one wondering what’s wrong with spreading a bit of harmony in such a racially and ethnically diverse country. Aren’t peace and stability necessary ingredients of progress? And what’s the critics’ viable alternative? Civil war? Vuwani is a welcome taster, then.

Mandela is often incorrectly referred to as the progenitor of reconciliation. But that title belongs to that revolutionary firebrand up north. It was Robert Mugabe who, after winning the first elections in 1980, formed a unity government in Zimbabwe that included representatives of all parties, including the white minority, “in the interest of reconciliation”.

Mugabe said: “I urge you, whether you are black or white, to join me in a new pledge to forget our grim past. Join hands in a new amity.”

Denis Norman, chairman of the Commercial Farmers’ Union, became minister of agriculture and, significantly, Peter Walls, head of the Rhodesian army and scourge of Zanla forces, became head of the new, unified army. It was not until Mugabe started losing electoral support that he changed tack.

Apparently reconciliation was not even Mugabe’s idea. It was imposed on him by Samora Machel, who had earlier frogmarched him to the Lancaster House talks in London where Zimbabwe’s future was decided. Zanla forces were fighting from Mozambique and Machel thus had sway over Mugabe.

Machel had learnt from the mistakes his country, along with Angola, had made after Portugal, their colonial master, left.

Both countries went on a binge, expelling Portuguese expatriates, nationalising industry and private property and precipitously descending into years of civil war, the effects of which they have yet to recover from. That, unfortunately, is the story of many African countries.

It seems there are some among us who have yet to learn that lesson.

Comment on this: write to tellus@sundaytimes.co.za or SMS us at 33971 www.sundaytimes.co.za