Mandela’s Dilemma: Western Politics, Native’s Ethics

By : Mbaye Lo

There appear to be two competing narratives concerning Mandela’s legacy. There are those who cast him as the father of the South African liberation movement, a radical leader, with an unwavering dedication to the revolutionary struggle. This is mostly a political assessment. There are also those who, like President Obama, admire Mandela’s ability to forgive, his dedication to peace and moral leadership as a freedom fighter who came to reject violence. This is an ethical assessment.

So why are these two divergent, competing narratives of Mandela’s legacy? Because there is a political aspect of Mandela’s career, in which many of his promises went largely unfilled; and there is an ethical aspect of his career, in which his efforts were largely successful. In Western liberal practice, the West reserves political judgment for itself and its agents.

All assessments of the efficacy of “native” (non-Western) leaders are confined to the area of ethics. Native heroes are acknowledged and judged based on their ethical behavior. Thus, leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King are universally celebrated. Mandela can only be universally celebrated if he fits into this category of ‘saints.’

In the Western liberal tradition, politics encompasses the spheres of economic justice, reason, law, rights and duties of citizenship. It is valid to use violence to maintain this political order. The violence of colonialism, genocide, imperialism and neo-colonialism is legitimized by this logic of politics. This trend had prompted Emmanuel Levinas to warn us that, “politics left to itself bear a tyranny within itself.”

Hence, the heroes in the liberal tradition are generally conquerors, empire builders, loyal “explorers” for the imperial order, and janissaries of neo-colonialism.

The native hero cannot be universally celebrated unless he contributes to the maintenance of the imperial order. He has to forgive the imperial violence, and forgo responding in kind on behalf of the aggrieved natives, accept its economic exploitation and commit to reconcile native needs with imperial demand. More often than not, a universally celebrated native hero is often an ethical hero, not a political one; a moral leader, not a reformer; a conciliator and not a liberator. In the rhetoric of the former Senegalese president-poet Léopold Sédar Senghor, the imperial order requires an evolutionary leader, not a revolutionary one.

Under this pendulum of binary orders, it is no surprise that reformist heroes are often not universally celebrated. Non-universal native heroes are habitually described as radical, terrorists, dictators, and socialists. Whenever liberation or liberty from imperial dominance came through revolt or revolution, the native hero is rejected and demonized. Wherever independence or freedom emerged from embracing the imperial dominance the native hero is recognized and universalized.

One must question the rationale according to which Mandela has become a universal icon.

Did Mandela deliver politically? I would love to say yes, but evidence and experience have shown otherwise. The objective reality of South Africa is generally used to camouflage Mandela’s failure to reform the post-apartheid era. It is true that his mere ascendance to lead South Africa as a country is in and of itself provides an inspirational message; unfortunately, he ended his political career with unfulfilled promises of economic reforms.

The latest census data in South Africa shows widening income inequality and an economically disenfranchised people. Widespread urban poverty has made South Africa one of the most crime-ridden places in the world.

Charryl Walker et al.’s momentous work Land, Memory, Reconstruction, and Justice has documented beyond a doubt the failure of land restitution in post-apartheid South Africa.

If one was to wander the streets of Johannesburg during the last three weeks, or to visit the ghettos of Soweto or the townships of Guguletu in the last three years, as I did, one would experience the frightening human suffering and the normalization of black poverty. The majority of South African blacks did not benefit from the end of apartheid.

It is often remarked that the Soweto that Mandela described in his autobiography Long Walk Toward Freedom is no different in standard of living from the Soweto that wept for his death on December 5th. There was no emancipatory politics after apartheid, only forgiveness and reconciliation, and a systematic move to normalize inequality.

In constructing Mandela’s greatness, values of inclusion, forgiveness and reconciliation are selectively highlighted. But where is justice—the foundation of political rationality and stability? If the first question in inter-human politics is the question of justice and the weight of equality and equity, then Mandela failed to deliver an answer to the first question. Forgiveness and reconciliation without justice do not ensure true peace, but justice does.

There is a striking problem in this construction. The ability of victims of oppressive regimes like apartheid to move on with equality and equity is only guaranteed by the orderly administration of justice, and certainly not by institutionalized forgiveness. We should have learned from the American and Brazilian models of recovery from socio-historical trauma. Both are not ideal, they are problematic.

In order for the native to move on, unshackled by the weight of historical and circumstantial disadvantages of the past, both equity and equality has to be ensured. This is the only path to full social and economic equality that guarantees a durable peaceful co-existence. Otherwise, social anguish, restlessness and the endurance of violence will continue to persist.

Although highly regarded, reconciliation and forgiveness unequivocally benefit the oppressor rather than more the victim. This is evident in the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s systematic leniency on unpunished crimes and total immunity for gross human right abuses of the old regime.

If one holds this arrangement as morally valuable, one must also admit that it is politically unwise and unfair. The substance of forgiveness is justice, and not the reverse. Forgiveness does not level the ground in which economic disparities and inequalities were germinated. Rather, it allows a safe path of escape to the agents of apartheid and its benefactors.

It disregards crimes of torture, murder and the destruction of generations. The poor and marginalized communities were damned in the Truth and Reconciliation processes. The old economic order was allowed a free path that was amended with a few faces of the black elite. Thus, it is true to say that Mandela’s ethic of forgiveness overrode a just political, and ensured the normalization of suffering for the South African masses.

Nazism and fascism’s agents and jailors were prosecuted and held responsible for their crimes at the Nuremberg trails and in other courts of justice. Apartheid agents and jailers were forgiven and asked to reconcile with their victims at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Sessions.

Until recently, Wouter Basson, popularly known as Dr. Death, who is responsible for the systematic elimination of political opponents of Apartheid through lethal biological warfare, enjoys a life of freedom in North America with absolute immunity. His victims have either been forgotten or forced to reconcile. Jean Améry, a philosopher and an Auschwitz survivor who went on to commit suicide, warned us that, “anyone who has been tortured remains tortured.”

Obama is correct when he says that Mandela was “the last great liberator of the 20th century.” He was of a high caliber ethically and showed great political acumen in rejecting a second mandate to lead his country. But he missed a much-needed, timely opportunity to reform South Africa politically and economically. Mandela never made it to the next step of economic reform that ensures justice.

Did Mandela deliver ethically? Yes, by all measures. There is his long-standing sacrifice for the people, years of leading the ANC in the struggle against Apartheid; which resulted in his spending 27 years behind bars in Robben Island.

It might also be true that the Mandela who went to jail was different from the Mandela who came out 27 years later. The ethical Mandela survived, but the political reformer did not. As Yuliya Tymoshenko, the Ukrainian political prisoner, so eloquently put it, “it is not Mandela the statesman who touches my soul and fires my imagination. ‘My’ Mandela is the prisoner, the Mandela of Robben Island, who endured 27 years behind bars.” Former Vice President Dick Cheney was more eloquent than Obama in framing the ‘terrorist’ Mandela as a "great man" who had "mellowed" in after his release from prison.

It appears that the many of the world leaders observe Mandela’s passing according to their own politics: many want to celebrate his ethics, with little concern with his politics, and others cheerfully celebrate his politics in order to commemorate his ethics. The Prime Minister of Britain David Cameron captured this binary legacy at Mandela’s funeral, “It was more a celebration than a commemoration.”

Our love of Mandela and sympathy for his sacrifices must not lure us to lower the bar of expectations and reforms for future leaders. Greatness in leadership should largely be measured through the extent to which the lives of ordinary people are improved…

Dr M conveys Najib's message to Mandela's family

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who joined other world dignitaries in paying their last respects to former South African President Nelson Mandela in Pretoria on Thursday, was there as a personal representative of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

In a statement released in Kuala Lumpur today, the Foreign Ministry said Mahathir also led his delegation to convey their condolences as well as Najib's personal message to the family of the late anti-apartheid icon.

Mandela, 95, died at his home in Johannesburg on Dec 5, after battling a prolonged lung infection.

"The late Nelson Mandela and Dr Mahathir enjoyed a very close relationship, dating back to the challenging times when South Africa was under the apartheid regime," the statement said.

It noted that Malaysia played a supporting role in South Africa's preparations for its democratic election in 1994, which saw the country voting Mandela in as its first black president.

Mahathir was accompanied on the trip to South Africa by his wife Dr Siti Hasmah Mohd Ali, Malaysian High Commissioner Kennedy Jawan, business figure Lim Kok Wing as well as senior officers from the Prime Minister's Office and the Foreign Ministry.

- Bernama

Memories of Mandela

The Star 
Reflecting On The Law by SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

ALONG with Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela was one of the greatest political leaders, human rights advocates and peace activists of the last century. On Dec 5, he left the surly bonds of the earth to touch the face of God. All humanity is diminished by his demise.

The light that shone in South Africa was, however, no ordinary light. Its radiance will last for many generations and can illuminate other parts of the globe.

Wherever there is hatred, discord and division, his message of forgiveness, tolerance and reconciliation provides a beacon of hope.

His conviction that no conflict is intractable and no hatred is too difficult to overcome is of relevance to all divided societies. His life, legacy and footprints in the sands of time can provide direction to all people, far and near.

I am reminded of a quote from William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: “His life was gentle and the elements so mix’t in him that Nature might stand up and say to all the world: ‘This was a man’.”

UDHR: On another note, Dec 10 was the 65th anniversary of the Universal Decla­ration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948.

The Declaration’s first Article should strike a responsive chord in all of us: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Sixty-five years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), one can say with satisfaction that it is no longer an issue of whether human rights are worthy of support.

It is now generally recognised that state sovereignty is a shield against external aggression. It cannot be used as a sword against one’s own nationals.

Human rights issues transcend time and territory. Abuse anywhere deserves worldwide condemnation. As Martin Luther King Jr noted: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Almost all world constitutions give due recognition to the need to limit state powers and to secure basic liberties of citizens. Besides the UDHR and its derivative Covenants, many regional declarations of human rights have appeared on the firmament.

Africa has the Banjul Charter. Europe has its European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Islamic countries have several formulations, among them the Universal Islamic Declaration 1980 (London), the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights 1981 (Paris) and the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam 1990.

Islam and human rights: At an Association for the Promotion of Human Rights (Proham) Conference in Kuala Lumpur on Dec 9, it was my privilege to address the issue of human rights in Islam.

At the very outset, I stated that the belief that human beings are the subject and object of inherent rights, dignity and duties has an important place in Islamic theology, philosophy and politics.

The Holy Quran declares in Surah 17:70: “Surely we have accorded dignity to the sons of Adam.” On justice and equality, it states: “And if you judge between mankind, judge justly.” (4:58)

The Prophet Muhammad’s Farewell Sermon at Arafat is one of the world’s greatest human rights documents. In it he proclaimed: “Your lives, your properties and your honour are as sacred as this day (of the Haj).”

On class distinctions, he said: “The aristocracy of yore is trampled under my feet. The Arab has no superiority over the non-Arab and the non-Arab has no superiority over the Arab.

“All are children of Adam and Adam was made of earth. Nor is the fair-skinned superior to the dark-skinned nor the dark-skinned superior to the fair-skinned; superiority comes from piety and the noblest among you is the most pious.” This was pronounced 1,435 years ago!

The denial of state sovereignty was a cardinal principle in Islam long before the writings of Locke and Rousseau came about. The government is a trustee of the people and its duty is to rule by consultation (Surah 3:159).

In the criminal process, there is a presumption of innocence. Evidence of agents provocateurs cannot be admitted.

Human rights encompass not only civil and political rights but also the “second generation”, socio-economic as well as positive rights.

Religious tolerance is required and cultural pluralism is permitted. “Unto you, your religion, unto me mine.” (109:1-6)

Modern principles of administrative law such as natural justice and proportionality have their counterparts in Islamic public law.

Cairo Declaration: This Declaration has 25 Articles. Its first Article is remarkably similar to its counterpart in the UDHR: “All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities.”

The 25 Articles of the Cairo Declaration are broadly divisible into:

- political and civil rights

- political and civil duties

- socio-economic rights

- socio-economic duties

- protection in times of war and conflict

There are remarkable similarities between the Cairo Declaration and the UDHR. This confirms that as human beings, we all share a common humanity.

Differences: The worldview of the West and of Islam has some contrasts. In Islam, belief in God and piety is emphasised. The concepts of sin and sacrilege offer brakes to “human rights” demands. Atheism and apostasy are condemned though these are sins, not crimes.

Individualism is subordinated to communitarianism. As in other religions, individual autonomy is restrained if that would lead to decline of morality.

Muslims are generally troubled by the militancy of secular materialism, obsessive individualism, personal autonomy and licentious views of the West on a whole range of moral issues.

Whether Muslim societies must be condemned for such “backwardness” or praised for resisting the onslaught of a sex-laced media culture is a matter of opinion.

The distance between Islam and the West on human rights is, however, not that great if theory is matched with theory and practice with practice. There are vast areas of shared commonalities. We need to discover, emphasise and enforce them and to concentrate on what unites us rather than harp on what divides us.

> Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM. The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.

What our leaders can learn from Mandela

When Nelson Mandela died last Thursday, some Malaysian political leaders paid him tribute and expressed their admiration for what he stood for.

Prime Minister Najib Razak, who recently bought back preventive detention, tweeted, “Mandela lives on in the spirit of every human that believes in democracy and freedom.”

Former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, the champion of Perkasa, Ketuanan Melayu (Malay Supremacy) and the New Economic Policy (NEP), called Mandela a great leader dedicated to the cause of social justice.

Kedah Mentri Besar Mukhriz Mahathir, who in September said he would not entertain any requests for allocations from Chinese schools in Kedah, called Mandela “a true international patriot” for having suffered for the freedom movement against Apartheid.

Wanita Umno chief Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, who last year raised the threat of another May 13, extolled his message of unity and called him a “role model for all of the world”.

Weighed against what these people have said, done and been perceived to believe, the tributes sounded hollow – hypocritical, even. It makes one wonder if they truly understand the meaning of Mandela’s legacy.

For them to do so, they need to be more aware of what he stood and fought for throughout his life. And when they have become aware, it will not be enough until they apply what they have learned to governing Malaysia.

First, they need to learn that Mandela served – in the best sense of the word – his country. To do good for it without seeking any reward, financial gains or power, for his own sake.

He fought for his people’s freedom, fought against Apartheid, paid the price of being imprisoned for 27 long years, and became South Africa’s first black president in democratic elections. Did he amass great wealth along the way? Did he use the system to enrich himself and his family? Did he think of winning for himself and his party so that they could remain in power?

What he said at a lecture in Singapore in 1997 is instructive: “When we came out and set up negotiations, we discussed our approach very, very carefully, as the leadership of the African National Congress. And we adopted certain principles. Firstly, that in these negotiations, neither the congress, which is now in power, nor the enemy – the policy of Apartheid – none should win. But South Africa as a whole should win.”

He thought of his country first. He thought of his country winning. Our leaders, however, seem to think of themselves winning, and their party winning. When our government does something, it seems to consider first whether this will benefit the ruling party rather than if it will benefit the rakyat. Consider, for example, the doling-out of BR1M. Even now, the ruling party’s leaders are looking ahead to winning the next general election.

It was also quite revealing that at the Umno general assembly last week, a delegate said that if every 8th century Hindu temple ruin in Kedah were to be gazetted, his party would lose constituencies because the ruins were located all over. Rather than be concerned with preserving ancient treasures, he showed that his priority was winning electoral seats.

Second, Mandela kept to his principles of fighting against racial discrimination. And he promoted reconciliation – to bring the races in South Africa together, instead of sowing hatred and bitterness between them. He let the whites continue to control the economy and big business. In so doing, he has been criticised for not having done enough to improve the economic lot of his fellow black South Africans. But if he had instituted laws to favour the blacks, he would have practised Apartheid, and that would have been morally wrong. It takes someone who has felt the evil of racial discrimination to avoid resorting to it.

He let the whites run businesses because they were adept and experienced at doing it. If he had decreed that this be taken over by the blacks, who were inexperienced, South Africa’s economy would have suffered. Instead, with things continuing as they were, the country has annually achieved robust growth rates of 6, 7 or 8 per cent.

In the same lecture he gave in Singapore, Mandela said, “It is because of the talented people, both within the ranks of the liberation movement as well as in the ranks of the oppressor, that we have been able to bring about this transformation. We sincerely but fully believe that there are good men and women in all communities in our country – amongst Africans, coloureds, Indians and whites – and that the duty of the leadership is to create an environment in which those good men and women can exercise their talents. It is the combination of these factors that has made us progress in South Africa.”

Compare this with Malaysia, which has driven away at least 2 million of its talents and is now experiencing financial difficulties – because of the NEP, Ketuanan Melayu and Bumiputra economic empowerment. In short, Apartheid, Malaysian-style.

Sadly, however, Mandela’s experience is lost on Umno, the biggest ruling party in the country. At its general assembly, its high priest, Najib, actually told the congregation that Umno fought the “same cause” as Mandela did. Oh, how could he have said that and not looked like a fool? And how could he have discredited Mandela by comparing the great man’s cause to Umno’s?

Umno has been practising divide-and-rule for the longest time – the very opposite of reconciliation. Mahathir is still saying things to divide the races. He calls Mandela “my dear friend”, the leader he most admires, but he has not learned the crucial things from him: racial equality and reconciliation.

Neither has he learned from Mandela not to crave power. The latter served as president for only one term, from 1994 to 1999, and then gracefully stepped down.

Perhaps we the rakyat should learn from this and agitate our leaders to conceive of a new system that allows our prime minister to serve a limited number of terms.

Too long at the top can corrupt a person and teach them ways to amass absolute power. And since, as people say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, we should prevent it from happening. We have already seen the damaging consequences of having a prime minister rule for 22 years; this should be reason and motivation enough to nip another Mahathir in the bud.

Finally, a sobering thought for all of us to ponder. Mandela was in prison for 27 years, but despite the length of his incarceration, he came out of it not as a bitter man seeking revenge and spewing hatred against his oppressors. He instead sought peace, reconciliation, and unification. It may well be that he found his epiphany while in prison. If that’s the case, perhaps our leaders need to serve time in prison, too. This is so that they may realise a thing or two to help them govern later – with fairness, justice and wisdom.

* Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to MSN Malaysia

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit , now available in bookstores.

How Dare Najib Discredit Mandela

By Kee Thuan Chye

Umno President Najib Razak diminished the stature of a great man when he said last Saturday at his party’s general assembly that Umno fought for the “same cause” as Nelson Mandela, who had died two days before.

What same cause? Mandela fought against racial discrimination whereas Umno institutionalised racial discrimination a few decades ago and still upholds it.

Mandela never advocated black supremacy, whereas Umno promotes Ketuanan Melayu (Malay supremacy).

After he became president of South Africa, Mandela proposed reconciliation and sought to bring the races in his country together, whereas in Malaysia, Umno divides the races in order to keep itself in power.

Even at its general assembly, Umno’s delegates lobbied for the ethnocentric ‘1Melayu’ to replace the more inclusive ‘1Malaysia’, bashed the Chinese for not supporting the party at the last general election, and demanded a bigger stake in the economy, totally ignoring the reality that most of the country’s economic development is now already in Malay hands.

Furthermore, no less an Umno leader than Awang Adek Hussin, who is also the country’s deputy finance minister, proposed that private companies should declare how they support the Bumiputera agenda in their annual reports. He also insisted that, because Malays now make up almost 70 per cent of the population, the hiring policy of private companies should reflect the country’s racial composition at every level.

This is effectively saying that CEOs of private companies should also be Malay, and that their staff should be 70 per cent Malay. Indeed. Apa lagi Umno mahu? (What more does Umno want?)

On the other hand, does the civil service reflect the country’s racial composition? Are there 30 per cent non-Malay heads of department? In our public universities, are 30 per cent of vice-chancellors non-Malay?

Mandela did not take away the businesses of the whites in the name of affirmative action for the black South Africans. He allowed the whites to continue to control the economy and as a result of its being in experienced hands, South Africa’s economy grew at a steady, robust rate.

Mandela also believed in inclusiveness, in humanity and human rights. But Umno abhors lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals (LGBTs) although they are no less human beings. One delegate denigrated them by saying at the assembly that LGBTs exist so that “orang jahat (bad people) can be purged, leaving behind only the good people to inherit the earth”. How simplistically stupid, or stupidly simplistic.

Neither does Umno tolerate Shiite (Syiah) Muslims. Delegates urged that the Federal Constitution be amended to give recognition only to Sunni Islam. And Umno vice-president Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, in his customary aggressive manner of winning support from the Umno flock, seized the moment to accuse the “No. 2” man in the Opposition party PAS of being a Shiite leader. He called for action to be taken against the latter. It was a clear manifestation of gutter politics posing under the guise of religion.

How, then, could Najib have had the temerity to draw parallels between Umno and Mandela? They couldn’t be more worlds apart. How could he have said what he said and not appear foolish to the outside world? He might have been able to deceive his audience of Umno members, but he cannot deceive the intelligent and discerning.

He apparently rationalised it by claiming that no race has been deprived under the New Economic Policy (NEP). He probably knows better – or else he is ignorant or dumb – but he still played to the gallery. When he asked his audience, “Were (other races) sidelined during the NEP? Did we ever hurt the livelihood of other races?”, they of course responded with a resounding “no”. This of course is an act of syiok sendiri too.

They chose to conveniently forget the millions of non-Malays who over the decades have been deprived of places in public universities, scholarships, jobs in the civil service, promotions, higher ranks in the security forces, government projects (except the big crony Chinese companies), etc.

They pretended not to know that the non-Malays most hurt by the NEP were the low-income and middle-class groups. Many of their children could not pursue tertiary education through lack of means. Those who could had parents who worked extra hard to make extra money to send their children to private institutions.

They chose to ignore the truth that the push for Ketuanan Melayu caused non-Malays to be sidelined in unjust, uncountable ways and turned them into second-class citizens.

Now, to add insult to injury, they profess no knowledge of all that, still present the Malays as victims after more than 50 years of independence from the British “oppressors”, brand the “foreign races” (meaning non-Malays) as threats, lament that the Malays might become “slaves in their own land”, ask for more handouts, more projects, more quotas.

Enough is never enough. At every annual general assembly, they dish out the same laments, the same non-Malay bashing, the same demands for more opportunities while at the same time moaning that Malay entrepreneurs still need “hand-holding”. Their thinking is this: Ask and it shall be given. Just like that. No need to prove their abilities first, no need to be free of “hand-holding” first, no need to work to attain their goals. That’s the attitude they take.

And this is equated with Mandela’s struggle?

This sort of attitude exhibited by Umno is what pisses off a lot of people and makes them hate the party. If Najib’s comparison between Umno and Mandela doesn’t piss off the South African Government, well, that’s its business. But if it does, President Jacob Zuma might want to demand an apology from Najib for showing disrespect and distorting the principles of the great Mandela.

Najib cannot exploit a good man’s name to justify his party’s petty schemes.

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit, now available in bookstores.