Character and Leadership
One of the lasting impressions of the 20th century was former President De Klerk conceding victory of Nelson Mandela’s ANC when barely 50% of the votes had been counted in the South African elections. While the ANC victory was a foregone conclusion, the only doubt being whether they would manage a two-thirds majority, the grace with which De Klerk accepted defeat was a great moment for this world, a peaceful breaking off the strangulating chains of Apartheid that had shackled South Africa’s black majority for 300 years. This moment of defeat brought into focus the character qualities of this outstanding leader, an occasion he thus managed to turn into a victory of sorts. An amazing period culminated yesterday with the formal inauguration of Nelson Mandela as South Africa’s first Black President. In victory, Nelson Mandela was not to be out done by De Klerk, he was magnanimous, expressing deep satisfaction that he was privileged to work with such a great leader as De Klerk and there could never be any finality in the negotiation of terms with friends.
De Klerk started the 90s as the leader of the white minority National Party which ruled South Africa absolutely in exclusion of the black majority. He wielded complete uncompromising power in a land where his well-trained, well-disciplined and ruthless Defence Forces had ensured that armed black rebellion dissolved into failure. In his first astounding act of freeing White Enemy No. 1 Nelson Mandela from 28 years of incarceration, he showed the expanse of his vision, in recognizing that the future of his country lay in a peaceful transition to majority rule, not by the continuation of suppression by brute military force. In shrugging off his years of captivity, Nelson Mandela displayed that unusual quality that raises outstanding leaders beyond normal comparison, the maturity to overcome his personal bitterness for the greater good of his people.
The South African dream beginning is the doing of these two leaders par excellence, Nelson Mandela and De Klerk. For third world leaders it should be a case study in leaders putting the needs of their people beyond their personal selves. The stakes have been high, failure would have meant endless conflict and bloodbath that would have engulfed the land. Keeping that apocalypse always before their eyes, both Mandela and De Klerk have negotiated a compact that has every ingredient for success given its basic sincerity of purpose. Above all, they steered their own people away from conflict and inspired confidence in their abilities to poll off what can only be described as a miracle.
In the negotiations that led to the final agreement, Mandela represented a seething frustrated population that had been discriminated against, disenchanfrised, humiliated, tortured, etc in short enslaved for centuries. In the long years of his own incarceration, mostly in solitary confinement, his cup of bitterness must have become full indeed. The benign neglect of centuries had forced the blacks to live in sub-human condition, without water or electricity, medical or educational facilities. Underpaid and underfed, Nelson Mandela’s ANC was a band of promise without the wherewithal to provide. Always in his mind, he had the history of black Africa to remind him that the departure of whites in other African countries had further deteriorated the situation without exception, even in the most recent example of Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia) where a measure of cooperation did not survive independence by much. A pragmatic Mandela knew that an exodus of the whites would mean disaster and that could lead to anarchy. Whatever his reservations, this was one black leader whose entire strategy to post-independence (from the ills of Apartheid) was to ensure continued white participation in future government. To that end he motivated his people to fall into line with his convictions.
Inheriting the wielding of absolute white power for centuries, it was much more difficult for De Klerk to give up that authority. White supremacy formed the core of the National Party’s (mainly Boa) existence. For decades they had lived in economic isolation from the rest of the world in successfully defying attempts to make the black South Africans equal to them. Enjoying an absolute monopoly over the law enforcement agencies of the State, with a well-deserved reputation in effective ruthlessness in suppression of black dissent, De Klerk wielded absolute power. By various strategies, the whites had divided the blacks, by creating autonomous black homelands that were hardly economic entities they had created the basis for unhampered white rule for many more decades. Armed rebellion had been stamped out mercilessly, South African Defence Forces even crossing the international border to bring “enemies” to book. With all raw material and industry in white hands, with a majority of business owned by whites, De Klerk’s control of the State was total. In short, De Klerk could have easily kept on fighting a white battle for a decade or so. However he knew that in the extinction the force of reality would catch up and a violent black victory would mean the end of white inhabitation in South Africa. Looking well into the future he knew he had to strike a deal whereby whites would accept their minority status but would be almost equal partners in the new nation. He opted against the scorched Earth policy of lesser mortals.
Both leaders thus came to the negotiating table with profound strengths and weaknesses. While they refused to give an inch in what constituted the vital interest of their respective constituencies, they were ready to compromise on what they felt was the legitimate demands of each other. In what can be seen as a historic achievement both leaders felt confident that their futures were safe with the other. Both the leaders avoided hurling accusations at each other that would vitiate the conducive environment for negotiations, in fact they seemed to be protective of each other’s genuine interests. Above all, even in disagreement they never resorted to personal insults. The result is that the Republic of South Africa has transformed itself into a multi-racial democracy peacefully. Despite the last-minute violent action of extremists, the “great silent majority” of South Africa reached out to each other and have fulfilled the vision of their two great leaders, that the ballot box is always preferable to bullets. What could not be achieved on the battlefield was peacefully accomplished on the negotiating table. An amazing coincidence saw two great leaders of one nation represent their respective races in a spirit of compromise and give each other the best deal in the circumstances, something both the races are satisfied with. What stands out above all is their sincerity of purpose and self-confidence in their respective stands.
Today in Pakistan, we are faced with a crisis of leadership. Whether the leadership is political or military, bureaucratic or business, the spirit of compromise is missing. Everywhere there is contention and confrontation. What to talk of the other’s legitimate demands we are not prepared to even listen to or understand the other’s point of view. Despite his overwhelming majority over the National Party (62.7% over 20.7%) Nelson Mandela has sincerely looked forward to De Klerk’s participation in government. He even went to the extent of saying he was grateful that he did not get a two-third majority and was thus thankfully spared the pressures of ANC changing the Constitution on its own on the strength of that majority. This is selflessness par excellence, all for the sake of his country. The result is he has got a vibrant nation instead of the charred remains of a once prosperous economy. Our major leaders Ms Benazir and Mian Nawaz Sharif are not even prepared to talk to each other, what to talk about negotiating some compromise. Instead of putting the cause before self it is the other way around, the individual interest supersedes even the integrity of the country. Neither major political party can escape the charge of nepotism or corruption, only the scale and the magnitude differ. That is what we have sunk to, the only race is to determine who was/is involved in the bigger loot. Our leaders have to rise above the mutual acrimony and dislike for the sake of the nation, they have to chose the nation over self. The alternative is an alternative that may not be palatable to the other, but then that is what they both seem to want, anybody but each other in the Premier’s chair.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment