Many fear a future without Mandela
Peacekeeper has held South Africa together
What is next for South Africa?
South Africans have been pondering the question since Nelson Mandela’s first and only term as president ended in 1999, although it took on greater urgency as the antiapartheid crusader began to fade from public view four or five years ago. It became a national obsession after it was announced on June 8 that he was again in hospital, now reportedly in critical condition. The country’s president urged South Africans Monday to pray for “the father of democracy.”
In conversations with scores of South Africans over the past few weeks, it has been obvious to me that most had become resigned to Mandela’s death, whether now or very soon. They do not want him to suffer any longer. Even hard-core Afrikaner nationalists have made plain their respect and admiration for Mandela the peacemaker, with his remarkable gift of forgiveness.
At the same time, there has been universal dread among South Africa’s many tribes about the way ahead without him. Although he has been officially out of public life for 14 years, the fact that his heart still beat seemed to calm the nation. But what of the future?
Poor blacks from the roughest precincts of Alexandra and Soweto townships, as well as middle-class blacks from Soweto’s fancier areas or from the still mostly white suburbs of Johannesburg, have fretted openly about tribal conflict after Mandela.
The biggest fear in a post-Mandela era is that a war would likely pit the two largest tribes — the Xhosas and Zulus — against each other. Mandela is Xhosa, but spent much of his presidency assiduously cultivating good relations with the Zulus, who still regard themselves as part of a great warrior tradition.
Rural Afrikaners, meanwhile, fear a land grab, with farms that have been held by whites for centuries seized by the government or blacks — as happened in Robert Mugabe’s neighbouring Zimbabwe. Some Boer farmers have armed themselves: they intend to fight to defend what they believe is theirs. This in turn has caused unease among urban, often liberal whites. They fear they may become targets themselves if the Afrikaners get involved in a race war. Some Afrikaners still pine for white rule.
At the same time, a few blacks, especially young men with no memory of apartheid, have been somewhat impatient with Mandela. They grumbled that he had not done enough to put more land or other property into black hands, and treated whites too kindly. Keen to have a larger slice of the economic pie, these militants, who see themselves as the heirs to his movement, have pushed for a reckoning with whites and the Indian minority which, if it ever comes, will probably not be gentle.
The prosperous Indian community mostly puts a brave face on its situation, but worries that without the moderating influence of Mandela, the country could take a dramatically xenophobic turn. This is also a major preoccupation of several million economic immigrants from countries such as Zimbabwe and Mozambique who are already the subject of open hostility from poor South African blacks.
Some South Africans have not liked the foreign media staking out their “Madiba’s” hospital and his home. They have not wanted to share him because he was their freedom fighter and the Father of their Nation. His accomplishments are legendary.
They have been possessive of the man who endured 27 years in prison, won South Africa’s first democratic elections in 1994 and made it possible for blacks to live anywhere in their country. He created more educational opportunities for his people and made health care available to far more of them than when the Afrikaners ruled the roost.
The problem, as everyone of South Africa’s tribes sees it, has been that nobody other than Mandela has their confidence. The general view is that Mandela’s political successors in the African National Congress have been venal, corrupt and incompetent. Witness the outrageous Keystone Kops screw-up earlier this month, when the military ambulance rushing Mandela to hospital broke down by the roadside, leaving the 94-year-old statesman waiting 40 minutes for a new vehicle.
There is a lack of affection for current President Jacob Zuma and his ANC cronies, who have been prone to giving generous backhanders to their kin and who suffer a sense of entitlement. Zuma, for example, took $2 million from the public purse to refurbish his home. Recently, friends of the president were allowed to land a private jet at a military airfield while on their way to a wedding. Worse yet for South Africa, there is no obvious successor to Mandela in the ANC, which is close to running a one-party state. This includes members of Mandela’s large extended family: none of them has yet come to the fore. They are most famous for squabbling recently over the inheritances their patriarch was going to leave them.
Aside from the potential for bloody tribal or racial conflicts, and the great harm it would cause to an already fragile economy and wary investors, South Africa’s currency, the rand, which heavily depends on metals such as gold and platinum, has seriously weakened. Unemployment has been rising, owing to a decline in the mining business.
HIV/AIDS is another grave problem. Officially, more than five million South Africans have been infected. The real figure may be double that but cultural stigma and taboos prevent people from finding out whether they are HIV-positive. Many of those afflicted with HIV/AIDS are young. The cost to the state has been enormous.
People have known for some time that Mandela won’t live long.
However, many are scared of what happens after. Mandela has been the glue holding the Rainbow Nation together for 19 years.