I thought I might use the speech of Nelson Mandela as an example of what good revolutionary leadership is.
Everyone has noted his remarkable strength and dignity, notwithstanding the ordeal of almost 28 years in a South African prison.
I stand here before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you, the people.
This is not mere rhetoric. Everyone who has had contact with Mandela has remarked upon his extraordinary modesty, his dealings with the people on an equal level.
He begins by saluting all those who have contributed to the freedom struggle. And then…
I salute the South African Communist Party for its steady contribution to the struggle for democracy. You have survived 40 years of unrelenting persecution. The memory of great Communists like Moses Kotane, Yusuf Dacoo, Bram Fischer and Moses Madidha will be cherished for generations to come. I salute General Secretary (of the SACP) Joe Slovo, one of our finest patriots. We are heartened by the fact that the alliance between ourselves and the party remains as strong as it always was.
As a matter of fact his salute to the Communist Party takes up more time than any other group except the ANC. The pressure has been and remains enormous on Mandela to renounce the South African Communist Party, just as the pressure has been enormous on the ANC to separate from the SACP. Such a move, the racist regime and imperialists recognize, would signal that the social and economic aspects of the freedom struggle would be sacrificed for the sake of political concessions. It would signal that a radical restructuring of South African society, except for the elimination of apartheid, was not to be pursued. It would signal that the ANC was cutting itself off from the influence of the militant sections of the African working class.
It is of particular note that Mandela makes it a point to credit the Communists with contributing to democracy, since especially with the events of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, a frenzied campaign has been going on to equate the struggle against Communism or the Communists as a struggle for democracy, the struggle against socialism as a struggle for democracy.
I extend my greetings to the working class of our country. Your organized stance is the pride of our movement. You remain the most dependable force in the struggle to end exploitation and oppression.
These are not the words of a bourgeois democrat. This fits with the refusal to split with the SACP.
Today the majority of South Africans, black and white, recognize that apartheid has no future. It has to blended by our own decisive mass actions in order to build peace and security. The mass campaigns of defiance and other actions of our organizations and people can only culminate in the establishment of democracy.
This promotes the most important understanding that social progress and social justice is obtained by the actions of the masses. It is not obtained by virtue of the heroism or supernatural wisdom of leaders, not obtained because of the “good will” of the enemy, not obtained through negotiations (although negotiations at a certain point become part of the mechanics of political settlement), but is the product of mass force, mass power. While these ideas are valuable at any point in the struggle, they are particularly valuable at this stage of the struggle, for the idea is being propagated that now, because of de Klerk’s “reasonableness” or courage or vision, or whatever, apartheid will be dismantled thanks to discussions between the two sides. One should call to mind Bishop Tutu’s article in the Op Ed section of the New York Times not too long ago where he urged that the freedom movement “give de Klerk a chance,” allow him six months to prove his sincerity, give him a breather from political. agitation.
But Mandela says, on the contrary:
Our resort to the’ armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC, Umknoto We Sizwe, was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement would be created soon so that there may be no longer be the need for the armed struggle.
Everyone understands the enormous pressure Mandela was under to renounce armed struggle. He could have, remained silent on the subject, at least. But he threw down the gauntlet. In making this statement he made it clear to all, and most important, his own people, that there was no force on earth that could break his spirit, and nothing on earth tempting enough to seduce him into renouncing his principles. And there is much that the South African government can offer him, indeed are anxious to offer him.
I am a loyal and disciplined member of the African National Congress. I am, therefore, in full agreement with all of its objectives, strategies and tactics. The need to unite the people of our country is as important a task now as it has always been. No individual leader is able to take all these enormous tasks on his own. It is our task as leaders to place our views before our organization and to allow the democratic structures to decide on the way forward.
Contrast this with Jesse Jackson’s modus operandi Mandela does not place himself above his organization, but is accountable to it and is as much under its discipline as a rank-and-file member.
It is commonly felt in virtually all organizations that a leader is to some degree less subject to organizational discipline than the lower-level members. Just the opposite is the case. The higher the level, the more subject that person should be to organizational discipline, since the consequences of that person’s decisions are greater as he/she rises in the organization.
Once again, all absence of pretension, humility, discipline.
On the question of democratic practice, I feel duty bound o make the point that a leader of the movement is a person who has been democratically elected at a national conference. This is a principle which must be upheld without any exceptions.
This is an extremely important point. For the government has been trying to seduce Mandela away from the ANC, trying to have him play an above-party role, to be a figure whose prestige is such with the masses that he could be set against the ANC and the SACP and a deal struck that would be more acceptable to the white power structure than that which would be negotiated with those organizations. Of course, Mandela would be personally well rewarded if he were to agree to play such a role, but he makes it very clear he is not going to.
Negotiations cannot take place above the heads or behind the backs of our people. It is our belief that the future of our country can only be determined by a body which is democratically elected on a nonracial basis.
This addresses the point just made above. Mandela cannot be lured into secret negotiations with the government. Furthermore, no one has the right to impose a settlement on the people. The people must have the final say. Also, any attempt to shape the future of the country on any other basis than the free expression of all its people, will not be accepted.
