It was with a sense of irony that I read the interview Howard Barrell and Sipho Seepe had with Nelson Mandela last week (“A sense of hope”).
There can be no doubt that the revered stature of Mandela during his presidency had served to absorb, prevent, diminish or deflect criticism of his own weaknesses and failures. Seldom, if at all, did the media treat him with anything near the robust criticism they regularly dish out to President Thabo Mbeki.
But it is the refreshing spirit of democratic openness and rigorous criticism and self-criticism that characterised Mandela’s answers in the interview that inspired this column.
The awesome stature Mandela enjoyed after his release from prison made it difficult for the media and public to be harshly critical of him. His age, great sacrifices, long years in prison, gentle, moderate, forgiving and towering personality, endeared him to the world.
Mandela’s presidency also ushered in a period that in major respects fundamentally broke with a history of brutal racist domination of more than three centuries. The lack of transformation that changed people’s lives for the better speedily and sufficiently was mitigated by all these factors. And yet the biggest reason changes were slow in some areas and in other areas conditions worsened was mainly the adoption of the conservative macroeconomic constraints of the growth, employment and redistribution (Gear) strategy in 1996 and not because “changes cannot happen overnight”.
Only towards the end of his term of office did his unfaltering icon status start to fade and a sobering realisation of the man made by our history appeared in its place: even the “Madiba magic” could not provide food, houses and jobs to the needy. As the myths and illusions were shattered the mortal, fallible, but no less loveable, man appeared. Our people were coming of age.
But Mandela did not bear the brunt of criticism as has his successor, Mbeki. Partly, Mbeki has himself to blame due to some big blunders, his inability to admit being wrong, his trenchant defensiveness and quickness to take offense even at criticism that is well-meant and constructive. While Mandela was saved by his personality, stature and the national conjuncture, Mbeki has inherited the unresolved problems of his presidency, which in fact have worsened. Growing unemployment and poverty are conspicuous examples.
But history will be much more exacting than what has emerged from the interview with Mandela. So serious are the problems we face and the likelihood that they will not be satisfactorily solved in the foreseeable future, and may in fact worsen before getting better that this fatal weakness of our transformation, and the compromising role of Mandela and Mbeki in it, will not escape the purview of history.
In this regard the interview did not touch on those aspects of Mandela’s presidency that critically reflect on the old man himself. We must bear several factors in mind in assessing the role and leadership of Mandela and comparing it to that of Mbeki.
First, there are no significant policy differences between Mandela and Mbeki. Of the fact that economic policy differences within the African National Congress alliance have become the source of much tension within it, which has the potential to break it over the medium to longer term, it must be said that it was during Mandela’s presidency that Gear was adopted and that it was Mandela who first harshly chastised the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) for publicly criticising Gear.
In fact, it was Mandela who fiercely defended Gear and went as far as to say that it was “non-negotiable”, much to the chagrin of Cosatu.
There were also other times when Mandela displayed an authoritarian hand in controversial matters within both the government and the ANC. The point is that when all this was happening he was not as open and tolerant of criticism as he now calls for. It is precisely therefore that his comments in the interview were refreshing. But to attempt to contrast, even by implication, a supposed tolerance for criticism within the ANC under Mandela with an intolerance for it now under Mbeki will be a bit disingenuous.
Second, it is much easier and perhaps even expedient for Mandela to call for tolerance of criticism now that he is out of office and free to comment without being tested and facing the pressures and restraints of holding the highest office in the land.
Third, the trend towards the centralisation of the ANC’s power within the state apparatus, and the resultant increasing convergence between the party and state, began when Mandela was president.
The difference with Mbeki’s presidency is that a greater intolerance of criticism has grown in inverse proportion to the greater centralisation of power. But even this trend must be placed in historical perspective. Often, and this is irrespective of its ideological and programmatic character, ruling parties with a huge majority have always striven to attain and exercise the maximum state power possible.
Since the state is the seat of governmental power this is inevitable. No party has, for love of some liberal-democratic values, stopped itself from amassing “too much” state power. But it is the purpose for which that power is used that is more important than the power itself.
Fourth, despite differences in presidential and personal style, there is essentially political continuity between the presidencies of Mandela and Mbeki.