Mandela was a son of the ANC, but belongs to all
Nelson Mandela stood for a vision we should all aspire to, writes Dumisani Hlophe.
The DA is entitled to invoke the heroism and statesmanship of icon Nelson Mandela. It does not need the permission of the ANC.
Nelson Mandela articulated the ANC's values, as envisioned by Walter Sisulu and OR Tambo, says the writer. Picture: Andy Clark. Credit: REUTERS
Nor does it need the permission of Mandela’s family.
Mandela’s Struggle heroics progressed to domestic and global statesmanship.
He is a national asset whose memory should motivate all South Africans to pursue absolute freedom for all and in all its manifestations.
The challenge with the DA is that it seeks to appropriate exclusive custodianship of the Mandela legacy. It invokes the Mandela name opportunistically.
It does this through parallel strategies: first, it generates public untruths that the ANC is no longer following Mandela’s grand vision for society. Second, it positions itself as the modern-day champion of Mandela’s vision.
The truth is that there is no individual Mandela vision or set of values. Mandela was a product of the ANC. He did not invent the ANC, but joined the ANC, based on its vision and values for a democratic South Africa.
Therefore, any accusation against the ANC that it has abandoned Mandela’s vision for South Africa presupposes - wrongly - that Mandela created the ANC.
Fact is, Mandela articulated the ANC’s vision and intended values for a political, social and economic just democratic South Africa.
In isolating Mandela from his organisational context, the DA has fallen into the racist trap wherein racist conservatives deem some blacks are special and different from other blacks.
If the DA is genuine about honouring the vision that Mandela articulated for a democratic South Africa, then the DA must honour Walter Sisulu. This is the man who articulated the ANC’s vision for a democratic South Africa to Mandela, and recruited him.
If the DA is concerned the ANC veered away from its vision, then it must equally, if not more, invoke and honour the spirit of Oliver Tambo. This is the man who kept the ANC together under extreme conditions. South Africa owes much of this democracy to Tambo.
Isolating Mandela from the broader black struggles for democracy is a political convenience. Doing this for electioneering purposes is the worst political opportunism.
The DA has not built substantive legitimacy to justify its claiming to be the champion of Mandela’s vision for a non-racial South Africa. The party battles to deal with its internal racial challenges.
To the DA’s credit, its official position denounces racism. Its leader, Mmusi Maimane, has been at pains to indicate he is not colour-blind, nor should the rest of the DA be colour-blind. However, most of those who have express racist tendencies on social media platforms have been politically located in the DA.
Even at leadership level, the DA has not done well to reflect Mandela’s grand vision of non-racialism. Below are three incidents that illustrate this.
The DA’s first black parliamentary leade Lindiwe Mazibuko, is in DA exile. Early this year, she decried the “isolation of black members and leaders” in the DA. She also decried “white male dominance” in the party’s strategic echelons.
Back in 2008, Joe Seremane was maliciously put forward as the DA’s presidential candidate, as an alternative to the ANC’s Kgalema Motlanthe to replace Thabo Mbeki.
This was a non-contest. The DA knew he would not win. Earlier, in 2007, the leadership of the DA had not considered him fit to lead the DA when Tony Leon retired.
Agang’s then-leader, Ramphele Mamphela, was wooed by the DA to become its presidential candidate for the 2014 national elections.
The DA knew it would not win the elections, so this was another malicious DA black presidential candidacy.
Where it knew it would win, in the Western Cape, it chose Hellen Zille as the candidate for premier.
Interestingly, it appears Maimane’s black consciousness has been activated since he became DA leader.
In one of his speeches, he declared to his DA audience that he was “a child of Soweto, a proudly black South African, a son of African soil”.
This declaration was probably triggered by racial tendencies in the DA.
These are the tendencies Mandela fought hard against.
None of these racial challenges in the DA affords the party the moral authority to claim leadership in advancing Mandela’s vision.
However, these race challenges in the DA do not mean the party cannot invoke and express commitment to the vision and values Mandela articulated and which he learnt from the ANC.
It should use Mandela’s legacy to self-correct. Perhaps that’s where it should start, by internalising and living non-racialism as articulated by Mandela.
The DA itself needs Mandela.
While the DA is correct that Mandela belongs to all South Africans, it cannot, in the same vein, disown the ANC of Mandela and claim itself as being more deserving of Mandela’s heritage.
Similarly, while the ANC can pride itself that Mandela developed in its ranks, it cannot claim exclusive ownership of his heritage.
If the ANC were to claim Mandela exclusively for itself, it would be missing the point that the Struggle sought to free all South Africans and not only ANC members.
The ANC would also be guilty of political opportunism were it to claim exclusive right to Mandela. Even the Mandela family cannot do so.
Nor can South Africa. While South Africans can pride themselves that Mandela was from their shores, he has become a global icon.
Mandela is South Africa’s most valuable export.
He should be used as a symbol of unity. In the quest for social cohesion and nation-building, Mandela was a pillar of unity and nationhood.
While his legacy may be debated, and should be, it is equally true he is in the consciousness of all South Africans.
Rather than a tussle over who owns him exclusively, he should be an instrument of national consciousness and patriotism.
Rome has the pope, the world has Mandela!
The DA is entitled to invoke the heroism and statesmanship of icon Nelson Mandela. It does not need the permission of the ANC.
Nelson Mandela articulated the ANC's values, as envisioned by Walter Sisulu and OR Tambo, says the writer. Picture: Andy Clark. Credit: REUTERS
Nor does it need the permission of Mandela’s family.
Mandela’s Struggle heroics progressed to domestic and global statesmanship.
He is a national asset whose memory should motivate all South Africans to pursue absolute freedom for all and in all its manifestations.
The challenge with the DA is that it seeks to appropriate exclusive custodianship of the Mandela legacy. It invokes the Mandela name opportunistically.
It does this through parallel strategies: first, it generates public untruths that the ANC is no longer following Mandela’s grand vision for society. Second, it positions itself as the modern-day champion of Mandela’s vision.
The truth is that there is no individual Mandela vision or set of values. Mandela was a product of the ANC. He did not invent the ANC, but joined the ANC, based on its vision and values for a democratic South Africa.
Therefore, any accusation against the ANC that it has abandoned Mandela’s vision for South Africa presupposes - wrongly - that Mandela created the ANC.
Fact is, Mandela articulated the ANC’s vision and intended values for a political, social and economic just democratic South Africa.
In isolating Mandela from his organisational context, the DA has fallen into the racist trap wherein racist conservatives deem some blacks are special and different from other blacks.
If the DA is genuine about honouring the vision that Mandela articulated for a democratic South Africa, then the DA must honour Walter Sisulu. This is the man who articulated the ANC’s vision for a democratic South Africa to Mandela, and recruited him.
If the DA is concerned the ANC veered away from its vision, then it must equally, if not more, invoke and honour the spirit of Oliver Tambo. This is the man who kept the ANC together under extreme conditions. South Africa owes much of this democracy to Tambo.
Isolating Mandela from the broader black struggles for democracy is a political convenience. Doing this for electioneering purposes is the worst political opportunism.
The DA has not built substantive legitimacy to justify its claiming to be the champion of Mandela’s vision for a non-racial South Africa. The party battles to deal with its internal racial challenges.
To the DA’s credit, its official position denounces racism. Its leader, Mmusi Maimane, has been at pains to indicate he is not colour-blind, nor should the rest of the DA be colour-blind. However, most of those who have express racist tendencies on social media platforms have been politically located in the DA.
Even at leadership level, the DA has not done well to reflect Mandela’s grand vision of non-racialism. Below are three incidents that illustrate this.
The DA’s first black parliamentary leade Lindiwe Mazibuko, is in DA exile. Early this year, she decried the “isolation of black members and leaders” in the DA. She also decried “white male dominance” in the party’s strategic echelons.
Back in 2008, Joe Seremane was maliciously put forward as the DA’s presidential candidate, as an alternative to the ANC’s Kgalema Motlanthe to replace Thabo Mbeki.
This was a non-contest. The DA knew he would not win. Earlier, in 2007, the leadership of the DA had not considered him fit to lead the DA when Tony Leon retired.
Agang’s then-leader, Ramphele Mamphela, was wooed by the DA to become its presidential candidate for the 2014 national elections.
The DA knew it would not win the elections, so this was another malicious DA black presidential candidacy.
Where it knew it would win, in the Western Cape, it chose Hellen Zille as the candidate for premier.
Interestingly, it appears Maimane’s black consciousness has been activated since he became DA leader.
In one of his speeches, he declared to his DA audience that he was “a child of Soweto, a proudly black South African, a son of African soil”.
This declaration was probably triggered by racial tendencies in the DA.
These are the tendencies Mandela fought hard against.
None of these racial challenges in the DA affords the party the moral authority to claim leadership in advancing Mandela’s vision.
However, these race challenges in the DA do not mean the party cannot invoke and express commitment to the vision and values Mandela articulated and which he learnt from the ANC.
It should use Mandela’s legacy to self-correct. Perhaps that’s where it should start, by internalising and living non-racialism as articulated by Mandela.
The DA itself needs Mandela.
While the DA is correct that Mandela belongs to all South Africans, it cannot, in the same vein, disown the ANC of Mandela and claim itself as being more deserving of Mandela’s heritage.
Similarly, while the ANC can pride itself that Mandela developed in its ranks, it cannot claim exclusive ownership of his heritage.
If the ANC were to claim Mandela exclusively for itself, it would be missing the point that the Struggle sought to free all South Africans and not only ANC members.
The ANC would also be guilty of political opportunism were it to claim exclusive right to Mandela. Even the Mandela family cannot do so.
Nor can South Africa. While South Africans can pride themselves that Mandela was from their shores, he has become a global icon.
Mandela is South Africa’s most valuable export.
He should be used as a symbol of unity. In the quest for social cohesion and nation-building, Mandela was a pillar of unity and nationhood.
While his legacy may be debated, and should be, it is equally true he is in the consciousness of all South Africans.
Rather than a tussle over who owns him exclusively, he should be an instrument of national consciousness and patriotism.
Rome has the pope, the world has Mandela!
Comments
Post a Comment