“It is a grave error for any leader to be oversensitive in the face of criticism”
Nelson Mandela
There are often narrative nuances within public comment around Nelson Mandela concerning his perceived political contributions toward Black liberation in South Afrika. Of these nuances, “Mandela the sell-out” is of interest to this article. Therefore, the article uses Frantz Fanon’s line of thought as an attempt to dispel some of these nuances by placing Nelson Mandela into a well-considered historical context. The article will also rely on Professor Mabogo More’s work that appeared in the series volume, “A Companion to African Philosophy” edited by Kwasi Wiredu.
In contrast, however, we are well aware of the various works of critique on Nelson Mandela such as in the article by Professor Frank Wilderson III’s “Barbecue Critique of Mandela at Gun Point.” In his critique, Wilderson highlights the Christian and law elements about Mandela as being what Hegel would say are categories of intervention. It is through these categories, Wilderson believed, that Mandela came to conceive of liberation the way that he did. This way, Wilderson echoes Professor Tshepo Madlingozi in his reflection of the ANC predecessors and those who influenced them such as Tiyo Soga, who were Christianized and influenced by Western education.
The impact of this has been a situation where militants who pushed for land return, did not receive Western education, and rejected Christianity, were labeled as “uncivilized” / “savages” while figures such as Mandela were seen as “civilized.” Secondly, Wilderson brings to our attention that Mandela believed in liberalism and a laissez-faire economy, both of which characterize White supremacy, hence his stance that Mandela wanted a White state with a Black face. Wilderson points to Mandela’s prison letters as a source to some of his thoughts, letters which were intended for the liberal consensus. Although he admits that Mandela wanted to see the end to apartheid, he also says that he simply wanted Blacks to live in White suburbs without a revolutionary push in his thinking. Ultimately, he concludes that Mandela was the White English liberal’s only hope for capital rejuvenation and stabilization of a more subtle, nuanced, and international form of White supremacy.
Therefore, Mandela’s legacy is a contested one which in our view, should be seen in a positive light for the sake of embracing diversity of thought as it will ultimately enrich us towards a higher truth. Ultimately, each individual appears differently to different people. How we are interpreted by the world is a fact of life and as such, Madiba is no exception.
In his book, “The Wretched of the Earth” under the chapter “On National Culture”, Frantz Fanon brings to our attention the fact that preceding generations such as Nelson Mandela, “have resisted the erosion carried by colonialism and also helped on the maturing of the struggles of today.” He cautions that, “We must rid ourselves of the habit, now that we are in the thick of the fight, of minimizing the action of our fathers when considering their silence and passivity” because as he says, “The international affairs of our time is fundamentally different to theirs.” Also, Fanon’s widely quoted words place the matter into perspective, “each generation must out of relative obscurity discover its mission, fulfill it, or betray it.”
Based on this, the most common narrative nuance in public comment usually creates an impression that Mandela outrightly betrayed his generational mission, but his decisions were influenced by the dominant philosophy, international affairs of the time, and his interpretation of the situation. Not that he was necessarily a “sell-out” from the onset. Perhaps even the prison letters which Wilderson relies on to discern his thoughts, were driven by the obscurities of his own time and, as Mabogo concludes, “Mandela the rebel became a realist through the mellowing of his world-view by time.”
“These post-Robben Island utterances were simply a return to the “original” Mandela who believed in peace, justice, equality, and human dignity regardless of one’s race, gender, sex, and culture”
Furthermore, Professor Mabogo More in his article, “Albert Luthuli, Steve Biko, and Nelson Mandela: The Philosophical Basis of their Thought and Practice”, utilizes what he calls an “incisive observation” by Tsenay Serequeberhan which as he says, “laments the paucity of discourse on violence in Afrikan philosophy in spite of the fact that colonialism in Afrika was predicated on violent confrontation between Europe and Afrika.” He does this to examine the philosophy which influenced Mandela’s thought towards non-violence in spite of the necessity of political violence which arose from the interaction of Europeans and Afrikans. Importantly, Mabogo declares that this non-violent approach was not based on moral principles, but was a consideration at the time, beginning in 1906, of the futility of violence without weapons to match those of the oppressor.
But besides this consideration, and as Mabogo indicates, Mandela was a staunch believer in peace but he also believed that peace could be overridden when considering other humanistic necessities such as justice, equality, and human dignity which formed the basis for his revolutionary character. We see that although Madiba was greatly influenced by the non-violent philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi per Gandhi’s “ethics of Satyagraha, Ahimsa and Tapasya”, he nonetheless became disillusioned by the extreme violence of the apartheid regime and as a result, began arguing against prominent ANC leaders such as Luthuli for a violent response which led to the formation of Umkhonto We Sizwe.
This change in Mandela’s attitude, Mabogo asserts, echoes that of Fanon in his stance that only counter-violence can overcome the relentless violence exhibited by the apartheid regime against Black people. Also, and perhaps most importantly, this convergence of Fanon and Mandela’s views on violence reflects Jean Pau Sartres’ belief that violence should be used as a last resort while at the same time resisting it so that it does not lead to subverting other humans under perpetual violence. So Mandela at the decisive moment and after exhausting all options resorted to violence only as a means to ending human suffering and not as a permanent measure per Sartre’s philosophy. This is an indication that he constantly interpreted the prevailing circumstances and made decisions as dictated by those circumstances.
Towards the end of his time in prison and upon his release, we see a different Mandela who went on to preach a message of peace, reconciliation, and forgiveness. It is this particular Mandela that the narrative nuance of “Mandela the sell-out” often refers to without a proper historical context. These post-Robben Island utterances were simply a return to the “original” Mandela who believed in peace, justice, equality, and human dignity regardless of one’s race, gender, sex, and culture, a reflection of the paucity of discourse on violence in Afrikan philosophy as observed by Tsenay Serequeberhan. In the final analysis, what we see is a forever changing Madiba who adapts to different circumstances over time, perhaps this might be a partial explanation for Frank Wilderson’s critique where he seemed to demand of him consistency.
But indeed, it does appear that the question of land and independent sovereignties of Black people were not necessarily at the center of Mandela’s preoccupation as was the ending of apartheid, human rights, equality, and justice. This view seems to give credence to Wilderson’s interpretation of him as a liberal, for these are central tenets of liberalism, which would in turn inform his belief in a particular type of economic model (laissez-faire) where the law is the central regulator of the prevailing politics. This demonstrates that there are competing notions and debates around Mandela, such that his legacy becomes a very complex one characterized by various factors over time. It should be evident that given these complex dynamics, Mandela was also bound to err as he has admitted himself to making mistakes. His following quote is incisive in this regard, “I’m not a saint, unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying.”
Mandela’s legacy should be viewed over space and time as being a function of differing historical moments; it should be interpreted in terms of the differing thought processes that might have influenced him, together with his own independent application of thought in every political situation. It cannot be disputed that he contributed immensely to the revolutionary progress of Black liberation in South Afrika, together with contributing towards the attainment of high humanity by demonstrating his ability to forgive and overcome moral anger.