In any case, there is a blatant discordance between the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, the famous father of the "rainbow nation", his optimism and the reality of the country where he became president in 1994. When he was released in 1990, he was 72 years old. Despite his age and the immense tensions in the country, he managed to unite the nation and prevent a vendetta against the whites. In his autobiography, "The long road to freedom", one feels the great political intelligence that guided Mandela, at least the deceased. Without him, the risk would have been great that the end of apartheid led to a bloodbath. But the gap between its size and the reality of today is depressing. According to a World Bank report, today 's South Africa is dominated by the world' s largest arms – reich – shears; Unemployment is the norm for young blacks; Crime, brutality and rape are endemic; Corruption and nepotism were practically institutionalized; racist stereotypes prevail among whites as well as blacks as ever.
Mandela was the size of not being a candidate for a new term after five years, although he would have been re-elected. Since then, it has been declining with South Africa. His successor was the colorless Thabo Mbeki. One of the worst breaches of his term from 1999 to 2008 was the rejection of retroviral drugs for people infected with HIV because he was convinced that there was no connection between the AIDS and the virus. Compared to his successor Jacob Zuma, however, he was a model of decency. It is completely incomprehensible that the ANC could have relied enthusiastically on a man whose bad character has already attracted his attention. Mbeki had released him as vice president in 2005 for bribery. But the ANC supported him, against Mbeki
History of Decline
The rest is now history. Zuma was constantly downhill with South Africa. He had no formal education, but knew how to sell himself as a man of the people. The gap between his selfishness and Mandela's charisma could hardly have been greater. But even more scary is how long the ANC and the people of Zuma have kept the pole. On February 14, he finally had to take off his hat. His successor was Cyril Ramaphosa, a highly respected hopeful who was in fact Mandela's successor. But because Ramaphosa was only 44 years old at the time, he was unlikely. If we had then listened to Mandela, we could have saved the disastrous diversion of almost twenty years
Meanwhile, the claim of ANC power and criminal machinations became so common and in a some extent infiltrated into the DNA of a presidential change. is enough to get out of the swamp. In many places today is still the complaint to hear, Mandela would have had to act harder against the whites, after Zuma cleverly managed resentment against the whites for years, without really doing anything wrong. anything for the economic advancement of blacks. That corresponded to years of courting the despot in neighboring Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. Where the hunt for white farmers led there, namely the collapse of the entire economy, is obvious.
Nevertheless, there are some in South Africa who want to emulate Mugabe so far, such as Julius Malema, the party leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters. He presented a resolution in Parliament that would allow the expropriation of land in the public interest without compensation. Parliament appointed a committee to prepare the drafting. In many places, this is already considered a green light for illegal farming professions. Ramaphosa is remarkably restricted in the emotionally charged debate of explosives, probably out of consideration for influential internal forces. But expropriations risk being poisonous for international investment, of which Ramaphosa still speaks.
When we follow such arguments, we have the impression that we are still in the nineties. The only thing missing is that Mandela's voice is missing.
