The Delicate Balance: Was Mandela Actually Beneficial for South Africa?
By Allen Wang and David Anderson
Liberating South Africa from imperfection was unfortunately not one of Nelson Mandela’s victories. The incompetent governance of President Jacob Zuma has shifted South African politics from prioritizing freedom and liberty to corruption and inequality.
Flouting judicial orders to repay embezzled money, facing 783 charges of corruption, and gifting power to personal loyalists are a few examples of Zuma’s political mishandling. Meanwhile, the wealth-inequality-measuring Gini Coefficient his risen dramatically and continues to do so. S&P Global recently knocked the government’s sovereign credit rating down to “junk” status. Higher borrowing rates pressure the government budget which will encourage higher taxes, stifling their mildly-successful anti-poverty programs. Even if their ratings were decent, lack of employment has forced many South Africans to turn to dangerous labor. Gold mine ownership has changed hands from negligent apartheid-era white-bosses to gangs. Unsafe industry conditions that have killed 69,000 workers since its beginnings 90 years ago are perpetuated.
It is no wonder that dissatisfaction is widespread even though a generation has passed since Apartheid. Seventy percent of South Africans want Zuma to resign. The traditionally-passive Congress of South African Trade Unions workers are protesting in the streets. It’s tempting to say President Mandela’s promise to bring beneficial reform to his country has fallen short. Accounting for Mandela’s controversial political methods further questions the respect he is given. He palled around with dictators and communists – who were arguably as oppressive as the apartheid regime. He formed an armed resistance movement that prompted the US government to label him a terrorist for some time.
An honest view of history cannot neglect the fact he pushed for the revocation of Apartheid laws. Nor can it ignore his shortcomings. A worship-esque attitude is often subscribed for figures like Mother Theresa, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr along with Nelson Mandela. Acknowledging the imperfections of these heroes’ leadership allows one to comprehend the difficulty of creating a just system where there was none.
Even further, a closer look at these leaders’ controversial political methods reveals the necessity of those actions. New York Times Columnist Bill Keller discusses how Nelson Mandela “was an utter pragmatist” – a politician who knew how to get the job done. Mandela shook hands across the aisle with communists and non-communists. This is key to gaining political support. To push for Constitutional reform, Mandela granted defacto amnesty to Apartheid politicians through The Truth and Reconciliation Commission instead of trying their crimes against humanity. Pragmatically balancing democracy with justice, the apartheid-leading National Party was included in the election for the transitional Government of National Unity. Indicative of how Mandela and the ANC still prioritized justice through these controversial yet necessary actions, the NP cited a “lack of influence on government policy” as reasons to eventually withdraw from the government.
And contemporary South Africa is not all that cataclysmic. Independent institutions that check political power are still in place, including the Office of the Public Protector that exposed Zuma’s corruption and the high courts that charge his legal transgressions. NGO Freedom House reports that South Africa has a free press and protected civil liberties. In the same vein as Western democracies, South Africa is a “free” country.
It is just as important in modern contexts to apply this same lens. For example Myanmar’s leader Aung San Suu Kyi has allegedly ignored what NGOs and the UN label as the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims. This is obviously troublesome. But like South Africa, Myanmar’s national struggle is imperfect. On top of wrestling with an army that refuses to cede complete power to a democratically elected government, establishing political stability in a Myanmar fractured by 20 armed ethnic militants is been extensive and taxing. Rather than openly tolerating ethnic cleansing, Aung San Suu Kyi is trying to work within a rigid 55-year old non-democratic system. Rather than denigrating her leadership, observers should applaud any pragmatic reforms she’s made and continues to make.
After all, political leaders can only do so much to change their country in a generation. An aggressive pursuit towards a goal like freedom can be counterproductive. Followers may splinter, be less empowered, and/or be thrown into the chaos of war. Syria is a prime example of such. Continued violence from all parties has maintained a war between competing opposition fighters, various terror groups, and the Assad government.
Mandela himself once asked, “How many times have the liberators betrayed the ordinary people at the moment of victory?” Establishing a just system, protecting rights, and struggling against racism all require a delicate but necessary balance of pragmatism and change. Those acts are not the betrayal he laments. Sweeping corruption is.
Allen Wang is an incoming student for George Washington University and has attended the Singapore American School in Singapore for 6 years.
David Anderson is an Australian-American attorney in NYC who studied Middle East politics at Melbourne and Georgetown Universities. He contributes to Forbes, counterpunch.org and democracychronicles.org