Few world leaders are as universally admired or ubiquitous in their reputation as South Africa’s first democratically elected leader, Nelson Mandela. He’s rightly admired for his humility, virtue, and adherence to social justice. The man is considered a contemporary to Martin Luther King Jr or Gandhi, perhaps leading a nation the way those men would have, were they to have been politicians. But there is another, less appreciated but arguably more important legacy to Mandela’s brief tenure as president, identified courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.
Globally, Mr. Mandela, who emerged from 28 years in apartheid prisons to vanquish any thought of racial revenge, is already iconic—a symbol of our better nature, the personification of forgiveness and nonracialism. But this legacy, which is championed primarily by earnest foreigners and white South Africans, is not the only one.
Mr. Mandela’s lasting political bequest to his own people and to the rest of Africa is more nuanced. What was crucial to South Africa’s chances of a functional future was not so much anything he did in his short presidency, from 1994 to 1999, but rather his decision, like George Washington in the early days of the American republic, to step down. He easily could have stayed for a second term and then have ventriloquized his rule through some pliant placeholder.
If anyone was well positioned to launch a political personality cult it was Mr. Mandela. His refusal to do so is probably his greatest legacy to his homeland. It set South Africa on a course different from most other African nations. Seventeen years into its post-apartheid incarnation, South Africa is already on its fourth president. This has radically reduced the danger of a single leader dominating the state.
Indeed, even a cursory look at the politics of any given African nations reveal a continent practically devoid of any leader approaching Mandela’s stature and integrity. Those who had emerged with similarly promising origins came to become the very strong-men they fought against (such as the leaders of Uganda and Rwanda), while political movements that were ostensibly grassroots or populist became aloof, authoritarian, and power hungry. The old adage about power’s corrupting influence seems is well validated.
Yet the continent is becoming more democratic. When the Berlin Wall fell in late 1989, a few months before Mr. Mandela’s release from jail, only three of sub-Saharan Africa’s 48 countries were democratic. Now, Freedom House classifies 21 as functioning democracies—crucially bookended by the continent’s two giants, Nigeria and South Africa—with another six regarded as “semi-democratic.” But the definition of democracy is somewhat elastic. Holding elections does not alone a democracy make. Many African leaders only tolerate elections so long as they don’t risk the real threat of losing power. Only when elections serve up defeat for incumbents do we discover if a country is really a democracy.
Africa is in a strange transition. It’s becoming increasingly democratic, yet with only a few exceptions, most of it’s states are poorly managed or politically volatile. This is underpinned by a lack of good leadership, someone like Mandela that could inspire a nation or even a continent, and leave a lasting and positive mark on their nations politics. It’s unfortunate, but telling, that over a decade after he stepped down from political life, Mandela remains the only leader worthy of respect and admiration. He wasn’t perfect of course – no person, great or otherwise, ever is – but he set a standard for others to follow, and for the people of other nations to expect. Though it sadly hasn’t been met, we can only hope that increasing democratization yields a generation of competent political leaders that could establish a virtuous cycle.
Sarvodaya 
Leave a comment