Nelson Mandela chose to negotiate with his enemy, the apartheid state, because he believed that emotions such as hate got in the way of strategy.
Nelson Mandela Day was officially declared by the United Nations in November 2009 and has since been celebrated internationally on 18 July to mark the charismatic leader’s birthday.
German sociologist, Max Weber, described charisma as a “gift” characterised by exceptional qualities that the average person lacked, but those who were so gifted were likely to be “treated as leaders”. Mandela was such a natural-born leader. Even though he was sentenced to life imprisonment at Robben Island, he chose to negotiate with his arch enemy — the apartheid regime that put him there — rather than waste his time hating it. He believed that emotions such as hate clouded the mind and got in the way of strategy, something he thought no leader could afford to lose sight of.
Mandela’s choice to initiate negotiations rather than hold grudges, serves as a prime example of a choice made in the service of the greater good. The decision of whether to engage with an enemy he considered morally repugnant could not have been easy. Yet, rather than demonising the opponent, Mandela set aside his moral judgments in favour of a rational assessment of the prevalent reality and the likely costs and benefits of negotiations.
The legacy he bestowed upon us is our ability to recognise that lasting peace requires more than just a ceasefire; it demands a deep understanding of the underlying issues. Mandela believed that dialogue, not pointing a gun, was key to resolving disputes and fostering stability. And he proved his point by helping South Africa abandon apartheid and transition to democracy through peaceful negotiations.
We could certainly use an astute and charismatic statesman of his calibre now as we find ourselves in the midst of multiple global crises unfolding simultaneously and amplifying each other in unpredictable ways.
One such major crisis is the Russia-Ukraine conflict with more lives claimed each day and with no end in sight. The war has already led to substantial shifts in global economic and geostrategic configurations. And now it resembles a political power ball that is being kicked around by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin with the hapless Volodymyr Zelenskyy ducking it in midfield, as his country bleeds.
Although the member states of the European Union strongly condemn Russia’s aggression and reaffirm continued support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, their position to positively influence events has been weakened by several factors.
First, they seem to be sidelined by Trump, whose hostility towards the EU is quite clear and who is still convinced that he alone can end the conflict — though no longer in one day as he once claimed. Second, the 27 states do not speak with one voice as they pursue their own, sometimes clashing, agendas. Third, their concern has less to do with ending the war and more with their own security in case Russia ups the ante by expanding its territorial ambitions further.
This latter concern has become evident during the meeting of the Nato military alliance in June 2025 where Russia was declared a long-term threat to the alliance’s collective security, with member states pledging increased defence spending and reaffirming their support for Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the likes of China, North Korea and Iran have all rushed in to aid their Russian ally.
This appeared to be the right time for little South Africa to step in and do again what it did so splendidly once before by managing to negotiate the demise of apartheid that few believed could be accomplished peacefully.
What qualifies South Africa to play the mediator’s role is the country’s adherence to non-alignment in its foreign policy, signalling that other middle powers, particularly in the Global South, can also productively participate in the ongoing geopolitical strife while protecting their own national interests in the process. Not to mention that South Africa is also in a favourable position to mediate the Russia-Ukraine conflict by virtue of the historically friendly relations with the two countries as they both supported the anti-apartheid struggle led by the ANC.
The talks between presidents Cyril Ramaphosa and Zelenskyy held on 24 April 2025 in Pretoria marked the beginning of the conversation. Ramaphosa emphasised South Africa’s readiness to continue supporting multilateral efforts to achieve a sustainable and comprehensive peace. In response, Zelenskyy extended his gratitude for the shared understanding that the war needs to end as soon as possible.
Both presidents pledged common commitment to multilaterism and respect for the rule of law in international relations. They also acknowledged the central role of the UN in global governance and in the maintenance of global peace and security. Zelenskyy underscored that South Africa’s current presidency of the Group of 20 (G20) offered an opportunity to strengthen the group’s pledges to defend peace and democracy.
In his effort to help end the war in Ukraine, Ramaphosa scored an unexpected bonus point when he received a call from Trump. In reference to the discussions during the visit to South Africa by Zelenskyy, Trump wished to also state that the war in Ukraine should come to a rapid end. At the same time, the US president agreed to meet Ramaphosa in the near future.
The proposed in-person meeting between Ramaphosa and Trump did indeed take place. The Oval Office encounter was tough on the South African leader, who was shown videos purporting to portray the persecution and genocide of white farmers in his country, a claim since found baseless. To his credit, Rhamaposa — a negotiator from the Mandela era in his own right — remained unruffled. In the subsequent media briefing, he remained upbeat, confirming that engagement between South Africa and the US would continue — and that there was a possibility Trump would attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg in November 2025.
If that were to take place, it would be a major achievement for the South African government and a positive development for the country. Then again, events move so rapidly and in such an unpredictable fashion that no one can tell what tomorrow might bring.
Nevertheless, opting for negotiation instead of confrontation is what Madiba would have done.
Professor Ursula van Beek is the director of the Centre for Research on Democracy at Stellenbosch University.