The characterization of former South African President Nelson Mandela as ‘soft’ and ‘too saintly’ by President Mugabe in Dali Tambo’s programme, People of the South has the potential effect of misrepresenting and bastardising history particularly given the increasingly contested nature of policy direction and national priorities in post-colonial African societies. The wrong characterisation of Mandela is full of historical factual flaws and amnesia. It represents an illusionists impression of history that seeks to create ‘sell outs’ and ‘revolutionaries’ - or in Professor Terrence Ranger’s words, ‘a patriotic history’ full of false consciousness. This opine will argue that, failing to question such historical misrepresentations may undermine people’s voices in charting policy direction and national priorities in the post colony as former liberation movement leaders plunder and pillage public resources under the guise of a revolution. There seems to be a growing mistaken belief that disenfranchisement of white people will transform into prosperity for black people to despatch such flawed reasoning it will be argued that Dali Tambo and Mugabe disingenuously sought to re-invent the image of President Mugabe as a Robin Hood of Africans, while ignoring the reality of the politics of decolonisation. It is undeniable that colonialism and apartheid dehumanised and dis-empowered Black Africans. This paper will therefore not engage with that discourse, as there is no need for re-emphasis. However, by labelling Mandela as too good and saintly to non-black people (whites in particular),is flawed in two ways. The first assumption is to reduce the African National Congress (ANC) and all its members into ‘political yoyos’ of Mandela. This reasoning insinuates that Mandela ran the ANC as a personal fiefdom, just as President Mobutu of Zaire (now DRC) or Kamuzu Banda of Malawi did, to such an extent that all that mattered in post-apartheid South African politics was Mandela. Whilst Mandela managed to serve as a uniting figure and brand for the ANC in post-apartheid South Africa it would be wrong to claim that the new South Africa the ANC agreed to, was as result of a one man feat. It should be noted that during President Mandela’s time, Deputy President Thabo Mbeki was almost the defacto president of the Republic of South Africa as he almost literally ran the day to day affairs of government; an observation alluded to by Mark Gevisser in his book, “Thabo Mbeki The Dream Deferred” and William Mervin Gumede’s book, “Thabo Mbeki and The Battle For The Soul Of The ANC”. This was necessitated by the realisation within the ANC that while Mandela had been a fatherly symbol of perseverance, dignity and reconciliation, floating above the fray as a kind of patron saint of that grand compromise, there was need for a new broom to take over the reins of state power and chart the discourse of transformation. Therefore, the compromise by the ANC under the leadership of Mandela exhibited great vision and maturity, for nations are never built on populism. Henceforth, Mandela was neither soft nor a sell-out but a pragmatic leader who was quite aware, that while the Blacks had the numbers, the Whites had the guns and the money. Thus it was not desirable to threaten the non-black community as that may have prolonged instability but there was need for a compromise. Secondly, the argument of ‘Mandela the saint’ also disingenuously attempts to ignore the realities of the politics of decolonisation and nation building. One fundamental question that faced liberation movements in Africa especially those that were former settler colonies was the question of the architecture of new society in particular racial relations. Given this scenario the ANC and even Robert Mugabe’s ZANU PF were faced with the same dilemma and had to agree to a settlement agreement that did not threaten the former colonisers. Thus in 1980 Mugabe had to say, “It must be realized however that a state of peace and security can only be achieved by our determination, all of us, to be bound by the explicit requirements of peace contained in the Lancaster House agreement, which express the general desire of the people of Zimbabwe. Surely this is now time to beat our swords into ploughshares, so we can attend to the problems of developing our economy and our society”. Therefore, Zimbabwe adopted a policy of reconciliation as one key determinant to ensure smooth transfer of power and as well build the foundations of a new state. The same happened in South Africa where the ANC agreed to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a strategy of closing the chapter of apartheid and create a new society. It should be realised that without assuaging the minority Apartheid and Rhodesian governments, that would have meant protracted conflict. It was not just the barrel of the gun that brought independence, but negotiations as well played their role. In addition Mozambique had also served as an example to other former liberation movements to tread carefully, as the expulsion of the Portuguese community soon after gaining its independence had negative consequences. Thirdly, the Dali Tambo-Mugabe interview suggests a linear history for Zimbabwe from 1980 to the present. In this history, Mugabe is painted as a blemish free revolutionary fighter who has managed to return to Black people their Land and Natural Resources. As a thank you for the public relations stunt, Mugabe cajoles Tambo by invoking nostalgia and mystification of the past claiming that “If Tambo’s father was alive, the ANC would be different”. In African culture we say the dead are saints. There are fundamental historical flaws in these assumptions. This creates the flaw of ‘pitfalls of national consciousness’ – as articulated by Frantz Fanon – besetting the land reform and indigestion process. It took president Mugabe’s government 20 years from independence to compulsorily acquire land. It took the ZANU PF-led government two years to pass amendments to the Land Act to include the Land seizures that began in 2000. The period before the fast track land programme was marked by ZANU PF wining and dining with white capital and agriculture. Mugabe’s government was never at comfort with having an empowered black business or agricultural class. This explains Strive Masiyiwa’s struggle to get a cellular network operating licence. Despite that, ECONET has become the most successful company established by any black Zimbabwean. There is a litany of cases where, black entrepreneurs were haunted out of Zimbabwe and some of them like Mutumwa Mawere are still fighting to get back their business empire from the government. In addition to this, the people of Marange and Chisumbanje have experienced land dispossession as Mugabe’s Chinese allies and alleged ZANU PF financier Billy Rautenbach get preference to exploit the land at the expense of ordinary villagers whose family’s have for generation lived in these areas. In addition, the nostalgia and mystification of dead heroes is nothing more than anything beyond creating ideals of mental comfort zones, as today’s live heroes were once idolised institutions of hope and progress. The difference lies in that today’s live heroes are there to face the test of time while the dead are not there to face the test of time. This is why we speak glowingly of them, because they are not there to be measured by political reality. Therefore, we say ‘the dead are saints’ and so are Oliver Tambo, Chris Hani, Herbert Chitepo, Nikita Mangena, Lookout Masuku and Josiah Tongogara. They are blemish free and symbolise the purity of African Liberation; so we are made to believe, yet we forget that, the now villain Robert Mugabe and ZANU PF were once heroes. There were times it was an honour to be likened to Robert Mugabe. The same applies to President Jacob Zuma; he was a darling of the working class and a significant number of ANC members before Polokwane conference but this has all changed as the realities of politics and policy priorities begin to sink in. Political and Economic transformation means going beyond pigmentation, and not all black people act in the interest of black people. Blackness has never been a homogenous class and similarly a black leadership does not mean the end of poverty for black people. Furthermore, the characterisation of Mandela as ‘soft’ is historical dishonesty and at the same time fails to recognise the realities of the politics of decolonisation that existed. Lastly, Mugabe is not a revolutionary, but a former liberation hero turned despot that has overstayed his welcome. It is time for new brooms.
Posted on: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 23:53:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015