The Mandela family is squabbling over his personal legacy – and there is likely to be similar squabbling over his political heritage as parties scramble to mobilise his legacy as part of their bid to increase support. Will mobilisation of the Mandela name lead to a better deal for the people? Will the grass roots and the marginalised benefit from such clever politicking? Perhaps the first question to ask, though, is: What did Nelson Mandela stand for?
He stood for so many things. He took up arms, he was a peacemaker; he was a democrat but also, at times, used his leadership authority to override the views of his comrades. He led from the front and, at key moments, chose to lead from behind and hand over the reins to others.
Apart from the way he reinvented his character and reimagined himself, he also played distinctly different roles: activist, then prisoner and martyr, and finally statesman.
In 2007, the Nelson Mandela Foundation researched views of his legacy – how his values were seen, and so on. The study dredged up such a wide range of values, some of them conflicting, that the foundation abandoned any attempt at an official list.
As Mac Maharaj put it, it was "impossible" to identify and "bottle" Mandela's essence. From what I know of Mandela, he wouldn't mind people quoting him and pretending to be aligned to what he stood for as long as their actions, in some way, improved the lives of people, especially the most marginalised.
He often told staff at the foundation that the greatest thing people could do to honour him was to help to end human suffering.
I would urge the political parties laying claim to Mandela's legacy to do so in a manner that challenges themselves. They should avoid emphasising only those Mandela values that give them comfort and endorse their current ways of doing things. They should consciously embrace a Mandela value that shakes them out of their comfort zones.
Alternative sexual orientations
For example, the African Christian Democratic Party should practise greater tolerance, especially towards people of alternative sexual orientations. The Democratic Alliance could show greater concern about inequality and be less dismissive of those calling for restorative justice.
The ANC could up its game by doing more to communicate with all South Africans, instead of using an approach that depends on statements directed at the media, factions, alliance partners and opposition parties. Like Mandela, it could reach out more consistently to social groups outside its core constituency.
The challenge to conservatives that arises from the Mandela legacy is to be less fearful of social change and new ideas. The left could consider adopting a more inclusive, broad-based discourse; one linking middle-class worries to the needs of the most exploited.
Paying homage in this way would honour Mandela the troublemaker, the disrupter of the status quo, the driver of necessary social change.
The poor and marginalised are part of the struggle over Mandela's legacy. If they lay claim to it, they will throw the spotlight on Mandela's commitment to justice, a thread that runs through all the stages of his life.
They will use Mandela's name and image to strengthen their demands for a life of dignity, as well as for an economic system that, in Mandela's words, "serves the material interests of all our people". They will call on those who appear to act in Mandela's name to redouble their efforts to bring about transformation.
As the political actors gear up to squabble over Madiba's mantle, the poor are observing. They are ready – through protests, other forms of social action and fluctuations in their voting – to strip away the branding and clever marketing. They will raise fundamental questions about who really has Mandela's values and really follows his legacy. – South African Civil Society Information Service
Frank Meintjies is an independent consultant who used to be based at the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory