With the news of the man’s passing, I’m curious to hear thoughts on a counterfactual: suppose Nelson Mandela had never been born? Never led the ANC, never been imprisoned for so long, never became the first democratically elected president of South Africa? How different would South Africa’s path to democracy have been (if it had happened at all)? Were there others in the ANC who would have more or less played the same role? Or did the amazingly peaceful transition depend to a large degree on his unique talents and personality?
On one hand “The graveyards are full of indispensable men.” So I think South Africa would have ended up more or less as it is today. But yes, probably there would have been a lot more violence in getting there without him.
Reading the thread title, I know I should have more decorum, but I can’t stop myself from saying “still somewhere south of Zimbabwe.”
But in seriousness, I think the end of apartheid was inevitable - it may have taken a few more years (or even a decade) but I think it was unavoidable. That said, I think Mandela held the country together in the aftermath, and things might have gone rather poorly in the country without him.
Mandela was like George Washington, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all rolled into one. I was talking to a friend today, and not only did he suffer through the humiliation of decades in prison, but was able to transcend that when he finally came to power and to not start a war of revenge. To be willing to wipe the slate clean and focus on what needed to be done in the future takes a rare mind. You can fight a war forever, but if you want peace, sometimes you have to let go of the past. That’s very hard to do. I don’t know if I could do it, but he did.
He was a rare soul-- something the world needs more of.
Or perhaps still somewhere south of Rhodesia.
There have been a lot of successful revolutions in the world. But I can think of only two revolutionary leaders who did a successful job of building a stable democratic government afterwards: Washington and Mandela. So I’m going to say that without Mandela, South Africa would have had a prolonged period of factional violence and possible civil war and would probably be ruled by a dictator.
To my mind most importantly he knew how to sell the transition to the people, both black and white and used his imprisonment to learn the language of his oppressor in order to “speak to their hearts” .
What about Gandhi?
He was murdered before he could. Nehru is who you’re thinking of.
Vaclav Havel?
I highly doubt it.
First off, the Great Man theory of history is bunk.
Second of all, the ANC was an organization, there were others in there who would have taken on a post-apartheid leadership role, such as Walter Sisulu.
Basically, what Mr Dibble said. There were plenty of able leaders in the ANC who could have played a leadership role post apartheid instead of Mandela. Pity none are left now. And don’t discount the role played by FW de Klerk either.
It obviously helped. But he wasn’t indispensable.
Whilst people like Walter Sisulu might well have taken a post-apartheid leadership role, I’m not convinced that the post-apartheid period would actually have been reached by now without Mandela. It was his determination that there should not be recrimination and reprisals - something that few if any other ANC leaders had the ability to 1) suggest and 2) lead - which has got S. Africa to where it is now. As it is, there seem to be cracks appearing already with the gap between the elite and the everyday people growing alarming: think, for instance, of the various stikes there have been in the mines this year, with miners being paid a pittance and their living conditions appalling.
Apartheid was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. The idea that apartheid would still persist nearly 25 years later (the dismantling of apartheid began in 1990) with or without Mandela is hard to believe.
The major ANC leaders might have taken a bit longer, but they would have adopted a more pragmatic route espoused by Mandela.
Upon assuming power, the ANC inherited one of the most unequal societies in the world. The gap has widened, but lets not pretend there was not an enormous gulf to begin with.
Strikes and service delivery protests have long been a part of post-apartheid life; it is not a recent development.
Miners wages average about ZAR5000, which is low but not a "pittance. "
Probably a separatist movement amongst white minority in the form of a new Orange Free State, or white flight.
I’m interested how long Mandelas legacy of reconciliation will last after his passing.
Under what conditions - not merely absence of Mandela - do you see a white separatist movement emerging?
The majority of white South Africans do not have ties to any other country and have been in the country for generations. The notion of large-scale “white flight” is unlikely.
I don’t know what this means. Are you suggesting that Mandela was what was preventing South Africa from tipping over into the abyss?
You think the shame of what a 95 y.o. invalid would think, is all that stood between South Africa and punitive retribution? Seriously?
We’re 20 years post-apartheid. Reconciliation’s a done deal.
I think the more pertinent question is not whether there would have been other leaders to take power post-apartheid, but whether those leaders would have voluntarily given up power once they acquired it. The example of other post-colonial countries is not heartening, in that regard. That, to me, is what made Mandela great.
I agree with you on Mandela, but in general you’re overstating it. There’s not really any strong argument it was anything but personal ambition and ability that lead to say, William the Conqueror taking the crown of England. That wasn’t at all the trajectory history was on nor was it something that some inexorable force had been building toward. Even more remarkable is he held onto England, which had been partially conquered several times in the preceding few hundred years but never kept by an y of its conquerors. Will the C is the best first example, but there are many others. If history moves in trends there is no way to explain instances when it suddenly doesn’t other than personal abilities of individuals involved.
Not this tiresome shit again.
What reason do you have for thinking that an autocrat would have assumed power? As South Africa, by 1994, had not been a colony for a number of decades, superficial comparisons to post-colonial states won’t work.
That’s without considering the more substantial differences between South Africa and any post-colonial state you’d care to mention.
I disagree. someone was going to conquer that rich fat island in short order - I mean, where was Harold just before Hastings?
But more relevant to this discussion - William didn’t conquer England alone, where would he have been without his Barons (not just in the fighting, but the subsequent administration), or without the weakening of the English by them fighting off the Norse? This is what is meant by the Great Man theory being bunk - you see only William, and ignore all these other people who directly or indirectly aided his conquest. Yes, he was ambitious - but so was Hardrada, and if he had succeeded, would *he *be the Great Man?