Nelson Mandela: A Critical Analysis

by justintime4tea

The South African National Party, between 1948 and 1994, organized a legal system with which to racially segregate its own country’s citizens in an attempt to cement its own political power and dominance, and in the process reaping numerous benefits from the suffering and inequality faced by all their black citizens. In response emerged an anti-apartheid movement, motivated by the injustices that were occurring, which sought to both establish a legal system based on equality and dispel the National Party from South Africa’s Government. From this movement surfaced a leader, Nelson Mandela, a man whose efforts have brought enormous political change to South Africa and its people. Throughout his political career Mandela tirelessly fought for the rights of black South Africans, so in order to understand how and why Mandela surfaced as an icon for human rights one must discuss what motivates such a leader to dedicate their life to such a selfless cause. For the purpose of this discussion I draw upon the theories of Frantz Fanon, an influential philosopher on the process of revolutions, to place Mandela under a critical spotlight by reviewing Mandela’s actions as a political leader of the anti-apartheid movement. Though Fanon’s writings accurately categorize and anticipate the process of national liberation by the anti-apartheid movement and Nelson Mandela as its leader in terms of national consciousness and their use of violence, Fanon’s criticisms of race as a motivating factor fall short as he fails to bring into account the nature of apartheid laws.           

National Consciousness

National consciousness is a term devised by Frantz Fanon to describe the movement of a people in an “all-embracing crystallization of the innermost hopes of the whole people.”  Fanon coins this term in 1961 in his published work entitled The Wretched of the Earth. The book, which Fanon wrote in Algeria during a violent liberation movement, encourages those who have been oppressed by the “European people” to resist and to fight for national liberation. Fanon argues that in order for national liberation to occur, or in terms of South Africa for the Anti-Apartheid movement to succeed, there must be a “maturity” of the national consciousness. However, Fanon shows little faith that such a maturity in national consciousness is able to occur. “The faults that we find in it [national consciousness] are quite sufficient explanation of the facility with which, when dealing with young and independent nations, the nation is passed over for the race.” Fanon states that national consciousness has a strong tendency to fall into a matter of race, rather than that of the state, and subsequently the nation reverts back to a state of tribalism. The case of Senegal’s colonialism is used as an example to support Fanon’s claim, in which the Senegalese people demanded a Government entirely run by members of their own race.

Nelson Mandela’s motivations for participating in the anti-apartheid movement become extremely transparent in his speech during the Rivonia trials of 1964. During these trials Mandela was accused by the South African Government of operating under the influence of foreign Governments as well as the Communist Party, however Mandela refutes these claims by drawing upon the same notions that Fanon uses in The Wretched of the Earth analyzing national consciousness. “I have done whatever I did, both as an individual and as a leader of my people, because of my experience in South Africa and my own proudly felt African background, and not because of what any outsider might have said.” This statement alone demonstrates both a sense of national consciousness on Mandela’s part, but also, as Fanon warned, a tendency to fall into a matter of race. The presence of race and national consciousness become even clearer as Mandela continues.

“In my youth in the Transkei I listened to the elders of my tribe telling stories of the old days. Amongst the tales they related to me were those of wars fought by our ancestors in defense of the fatherland. The names of Dingane and Bambata, Hintsa and Makana, Squngthi and Dalasile, Moshoeshoe and Sekhukhuni, were praised as the glory of the entire African nation. I hoped then that life might offer me the opportunity to serve my people and make my own humble contribution to their freedom struggle. This is what has motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me in this case.”

From Mandela’s statements it would seem clear that the anti-apartheid movement was doomed for the same fate as the Senegalese people, just as Fanon warned.

On Racism

However, there remains an apparent dissimilarity between Mandela’s quest for a “non-racial” democracy and his supposed motivation of race. This dissimilarity can best be explained by Fanon’s understanding of racial motivation. Black Nationalism, which Fanon sees as a flaw, is to be motivated by ones race and to believe you must act socially, economically and politically based on your race; non-racialism is just the opposite. The anti-apartheid movement is solely based on opposing a series of laws that are racist in themselves. It is because of this that the issue of race must be addressed by Mandela and is key to the movement itself. Mandela is calling not for race solidarity, but simply for an end to racial discrimination, something that Fanon never predicts in his writings. Mandela addresses this issue in his closing statement during his Rivonia speech.

“During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

Although Fanon’s predictions concerning national consciousness are essentially accurate, they fail to fully address the scope of South Africa’s situation. Mandela was able to transcend Fanon’s theory and steer the movement from a fall into a tribalistic political system.

On Violence

Fanon’s article “On Violence” as well as Mandela’s Rivonia speech addresses the need for violence in resisting an oppressing force. Mandela admitted to planning on planting explosives as well as other sabotage, although claimed to have done so in desperation and with no intention of violence against people. The justification is when confronted with pure violence, as the Nationalist Party did with the anti-apartheid movement, then resistors are left with no other option than retaliation for their own safety. Examples of this extreme violence used by the apartheid Government are the Sharpeville Massacre in which many protesters were killed.

Bourgeoisie

Fanon shows a strong criticism of the middle class, such as the inability of the middle class to communicate the issues to the masses and that the middle class is unable to fulfill the same tasks as the oppressing government has set up. However, Mandela in his youth set up protests on his own and delivering speeches that directly speak to the heart of the issue, in addition Mandela did not seek to replace the existing Government, but instead provide an equal democracy without the apartheid laws. Mandela’s life is stereotypical of a middle class citizen, however he is able to break free from Fanon’s criticisms, which allowed for him to become a more effective leader.

Bibliography:

• Fanon, Frantz. A Dying Colonialism. New York: Grove Press, 1965.

• Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Translated by Constance Farrington. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967.

• Foster, Don et.al. The Theatre of Violence. Johannesburg: HSRC Press, 2005.

• Limb, Peter. Nelson Mandela: a Biography. Santa Barbara: Greenwood, 2008.

• Mandela, Nelson. I Am Prepared To Die. Pretoria Supreme Court: South Africa, April 20, 1964.