Mandela
South
African legend and Nobel peace laureate, Nelson Mandela, turned 95 last
month and expectedly the whole world was agog for this global icon. As
he continues his recuperation from a recurring liver ailment, it is
equally not surprising that the whole world is praying for his speedy
recovery. Talk of a man who is widely respected, loved and idolized the
world over, Nelson Mandela is it! Bordering South Africa, the country of
the Madiba, is Zimbabwe which shares similar colonial experience with
South Africa. Inside Zimbabwe is President Robert Mugabe, 89, the
country’s ruler since 1980. Based on the outcome of the country’s recent
presidential election, Mugabe has got his people’s mandate to extend
his 33 years’ hold on power.
Mandela and Mugabe represent the link
between Africa’s colonial and post -colonial history. Undoubtedly, these
two men have defined the history of their respective countries in
various ways and, indeed, shared lots in common. They were both born in
the colonial era and actually witnessed the various complications of
colonial rule in their respective countries. They both had their
earliest education at Christian mission schools and same Fort Hare
University in South Africa. They were both involved in a bitter struggle
to end white minority rule in their respective countries. Similarly,
they were both imprisoned for various numbers of years (Mandela, 27,
Mugabe, 11) by the colonial governments in their separate countries for
their anti-colonial activities. Equally, they both led their respective
countries to independence and served as the first post -colonial black
leaders of their separate nations. The similarities between these two
African leaders are rather endless.
However, despite their similar colonial
experiences, the two leaders sharply differ in the manner in which they
handled socio-political issues and other related matters in their
separate countries after providence bestowed the leadership of their
respective nations on them. Upon his release from prison in 1990,
Mandela entered into negotiation with South Africa’s ruling white elite
for a period of four years before apartheid was finally dealt a final
crushing blow in 1994. As the country’s first black president, Mandela,
became an apostle of national reconciliation. Irrespective of the
ruthlessness of the apartheid regime in his country, Mandela was more
interested in uniting the various groups in the country in order to
achieve his dream of a prosperous South Africa. He encouraged his people
to forget the bitterness of the past by forging ahead to build a united
South Africa where all would have a sense of belonging irrespective of
race and other interrelated dynamics. On the contrary, while Mandela
encouraged dialogue with the apartheid rulers in his country with a view
to healing the wounds of the past and reconciling the various groups in
the country, Mugabe, on his part, simply continue to launch a
relentless attack on the white community in his country. As far as he is
concerned, Zimbabwe’s whites are nothing but impostors who must not be
given a conducive space to operate. Unfortunately, Mugabe’s onslaught
was not only against the white society in his country as the various
black opposition groups, opposed to his prolonged stronghold on power in
the country, have had to contend with serious realities of his iron
hold on power.
Therefore, while Mandela chose the path
of national re-union in his country, Mugabe would have none of that in
his ‘kingdom’. The result is that, as South Africa continues to thread
along the course of relative peace and socio-political stability,
national harmony, socio- economic and political solidity remain a mirage
in Zimbabwe. Today, South Africa is, unarguably, a giant of Africa, in
many respects. To deny the country’s leadership position in Africa is to
deny the existence of air. It enjoys a relatively buoyant economy while
its technological advancement is almost second to none on the
continent. Regrettably, same cannot be said of neighbouring Zimbabwe
where a large chunk of the populace has continued to live in abject
poverty as all economic indicators keep pointing to a nation on the
brink of socio-economic collapse, no thanks to Mugabe’s uncompromising
stand against western creditors.
Perhaps, the most intriguing of all the
dissimilarities between these two sons of Africa is their respective
perception of power. In a continent where majority of the leaders do
many despicable things to perpetuate themselves in power, it is
instructive that Mandela was contented with ruling for just a five-year
term in office as he relinquished power in 1999. His argument then was
that South Africa, being a young democracy, needed a younger and dynamic
leadership to steer her ship. That was how Thabo Mbeki succeeded him.
This singular move has continued to earn Mandela much respect across the
globe. And this is where most African leaders, Mugabe inclusive, get it
wrong. It is rather sad that by perpetuating himself in power, Mugabe
has rubbished every effort he made in the past towards fighting colonial
overlords in his country. The assumption that no one else but him could
steer the ship of the country, at 89 and after 33 years of being in the
saddle, is nothing but a charade.
The tragedy of the African continent is
that most of its leaders, especially those who have little or nothing to
offer their people, have continued to toe the ignoble path of
authoritarianism. Is it not funny that most of the leaders, whose stay
in power have pauperised their people, would rather prefer to die in
power rather than giving opportunities to others with fresh ideas to
rule? For those who argue that Mugabe’s prolonged hold on power is as a
result of the love and affection his people have for him, they need to
be reminded that Mandela is equally held in high esteem by South
Africans across racial divide. That he is well loved by his people is
further reinforced by the several outpouring of unsolicited affection,
emotion and care being showered on him as he continues his battle with
the liver ailment that has made him bedridden for months.
A good leader should know when to quit.
Perhaps, more importantly, a good leader must invest quality time and
resources in developing new crop of leaders for the purpose of progress
and stability. This is where Mandela differs remarkably from Mugabe. For
the unusual feat of relinquishing power despite constitutional
provision that allows him to run for another term of five years, Mandela
is today a global icon while his country has continued to make healthy
progress in all spheres. On the other hand, Mugabe, rightly or wrongly,
is mostly viewed as a despot ruling over a country grappling with
economic decline, political instability, international isolation among
others numerous other challenges. At 89, Mugabe needs a break. Zimbabwe
deserves a new beginning.
- Ogunbiyi is of the Features Unit, Ministry of Information and Strategy, Alausa, Ikeja.
0 Comments