The myth of Mandela the violent liberation war hero

There was never a time when people have spent so much time and energy to reclaim what they think is the correct brand or label of Nelson Mandela — to redefine and project him as a revolutionary fighter.

Their efforts are to shatter what they consider the myth of portraying him as a saint or peace seeker like the Dalai Lama.

It is probably too late now to squabble over the correct meaning of Mandela. The man is dead. Significantly, he has left us with a rich legacy and heritage where he defined himself.

In fact, Mandela is a diverse, multi-faceted and very complex individual. He was — and will continue to be — all things to all men, depending on what you want him to be at a particular point of your individual development.

Much as those who worship the first commander in chief of Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) wish to limit our understanding and interpretation of the Mandela we know to the violent revolutionary freedom fighter, Mandela was, above all, a man who was non-violently fighting for peace among all the people of the earth.

Perhaps what has, largely, been overlooked or deliberately underplayed by the media and commentators is the evidence of his life and history as a violent revolutionary freedom fighter. The focus and thrust has been to capture the essence of a meditative, non-violent forgiver, a reconciler, nation builder and, above all, peacemaker.

Given an option, we have every reason and right to highlight and celebrate Mandela the forgiver, reconciler and nation builder above the revolutionary fighter. In essence, as he grew older Mandela developed a character that would promote justice, equality, brotherhood and peace among men. If he was a revolutionary fighter who picked up arms, the purpose was to bring about love, peace and justice in the world.

The whole emphasis on his role in MK as a violent revolutionary freedom fighter is a bit blown out of proportion, methinks. In fact, liberation wars and their heroes have not delivered much for the African people they rule except for power, position, status and control of state resources for themselves.

The liberation war-hero approach has, largely, only resulted in substituting former colonialists with revolutionary fighters who have repeated the mistakes of their colonial masters by not improving the material conditions of the majority or sharing the wealth of the country. There is no point in the hero war image because in war, especially liberation wars, there are no winners.

The benefits or adventures of Mandela the liberation war hero are so few that they can be counted in one hand. He may have defied Nobel Peace Prize winner Chief Albert Luthuli to found and lead MK. He went through various countries in Africa in pursuit of military training and networks. When arrested he was in possession of a gun. There are very few other things that can be cited to concretise the image and profile of Mandela the violent revolutionary freedom fighter.

The essence of Mandela comes from the young man who was a smooth and suave lawyer. It rests most securely on leading the Defiance Campaign in a non-violent manner. He was a man with a very clear conscience, articulate and intelligent yet willing to be killed for his convictions.

Killing other people was not essential in many of the strategies he adopted. Even if war was essential it is now an open secret that he pursued it to create love and peace in South Africa and the world. The end justified the means but war was not an end in itself.

As a people we would not have gotten to where we are now — a peaceful nation in harmonious co-existence — without his intellectual and persuasive skills that espoused negotiation and non-violence. The image of Mandela the revolutionary fighter who stood for war may be part of his history but it does not explain the man in his totality. To make him a war hero of the stature of Che Guevara or Robert Mugabe is a distortion of his essence. In fact, it seems a myth.

It will serve some interests for Mandela to be a violent revolutionary hero who was willing to kill and shed the innocent blood of women and children in pursuit of the return of the land to its indigenous owners and the redistribution of wealth of the country among all the people who live and work in it. But this would not be the real Mandela who was glorified and celebrated by the world.

No one is happy that Mandela died with a privileged minority owning the land and controlling the wealth.

We will only be reasonably satisfied when what Mandela abandoned war for — economic justice, social equality and effective democracy — have become a way of life in South Africa. We all have to work towards that goal. Now that Mandela is gone, there is so much work to be done by us, the living who are heirs to the struggle he waged.

But those who are trying to revive the image of the revolutionary war hero may succeed unless we all take the courageous steps to honour the memory and legacy of Mandela by speeding up the realisation of the ideals that he lived for and was willing to die for: Sharing the land and all its wealth among all the people.

Much as he was a revolutionary fighter, it will be significant to note that Mandela did not fire a single shot in his life or take another person’s life.

He was a forgiver, reconciler, nation-builder and, above all, an instrument of peace.