The United Nations was declared July 18 International Mandela Day. This was in honour of a man who was incarcerated for 27 years and later became the president of his captors.
In his memorable speech in the Rivonia Trial, he declared that he was prepared to die for his “ideal of a democratic and free society” in which everyone would be equal. That was why he had fought continuously against all forms of oppression.
The current narrative of state capture threatens this ideal.
The first example of state capture is o-called white monopoly capital (WMC) where the minority white people own strategic parts of the economy to the exclusion of the majority. Afrikaners, during their rule, created and funded their businesses at the expense of the majority. Today, as a result, they still own vast pieces of land which they refuse to share with fellow South Africans. White English-speakers, on the other hand, turned a blind eye to apartheid to amass their wealth. Today they own strategic economic sectors such as mines, the stock exchange and banks.
The Marikana Massacre, if anything, exposed the poor working conditions of their underpaid mine workers. On the other hand, there is so-called Gupta Monopoly Capital (GMC). The success of this family - under the guise of radical economic transformation - is wrongly seen as black progress. The recent cabinet reshuffle, aimed at this goal, cannot succeed because the new finance minister has reiterated that he will implement the current ANC policies which, as experience has shown, are not radical. GMC poses a similar threat.
Save SA’s Sipho Pityana argues that state capture is an international syndicate including some Brics members, Asian and African countries. The R1 trillion nuclear deal with Russia, for one, could benefit pro-Zuma factions through kickbacks. As such, South Africa’s 2019 elections might suffer the same fate as the US (alleged vote-rigging by Russia) in favour of a pro-Saxonwold president.
These state capturers need to be seen for what they are - a threat to the ideals that Mandela fought for all his life.
He emphatically pronounced in his inaugural speech that their struggle had been for a constitution freely chosen by the people. He concluded by saying that South Africa shall never experience any form of oppression by one to another. One can conclude from this that he wouldn't have entertained either side of this debate because each hinges on oppressing another.
Let's look at two of the many lessons that the current leaders can learn from Mandela. He was a good strategist. Not only that, he unleashed his strategy at an opportune moment. He founded the ANC’s armed wing in 1960, just moments after the international community had awarded his president (Albert Luthuli) a Nobel Peace Prize. Yet he knew that this was not a final solution. He always maintained that the oppressor determines the nature of the struggle. For them to denounce violence, the South African government had to repeal key apartheid laws.
Yet it was Mandela who initiated talks with the then-president about a possibility of a negotiated settlement. “There are times when a leader must move out ahead of the flock,” says Mandela, “(and be) confident that he is leading his people the right way.” If this was a mistake on his part, he was prepared to live with it because principle was on his side. Apartheid had been a crime against humanity and it needed to be defeated at all costs.
Like Mandela, when he “resigned” from violence and opted for peace, the current leadership, starting from the president, could follow suit. Similarly, ANC MPs, as suggested by Chief Justice Mogoeng, are allowed “to exercise their vote freely and effectively in accordance with the conscience of each” without the fear of being victimised. Numbers show that success in impeaching the president rests on ANC members. These MPs and the NEC need to redeem their dignity since they deliberately called a swimming pool a fire pool to exonerate the president.
The second lesson is that Mandela was never a life president. It was during his term that the South African Treasury and Sars were restructured to conform to internationally accepted norms. This was followed by a 99-month economic growth between 1999 and 2007. At the epicentre of these debates, today, is that same Treasury which everyone wants to exploit.
Mandela could have got his second term easily. However, he had fulfilled his immediate goals - economic stability and reconciliation. He then stepped down to allow other leaders to move the country forward. The importance of an independent Treasury cannot be over-emphasised.
Both WMC and GMC threaten Mandela’s democratic ideals. They both have stolen South Africa’s wealth through tax evasions, corruption and, worst of all, undermining South Africa’s institutions. Both should be stopped from being "life presidents" by putting their preferred candidate as the next president. This could be achieved, firstly, by implementing the proposed transparency in party funding.
By refusing to support either side, the citizens would err on the side of Mandela and his democratic ideals.
* Sibonelo Sosibo is a Philosophy, Political Science and Economics major at Stellenbosch University.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.