Recent revelations that Nelson Mandela is still on the United States’ terrorist watch list (a list he never belonged on in the first place) does not exactly inspire confidence in America’s handling of its foreign policy, its approach to terrorism, or its grasp of African policy, does it?
[Crossposted at dcat.]
Well, that probably seals the pending victory. Nelson Mandela stopped in France to wish the Springboks well on the eve of the opening of the Rugby World Cup. Mandela’s embrace of the Springboks, historically the embodiment of Afrikaner Nationalism, proved one of the feel-good stories of transformation and reconciliation in 1995. 
Now the great man has spread his pixie dust over the 2007 version of Amobokoboko. How can they lose? 
On Sunday former United Nations Secretary general Kofi Annan gave the fifth annual Nelson Mandela lecture at Madiba’s foundation. In his talk Annan entreated African leaders to promote democracy and good governance and to disavow tyranny.
It turns out that throughout much of the continent, Africans are already heeding the call for democracy and away from kleptocracy and dictatorship. In the newest issue of The Journal of Democracy Daniel N. Posner and Daniel J. Young have an article posing the argument that peaceful transitions of power may well already be underway, with force having given way to a general trend toward the rule of law. In sum, that Africans are benefiting from the “institutionalization of political power.”
For whatever reason, Blake Hounshell at Foreign Policy’s “Passport” decided that on Mandela’s birthday he needed to write a blog post declaring that “Nelson Mandela is No Saint.” Let’s leave aside the fact that no one has actually argued that Mandela is a saint, and so Hounshell is heroically creating a straw man to beat him up and then declare victory. Huzzah. And Hounshell’s point would have disappeared into the nether had it not been for the fact that Andrew Sullivan reproduced large portions of Hounshell’s post, including the “No Saint” crack. And he did so uncritically.
Andrew Sullivan is a huge driving force in the blog world, and even though he has never given any indication that he has any real concern, interest, or understanding of Africa, if he grants his imprimatur to an argument, it will have a huge ripple effect. Thus I wrote him an email (which has gone unacknowledged), which I would like to excerpt here (I have edited the email slightly without changing the meaning at all):
Andrew –
I really wish you had been a little more fair to Mandela, especially on his 89th birthday, even in using someone else’s article. Was his tenure in office as ahead of the curve as it ought to have been on AIDS? No. But let’s keep in mind a few salient points — as important and devastating as the AIDS scourge has been in Subsaharan Africa and in South Africa, Mandela had a few things on his plate in his one term in office (and serving just one term, given the context of African politics, is itself incredibly laudable). He took over from a loathsome regime during a time when the idea of reconciliation was not some quaint idea but a real need in his country. The transformation which he oversaw was a tremendous accomplishment. He had to deal with not only foreign affairs as newly elected head of state, he had to do so as the first legitimate leader of the region’s only superpower. He had economic issues to address. In other words, his AIDS policy may have left a lot to be desired, but let’s keep in mind that the man had a few things on his plate.
But furthermore, your glib “no saint” characterization also reveals a static understanding of contemporary history. Mandela’s life, even his public life, did not end in 1999 when he gave way to Thabo Mbeki. His foundation has made AIDS a central issue and Mandela has often been forthright that as president he did not do enough. Can one imagine many other leaders being that candid about their shortcomings so soon after leaving office? And then taking the issue on which he or she fell short and making it a centerpiece of an active and profoundly important foundation?
I know that blogging sometimes invites glibness. I am the blogger and writer on Africa and especially South African issues for the Foreign Policy Association and I have a blog of my own, in addition to my normal writing duties and responsibilities as a professor. But we, and especially someone with your profile, must avoid an unfair glibness in which nuance gives way to a “gotcha” approach. Mandela is not beyond reproach, but he warrants more than a dismissive treatment, even if you can cover it by saying you are using someone else’s words.
The problem with taking a one-issue focus on Mandela, who certainly is not beyoind reproach, is that doing so is myopic. But furthermore almost all of the examples of irresponsibility Hounshell cites and Sullivan uncritically replicates fall in the lap of Thabo Mbeki. And while Sarafina II proved to be a disaster, but at its essence the idea was not necessarily a bad one even if its execution proved a disaster – have a playwright with an international education produce a show that will serve as a public educational tool in the fight against AIDS. Every major public health crisis that I can think of has been accompanied by a major education component. The idea of such an endeavor is not the problem — the misallocation of scarce resources and the execution is what doomed Sarafina II to the status of an unfunny punchline.
It seems unseemly to me to publish a post declaring Mandela not to be a saint on his 89th birthday when there is so much to celebrate. But that unseemliness is multiplied when the criticisms are repeated by people who have not otherwise shown themselves to be especially dedicated to South Africa or to African issues generally.
Nelson Mandela turned 89 today, birthday gifts pile up, and South Africa celebrates. The still vibrant liberation hero and South Africa’s first legitimate president still inspires hope, and continues to grow in popularity, whether dealing with his beloved South Africa, advising African leaders, or drawing the support of global football stars at a ceremony on Robben Island, where Mandela has said that soccer provided “a way of survival.” Mandela is the one African figure who is considered a global icon and hero.
It is easy to be cynical, about Africa and about just about anything. And Mandela is, of course, not beyond reproach. But despite all of my finely tempered professional cynicism, Mandela still stands as a hero to me and to millions in South Africa and across the globe. Happy birthday, Madiba.
Cape Town has a perception as a racist city, according to Danny Jordaan, South Africa’s Local Organizing Committee CEO for the 2010 World Cup. And he believes that the city (and the country in general) will have to shed that image if the 2010 event is to be a success.
As a step in that direction, Cape Town will host “90 Minutes for Mandela,” which will pit an Africa XI against a World XI of all time greats in honor of Madiba’s 89th birthday. The game will provide a litmus test, or at least a gauge, of where South Africa is in terms of its capacity to host a big event without major glitches.
The 2010 World Cup is going to be a vital moment for South Africa. In many ways it will represent the country’s coming out party, a sort of debut or “Sweet 16,” coming as it does sixteen years after the epochal events of 1994. In this sense the World Cup will be about much more than sport. With the rest of the world watching, South Africa can show that it belongs in the first rank of nations and it can reveal to a skeptical and patronizing world what an African nation is capable of given the opportunity.
There has been a perplexing story unwinding in South Africa over the course of the last few weeks. The Springboks are gearing up for their World Cup run later this year. The start has been promising — two South African teams, the Bulls and the Sharks, made the finals of the Super 14 with the Bulls pulling off the win. The annual Tri-Nations clashes, pitting the national teams of traditional powerhouses New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa, will provide the usual measuring stick for where the teams are. Then will come the World Cup, which South Africa has only hosted once, in the epochal 1995 victory in which Nelson Mandela donned a Springbok jersey and for a brief moment the supreme icon of Afrikaner nationalism, the Springbok, became a symbol of reconciliation.
But in the midst of the preparations for the World Cup a peculiar story has bubbled that reveals all of the fissures in South African society, but in a bizarro world sort of way. The controversy involves team selection. South Africa’s national sports teams bear the burden of trying to compete at the highest level while at the same time helping to make a transition from apartheid sport in which black athletes were inelegible to compete on the national teams. The processes of trying to promote inclusion have led to some tense moments and have brought affirmative action into the public dialogue in a way that tends to reveal deep-seeded politics rather bluntly.
The most recent controversy involves the inclusion of Western Province Stormers flank Luke Watson on the Springbok squad. The solons of South African rugby want him on the team. The coach, Jake White, does not. Watson is a good player — he was Vodacom Cup player of the year last year. But White argues that Watson is not big enough for the style of play — brute force upfront, a traditional Springbok hallmark — that White hopes to implement.
But the twist is that Watson is white. Though he also unabashedly claims to be African. And to make matters even more inscrutable, some, including Western Province ANC Premier Ebrahim Rasool, have taken to calling Watson a “black” player.
The further twist is that Watson is the son of “Cheeky” Watson. Watson and his brother, Valence, were sterling rugby players in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. But they chose to turn their back on the white rugby establishment, and thus the Springboks, in order to play with black players in the townships under the old South African Rugby Union (SARU). The Watson brothers’ stance — Cheeky turned down Springbok selection in 1976 because of the country’s racial policies – made them virtual pariahs in white South Africa. Many observers believe that their stand so many years ago provide the foundation for the opposition to Luke Watson by many in the current rugby structure. In other words, the Watsons’ anti-apartheid activism might be harming Luke Watson so that even though Luke Watson is white, racism plays a part in this imbroglio. SARU deputy Mike Stofile, for example, accused White of being prejudiced against Watson because of his father’s fight against rugby racism during the apartheid era. Furthermore, some of the black members of the rugby hierarchy, particularly Springbok manager Zola Yeye, are old friends with the Watsons, and thus the politicization of the sport takes another bizarre turn.
Coach White insists that Luke Watson’s inclusion is not a problem on the squad. Watson will not be on the roster for the test match against England, the defending world champions, this weekend nor will he don the Springbok jersey for the second England match, but he will appear against Samoa on June 9 in the last test match prior to the start of the Tri Nations series.
The Watson case has drawn a tremendous amount of attention across South Africa. The odds are that it will not abate soon. The controversy over Watson has overshadowed a host of other stories regarding the maekup of the squad. Perhaps the biggest irony is that lost in the shuffle has been that the national governing body imposed another player, the Sharks’ Odwa Ndungane, onto the squad over White’s preferences. Ndugane’s inclusion (he will join his twin brother Akona on the squad) may well have represented an attempt at racial balancing.
If nothing else is clear amidst this muddle, there is no doubt that rugby, race and politics create a peculiar, vexing, and fascinating mix in South Africa. It is likely that by the time of the World Cup this controversy will be long past, though the Watson backstory will probably prove too alluring for it to recede too deep into the background and race will continue to be an issue in the sport for so long most closely associated with white supremacy in South Africa.
(Tokyo Sexwale Pictured With Nelson Mandela.)
Tokyo Sexwale is an ANC Stalwart, former premiere of Gauteng, and multimillionaire businessman. The chairman of Mvelaphanda Group has been in the news a great deal lately. He recently drew headlines for joining the Washington, DC-Based Brookings Institution’s International Advisory Council (IAC). The IAC is a “group of 24 distinguished individuals from around the world who helped to provide the US think-tank with global insights on its mission and research agenda,” established by Strobe Talbott, the Brookings Institution president and former deputy secretary of State under Bill Clinton.
As the ANC succession battle heats up and the procedural machinations follow, Sexwale has not exactly been quick to dismiss rumors that he has his eye on the ANC presidency, which in turn would likely assure that he would succeed Thabo Mbeki as the country’s president. The timing of his recent criticisms of “silent diplomacy” toward Zimbabwe certainly indicates that Sexwale has serious political aspirations.
Can good governance be encouraged through financial incentives? Sudanese businessman Mo Ibrahim believes it can be and he has established a prize in his name to do so.
Former United Nations chief Kofi Annan will head the committee making the award, which “will go to former presidents and prime ministers from sub-Saharan Africa who left office in the three years prior and who showed exemplary leadership while in power” and will consist of $5-million over 10 years and then $200 000 each year for the remainder of the recipient’s life. In addition the award-winner will receive another $200 000 annually for charities and other good deeds behind which they put their names. Nelson Mandela is one of many leaders to have placed his support behind the Mo Ibrahim Prize.
Ibrahim has clearly identified a need area for sub-Saharan Africa. Corruption, kleptocracy, tyranny, and chaos are rife in too many countries stretching north from the Cape of Good Hope. But there is something untoward about all of this, and I cannot quite put my finger on it. Perhaps the problem is simply providing such a huge “reward” for something that ought to be a basic expectation of any leader.
At the same time, Ibrahim’s gesture at least represents an effort to do something to address an issue that continues to plague the region, and the fact that Mandela and others have gotten on board leads me to leave my skepticism at the door at least for the time being.