Mutumwa Mawere

On 18 July, the world joined South Africans in celebrating the birthday of former President Nelson Mandela. Although it would be unfair to compare Mandela and Mugabe because the social, political and economic dynamics in South Africa and Zimbabwe are different, it cannot be denied that the circumstances and issues that propelled the two into leadership positions were the same.

When Zimbabwe attained its independence in 1980, Mugabe was 56 and when Mandela became President of a democratic South Africa, he was 76.

Mugabe played a critical role in the liberation struggle as did Mandela. Both stood out as warriors in the struggle against brutal regimes that were underpinned by undemocratic constitutional orders in which the majority were denied civil rights.

The two can be classified as founding fathers of post colonial states separated by a river, Limpopo, but sharing a common heritage and confronted by similar challenges of nation building.

The two faced the challenge of helping to shape and mould new nations informed by a brutal and unjust past but offering a promise for brighter and inclusive order under which the rule of law and property rights would be respected and protected.

They both must have shared a vision for a brighter society in which they could infuse into the new nation state all their ideals, beliefs and moral values as well as the system they believed in. What system of government did these two founding fathers have in mind for the post colonial state?

Creating a new civilisation is never an easy enterprise but the two individuals were uniquely positioned to lead the nation building project with a forward looking agenda.

One cannot deny the fact that the reason Mandela is celebrated as an icon is not ordinarily a cause for any celebration. There is no other person in the world that has endured so much and yet been so misunderstood. What does Mandela really believe in? What is the role of the state in the post colonial era? Who is an African? How can the inherited dualistic society be transformed?

Mandela's only crime like that of many of his colleagues including Mugabe was that they were fighting to end a race-based constitutional democracy in which the majority were alienated from their political and economic sovereignty.

Mandela like Mugabe before him was energised during the struggle by a socialist ideology.

They were both opposed to a market-based system as ideology as an instrument of transforming an unjust and unequal colonial/apartheid order.

They both believed in using the state as a reliable partner in the enterprise to engineer social, economic and political change. In fact, both ZANU-PF and ANC believe that the national democratic revolution can only be successfully prosecuted through the intermediation of the state. To the extent that Mandela is still a member of the ANC one can safely conclude that he still shares the vision that there can be no justice without revisiting the dark past of colonialism and apartheid.

Whereas, for instance, the founding fathers of the National Party that introduced apartheid were the architects of institutions like Santam/Sanlam, we see no evidence of institution building outside the state coming from both Mandela and Mugabe.

Mandela has chosen to build philanthropic institutions around his name while Mugabe has chosen to use the state as his private fiefdom. Mandela retired from active politics while Mugabe sees retirement as an act of cowardice notwithstanding the perilous state of the nation.

Mandela's causes have largely been sponsored by white people while Mugabe does not believe that any white person can be trusted as a friend of Africa. Mandela's time has been occupied with the defining problems of our time i.e. poverty and HIV-AIDS whereas Mugabe's time has been occupied with unleashing terror and untold suffering to his people in the name of protecting sovereignty.

They both shared a common world view that a market system could not be relied upon as an agent for change. Their struggles were also ideologically anchored informed by the unacceptable experiences and modus operandi of the colonial/apartheid state.

As the world celebrates Mandela's amazing journey from a liberation fighter who believed in violence as an instrument for political change to a peacemaker, humanitarian, nation builder, humble, generous even to the people who made his life hell, better and not a bitter individual, and a world celebrity, we cannot overlook or ignore the fact that the pace of change even in South Africa is slow and the people with the means and more to lose if meaningful transformation does not take place have largely surrendered into the comfort zone choosing to believe that Mandela is their insurance policy.

Mugabe like Mandela was the architect of the policy of reconciliation and yet today he stands as the bad boy of the African experience. He comes out as a bitter, angry, cruel, tyrannical and obsessed with power. If he had chosen Mandela's path, notwithstanding the changes on the ground in terms of creating a better and inclusive society, he would still be regarded as a great son of Africa and perhaps competing with Mandela for the celebrity status.

Mandela made a choice to put the interests of the country at the centre of everything he has chosen to do while acknowledging the constraints imposed by age and years of suffering.

Nation building is a contestable enterprise and there are many who believe that leaders should be the path finders rather than cheer leaders who believe in the power of the individual to drive the change agenda.

Mugabe believes that he alone has the wisdom to define, shape and build Zimbabwe's future with citizens as the beneficiaries. He believes that he is a perpetual victim of white conspiracy and refuses to defend his record without pointing a finger at someone.

Mandela unlike Mugabe understood that there is a time for everything. There was no point in him monopolizing the political space or deluding himself into believing that he was indispensable to the change agenda. His life is being celebrated because it only takes an extraordinary individual to have a generosity of spirit and the courage to accept that justice and freedom will not come from looking at the past but in challenging the present generation to invest in the change they want to see.

Mugabe still has to accept that too much intervention and manipulation can be poisonous to social and economic change. Mandela was smart enough to realise that nation building required a new spirit and instruments.

Mandela's famous words at the Rivonia Treason Trial still ring true today. It is important as we celebrate the life of a remarkable African that we stop, pause and critically examine what he had to say when he and his colleagues stood accused for advocating for a better African civilization. This is what he said:

"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."

I have no doubt that Mugabe believes that Mandela by choosing to retire before the eradication of the ills of apartheid he effectively betrayed the ideals of the struggle. If one listens carefully to Mugabe's world view it is obvious that he still holds the view that retiring into celebrity status when access to economic resources including land has not been democratised is counter revolutionary is not a cause for any celebration.

Mugabe believes that Zimbabwe like South Africa belongs to black citizens and white citizens must never be made to feel comfortable in the post colonial era. The citizenship laws of Zimbabwe as well as the land are instructive. Mugabe believes that his residual interest in remaining in power is to complete the economic empowerment project that has been dubbed "100% black empowerment" meaning that there is no room for any white person ever dreaming of being part of the project and yet their individual and corporate income still accounts for the majority of the government's tax revenues.

At 90, Mandela cannot be rationally expected to be actively engaged in the struggles of the time but as the Zimbabwean crisis unfolds, an expectation is generally shared that he should say something about the situation in which black domination led by Mugabe and his colleagues seems to be the order of the day. In 1956, Mandela held the view that white domination should be condemned as should black domination.

However, successful nation building compels leaders to add their voices when the very values they stand for are being manipulated for political expediency. It would be beneficial to know where Mandela stands on the key issues that challenge Africa's development prospects.

On the rule of law and respect for property rights, we may never know whether Mandela's inner and personal views are any different from those held by Mugabe. Mugabe holds the view that sovereignty is more important than democracy and the right to property must be historically defined and discretionary.

While Mandela has condemned xenophobia, it is significant that South Africa at 14 years old has began to exhibit symptoms of hate and negativity. The rainbow concept of a post apartheid South Africa has generally been embraced without any careful thought on the obligations inherent in building and sustaining such a society on citizens.

While the celebrations are taking place on the extraordinary life of Mandela, citizens are more economically insecure and politically vulnerable. If Zuma can be subjected to what he believes to be unjust treatment by a government he helped create while Mandela is still alive, what hope exists for lesser souls?

The world now knows where Mugabe stands on democracy, rule of law, property rights and race. We may not like what he says but it is important to understand the man before he dies so that future generations can have a reference point to evaluate him.

Unfortunately, Mandela may have decided to suppress his own views on what kind of South Africa he wants to see. The world may never know the real feelings of the free Mandela and whether he is satisfied at the state of the nation.

Both Mandela and Mugabe found themselves at the defining moment in the development of their respective countries. They have both made different choices with different consequences.

Africa's future must be located in the minds and hearts of the generality of its citizens and whereas leaders may have the knowledge of the past, the future ought to belong to those who see it as a product of their actions.

Leaders have a role to play and in the case of Zimbabwe the results are known but in the case of South Africa the future will tell unless citizens take urgent steps to take ownership of their destinies.