NELSON MANDELA, FROM FREEDOM TO HISTORY – MADIBA, THE LIFE
AND TIMES OF NELSON MANDELA – PROJEK MANDELA – THE LAST MILE: MANDELA, AFRICA AND DEMOCRACY
This 3-Disc collection is
extremely important to understand today what Mandela came to represent in our world.
We can only understand it if we look at the fifty years of his life that led
him from simple activism to the presidency of this own country. The three discs
give three approaches to the question.
MADIBA THE LIFE AND TIMES OF NELSON MANDELA
The first disc is also the most
recent and it considers Mandela in his whole personal and political history and
South Africa
in its present state. What is the legacy and heritage South Africa
will keep and benefit from coming from Mandela? It shows very well the icon he
has become for South Africa,
for Africa and for the world. This is a change
in the whole world that no one can ignore. The lasting icon of change from
servitude to freedom and democracy, from all types of centralized authoritative
systems to direct and systematic democracy, and two events represent the
turning point in our world on this question, the liberation of Mandela and his
election to the presidency of his country on one hand and the fall of the
Berlin wall and the implosion of the Soviet system on the other hand.
After these two events the world
will never be again what it used to be. The fundamentalist Islamist movement essentially
represented by Al Qaeda first and George W. Bush second have tried all they
could, and for some are still trying, to bring the world back to what it
actually never was: a world dominated by ONLY ONE power, the USA, either by
attacking it directly and making it responsible for every evil in the world (Al
Qaeda), or by sending troops everywhere they could to impose their solutions
(the USA, and note France has recently followed that line TOO MUCH and had to
be stopped twice by Obama’s USA). The two attitudes created a world that could
have become dominated by Islamist terrorism and US state terrorism. But that has vastly
failed in spite of the tremendous tension these two sides have created and are
still creating and thanks to, among others, the momentous defeat of the LTTE in
Sri Lanka.
The first disc, and first
documentary film, does not insist enough on this fact, on this dimension, and
consequently gets more or less trapped in insisting on the present difficulties
of South Africa to (in order to) tarnish Mandela’s heritage. It also probably
insists too much on the sole personality of Mandela himself. The people who
made that film (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) would have been well
inspired if they had followed Mandela’s example more closely and particularly
what he wrote about his life and action. Mandela did not engineer a socialist
revolution, certainly not a racial revolution, but he – with a lot of others –engineered
a national transformation that is multiracial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious,
multi-linguistic and multi-cultural within a general private property market
economy that has to be regulated in a way or another and within a democratic
system in which everyone has one vote and only one vote, and in which all votes
are equal.
The consequence could not be
anything but a difficult situation since before millions of people, the vast
majority of the people, were not even counted as workers of any sort. They were
some kind of reserve work force that was used when necessary, exploited as much
as possible and in no way guaranteed employment, education, housing,
electricity, or whatever basic goods and services. The transformation is
enormous and the unemployment figures (practically the only element considered,
along with AIDS, in some length) are only reflecting the fact that for the
first time people are recorded as having a job or not having a job, i.e. as
having the right to be registered as a worker with or without employment. What
was the real level of work and income available to Black South Africans under
apartheid? We do not even know. So a 20% rate of unemployment today does not
mean much. What is important is that South Africa is a member of the
BRICS alliance, is an emerging economy and will be able to improve its
situation a lot faster than the documentary says. And these elements I have
just listed are not even mentioned ONCE in the documentary.
In fact this documentary is
typical of western news reports that want to be “objective” and they do not
understand that objectivity is not to paint one side in pink and to paint
another side in black and bring the two sides next to each other. The documentary
should have looked for the central contradiction and it is not the fact that
the distance between the richest and the poorest has increased. This is purely
circumstantial even if socially important, but not necessarily existentially
important. The main dynamic contradiction is somewhere else: the contradiction
is in the potential growth perspective based on individual and collective
initiative within a national and international frame. The question is: Is South Africa’s
market economy able to bring development to the country within the world’s
market economy? The concept of capitalism is not even needed here, except if we
consider the vastly state-owned Chinese economy is capitalistic like the nearly
uniquely private-owned US
economy, not to speak of the deregulated market economy of Reagan and following
presidents and today’s post-2008-9-crisis re-regulated market economy.
But this first film is essential
to retrace the long historical perspective.
PROJEK MANDELA
The second film is very informative
on how the liberation of Mandela was negotiated directly with Mandela himself
and a few others. It also shows how the two presidents who dealt with the problem,
Botha and de Clerk, had to face the secret security services who were not
thinking politically but conservatively as for the state apparatus and the
danger of anarchy that could come up if the state yielded too fast and too
easily, without any guarantees, to the pressures from the vast Black majority
and from the whole world.
It also shows how the apartheid
leadership always had a deficit of trust towards the ANC and other
organizations fighting against apartheid, and that deficit of trust slowed down
the process that could only come to an end, to a positive end, when the
situation was desperate and there would have been a real danger of anarchy or
revenge if Mandela had not been here to prevent it. The case of Zimbabwe is in
our minds of course with its revengeful evolution that led to a total economic
catastrophe. We also have to think of Angola
and Mozambique, and the
possibility of a civil or tribal strife within the Black community in South Africa
was a real danger, apart from the potential civil war between the Blacks and
the Whites.
This documentary seems to be well
informed and very informative on these questions though it neglects the real
divide between some African tribes in South Africa, particularly the
divide between the Zulus and the others, essentially because the linguistic
situation is NEVER considered. Two linguistic questions should have been
examined: the tension between English and Afrikaans that covers other divisions
like Blacks versus Whites or Calvinists versus Anglicans on one side and the
great multiplicity of African languages of different families, and then the
linguistic situation within the urban Blacks necessarily multi-lingual (two or
three African languages plus English and eventually Afrikaans) and within the rural
and even distant rural Blacks (two rarely three African languages and English,
hardly any Afrikaans).
It is surprising how western news
reporters and more generally intellectuals and research workers in many fields
neglect the linguistic question, when they don’t altogether reject it as
irrelevant. Apart from the fact that they do not speak the local languages
concerned in this case, the main factor for that attitude is that to
differentiate languages and to differentiate communities according to their
languages implies that all languages contain their own thinking tools that are
different from one language to another, though at the discursive level all
speakers will use their various
languages to express all ideas possible (at least all ideas they can think). This
is true of all human communities in the world: Cockney implies a way of
thinking but an Oxford Dean could express the most complex mathematical
concepts in Cockney just as well as in Queen’s English. The film being from Canada I guess
they are sensitive to the argument of “proper English” and the accusation of
social racism if not segregation conveyed by this concept of “proper English”
as expressed by the advocates of “plain English.”
THE LAST MILE: MANDELA, AFRICA AND
DEMOCRACY
The last film is just an
entertainment because it is a 1993 film on Mandela’s trip to Western Africa, i.e.
Ghana, Ivory Coast, Gore and Senegal. The situation in Western
and Central Africa today has nothing to do
with the situation then. All these countries have been transformed by all kinds
of conflicts and rivalries, tribal, social, political and religious with an extremely
dangerous evolution of the Islamist branch of Islam in these countries leading
to military conflicts, not to speak of blood diamonds and other valuable
productions used to channel money into the various military or terrorist groups
in various countries that have to face completely corrupt regimes within very
un-democratic if not anti-democratic political systems, with or without
elections.
But it sure is informative on the
“dream” this democracy was in 1993 for Western Africa and since then the only
country that was more or less democratic at the time has been the host of a
political crisis that could have brought it down, the same way a similar crisis
brought Ivory Coast down including some “military” pressure from France, not to
speak of religious divisions that brought Mali down along with a French
military intervention which is far from being over and is bringing the Central African
Republic down along with a >French military intervention that looks from the
very start as a quagmire. And we could go farther to South Sudan, Somalia, Congo,
Rwanda, Uganda and some
other countries.
Some even doubt there is any
peaceful future in some areas. Without being that pessimistic, let’s say the
economy will have to become a lot more dynamic for it to be able to bring the
end of “tribal” conflicts and at times never ending and always restarting
“warlords” conflicts.
A good set of documentaries to
START assessing Mandela’s legacy and heritage.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 3:40 AM