December 5, 2013

Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s Liberator as Prisoner and President, Dies at 95

Kim Ludbrook/European Pressphoto Agency

Nelson Mandela, who led the emancipation of South Africa from white minority rule and served as his country’s first black president, becoming an international emblem of dignity and forbearance, died Thursday. He was 95.

The South African president, Jacob Zuma, announced Mr. Mandela’s death.
Mr. Mandela had long declared he wanted a quiet exit, but the time he spent in a Pretoria hospital in recent months was a clamor of quarreling family, hungry news media, spotlight-seeking politicians and a national outpouring of affection and loss. The vigil even eclipsed a recent visit by President Obama, who paid homage to Mr. Mandela but decided not to intrude on the privacy of a dying man he considered his hero.
Mr. Mandela will be buried, according to his wishes, in the village of Qunu, where he grew up. The exhumed remains of three of his children were reinterred there in early July under a court order, resolving a family squabble that had played out in the news media.
Mr. Mandela’s quest for freedom took him from the court of tribal royalty to the liberation underground to a prison rock quarry to the presidential suite of Africa’s richest country. And then, when his first term of office was up, unlike so many of the successful revolutionaries he regarded as kindred spirits, he declined a second term and cheerfully handed over power to an elected successor, the country still gnawed by crime, poverty, corruption and disease but a democracy, respected in the world and remarkably at peace.
The question most often asked about Mr. Mandela was how, after whites had systematically humiliated his people, tortured and murdered many of his friends, and cast him into prison for 27 years, he could be so evidently free of spite.
The government he formed when he finally won the chance was an improbable fusion of races and beliefs, including many of his former oppressors. When he became president, he invited one of his white wardens to the inauguration. Mr. Mandela overcame a personal mistrust bordering on loathing to share both power and a Nobel Peace Prize with the white president who preceded him, F. W. de Klerk.
And as president, from 1994 to 1999, he devoted much energy to moderating the bitterness of his black electorate and to reassuring whites against their fears of vengeance.
The explanation for his absence of rancor, at least in part, is that Mr. Mandela was that rarity among revolutionaries and moral dissidents: a capable statesman, comfortable with compromise and impatient with the doctrinaire.
When the question was put to Mr. Mandela in an interview for this obituary in 2007 — after such barbarous torment, how do you keep hatred in check? — his answer was almost dismissive: Hating clouds the mind. It gets in the way of strategy. Leaders cannot afford to hate.
Except for a youthful flirtation with black nationalism, he seemed to have genuinely transcended the racial passions that tore at his country. Some who worked with him said this apparent magnanimity came easily to him because he always regarded himself as superior to his persecutors.
In his five years as president, Mr. Mandela, though still a sainted figure abroad, lost some luster at home as he strained to hold together a divided populace and to turn a fractious liberation movement into a credible government.
Some blacks — including Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Mr. Mandela’s former wife, who cultivated a following among the most disaffected blacks — complained that he had moved too slowly to narrow the vast gulf between the impoverished black majority and the more prosperous white minority. Some whites said he had failed to control crime, corruption and cronyism. Some blacks deserted government to make money; some whites emigrated, taking capital and knowledge with them.
Undoubtedly Mr. Mandela had become less attentive to the details of governing, turning over the daily responsibilities to the deputy who would succeed him in 1999, Thabo Mbeki.
But few among his countrymen doubted that without his patriarchal authority and political shrewdness South Africa might well have descended into civil war long before it reached its imperfect state of democracy.
After leaving the presidency, Mr. Mandela brought that moral stature to bear elsewhere around the continent, as a peace broker and champion of greater outside investment.
Rise of a ‘Troublemaker’
Mr. Mandela was deep into a life prison term when he caught the notice of the world as a symbol of the opposition to apartheid, literally “apartness” in the Afrikaans language — a system of racial gerrymandering that stripped blacks of their citizenship and relegated them to reservation-style “homelands” and townships.
Around 1980, exiled leaders of the foremost anti-apartheid movement, the African National Congress, decided that this eloquent lawyer was the perfect hero to humanize their campaign against the system that denied 80 percent of South Africans any voice in their own affairs. “Free Nelson Mandela,” which was already a liberation chant within South Africa, became a pop-chart anthem in Britain, and Mr. Mandela’s face bloomed on placards at student rallies in America aimed at mustering trade sanctions against the apartheid regime.
Mr. Mandela noted with some amusement in his 1994 autobiography, “Long Walk to Freedom,” that this congregation made him the world’s best-known political prisoner without knowing precisely who he was. Probably it was just his impish humor, but he claimed to have been told that when posters went up in London, many young supporters thought Free was his Christian name.
In South Africa, though, and among those who followed the country’s affairs more closely, Nelson Mandela was already a name to reckon with.
He was born Rolihlahla Mandela on July 18, 1918, in Mvezo, a tiny village of cows, corn and mud huts in the rolling hills of the Transkei, a former British protectorate in the south. His given name, he enjoyed pointing out, translates colloquially as “troublemaker.” He received his more familiar English name from a teacher when he began school at age 7. His father, Gadla Henry Mphakanyiswa, was a chief of the Thembu people, a subdivision of the Xhosa nation.
When Nelson was an infant, his father was stripped of his chieftainship by a British magistrate for insubordination — showing a proud stubborn streak his son willingly claimed as an inheritance.
Nine years later, on the death of his father, young Nelson was taken into the home of the paramount chief of the Thembu — not as an heir to power, but in a position to study it. He would become worldly and westernized, but some of his closest friends would always attribute his regal self-confidence (and his occasional autocratic behavior) to his upbringing in a royal household.
Unlike many black South Africans, whose confidence had been crushed by generations of officially proclaimed white superiority, Mr. Mandela never seemed to doubt that he was the equal of any man. “The first thing to remember about Mandela is that he came from a royal family,” said Ahmed Kathrada, an activist who shared a prison cellblock with Mr. Mandela and was part of his inner circle. “That always gave him a strength.”
In his autobiography, Mr. Mandela recalled eavesdropping on the endless consensus-seeking deliberations of the tribal council, and noticing that the chief worked “like a shepherd.”
“He stays behind the flock,” he continued, “letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind.”
That would often be his own style as leader and president.
Mr. Mandela maintained his close ties to the royal family of the Thembu tribe, a large and influential constituency in the important Transkei region. And his background there gave him useful insights into the sometimes tribal politics of South Africa.
Most important, it helped him manage the lethal divisions within the large Zulu nation, which was rived by a power struggle between the African National Congress and the Inkatha Freedom Party. While many A.N.C. leaders demonized the Inkatha leader, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, Mr. Mandela embraced him into his new unity government and finally quelled the violence.

Mr. Mandela once explained in an interview that the key to peace in the Zulu nation was simple: Mr. Buthelezi had been raised as a member of the royal Zulu family, but as a nephew, not in the direct line of succession, leaving him tortured by a sense of insecurity about his position. The solution was to love him into acquiescence.
Joining a Movement
The enlarging of Mr. Mandela’s outlook began at Methodist missionary schools and the University College of Fort Hare, then the only residential college for blacks in South Africa. Mr. Mandela said later that he had entered the university still thinking of himself as a Xhosa first and foremost, but left with a broader African perspective.
Studying law at Fort Hare, he fell in with Oliver Tambo, another leader-to-be of the liberation movement. The two were suspended for a student protest in 1940 and sent home on the verge of expulsion. Much later, Mr. Mandela called the episode — his refusal to yield on a minor point of principle — “foolhardy.”
On returning to his home village, he learned that his family had chosen a bride for him. Finding the woman unappealing and the prospect of a career in tribal government even more so, he ran away to the black metropolis of Soweto, following other young blacks who had left mostly to work in the gold mines around Johannesburg.
There he was directed to Walter Sisulu, who ran a real estate business and was a spark plug in the African National Congress. Mr. Sisulu looked upon the tall young man with his aristocratic bearing and confident gaze and, he recalled in an interview, decided that his prayers had been answered.
Mr. Mandela soon impressed the activists with his ability to win over doubters. “His starting point is that ‘I am going to persuade this person no matter what,’ ” Mr. Sisulu said. “That is his gift. He will go to anybody, anywhere, with that confidence. Even when he does not have a strong case, he convinces himself that he has.”
Mr. Mandela, though he never completed his law degree, opened the first black law partnership in South Africa with Mr. Tambo. He took up amateur boxing, rising before dawn to run roadwork. Tall and slim, he was also somewhat vain. He wore impeccable suits, displaying an attention to fashion that would much later be evident in the elegantly bright loose shirts of African cloth that became his trademark.
Impatient with the seeming impotence of their elders in the African National Congress, Mr. Mandela, Mr. Tambo, Mr. Sisulu and other militants organized the A.N.C. Youth League, issuing a manifesto so charged with Pan-African nationalism that some of their nonblack sympathizers were offended.
Africanism versus nonracialism: that was the great divide in liberation thinking. The black consciousness movement, whose most famous martyr was Steve Biko, argued that before Africans could take their place in a multiracial state their confidence and sense of responsibility must be rebuilt.
Mr. Mandela, too, was attracted to this doctrine of self-sufficiency.
“I was angry at the white man, not at racism,” he wrote in his autobiography. “While I was not prepared to hurl the white man into the sea, I would have been perfectly happy if he climbed aboard his steamships and left the continent of his own volition.”
In his conviction that blacks should liberate themselves, he joined friends in breaking up Communist Party meetings because he regarded Communism as an alien, non-African ideology, and for a time he insisted that the A.N.C. keep a distance from Indian and mixed-race political movements.
“This was the trend of the youth at that time,” Mr. Sisulu said. But Mr. Mandela, he said, was never “an extreme nationalist,” or much of an ideologue of any stripe. He was a man of action.
He was also, already, a man of audacious self-confidence.
Joe Matthews, who worked for Mr. Mandela in the Youth League (and later became a moderate voice in the rival Inkatha movement), heard Mr. Mandela speak at a black-tie dinner in 1952 and predict, in what the audience took as impudence, that he would be the first president of free South Africa.
“He was not a theoretician, but he was a doer,” Mr. Matthews said in an interview for the television documentary program “Frontline.” “He was a man who did things, and he was always ready to volunteer to be the first to do any dangerous or difficult thing.”
Five years after forming the Youth League, the young rebels engineered a generational takeover of the African National Congress.
During his years as a young lawyer in Soweto, Mr. Mandela married a nurse, Evelyn Ntoko Mase, and they had four children, including a daughter who died at 9 months. But the demands of his politics kept him from his family. Compounding the strain was his wife’s joining the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a sect that abjures any participation in politics. The marriage grew cold and ended with abruptness.
“He said, ‘Evelyn, I feel that I have no love for you anymore,’ ” his first wife said in an interview for a documentary film. “ ‘I’ll give you the children and the house.’ ”
Not long afterward, a friend introduced him to Nomzamo Winifred Madikizela, a stunning and strong-willed medical social worker 16 years his junior. Mr. Mandela was smitten, declaring on their first date that he would marry her. He did so in 1958, while he and other activists were in the midst of a marathon trial on treason charges. His second marriage would be tumultuous, producing two daughters and a national drama of forced separation, devotion, remorse and acrimony.
A Shift to Militancy
In 1961, with the patience of the liberation movement stretched to the snapping point by the police killing of 69 peaceful demonstrators in Sharpeville township the previous year, Mr. Mandela led the African National Congress onto a new road of armed insurrection.
It was an abrupt shift for a man who, not many weeks earlier, had proclaimed nonviolence an inviolable principle of the A.N.C. He later explained that forswearing violence “was not a moral principle but a strategy; there is no moral goodness in using an ineffective weapon.”
Taking as his text Che Guevara’s “Guerrilla Warfare,” Mr. Mandela became the first commander of a motley liberation army, grandly named Umkhonto we Sizwe, or Spear of the Nation.
Although he denied it throughout his life, there is persuasive evidence that about this time Mr. Mandela briefly joined the South African Communist Party, the A.N.C.’s partner in opening the armed resistance. Mr. Mandela presumably joined for the party’s connections to Communist countries that would finance the campaign of violence. Stephen Ellis, a British historian who in 2011 found reference to Mr. Mandela’s membership in secret party minutes, said Mr. Mandela “wasn’t a real convert; it was just an opportunist thing.”
Mr. Mandela’s exploits in the “armed struggle” have been somewhat mythologized. During his months as a cloak-and-dagger outlaw, the press christened him “the Black Pimpernel.” But while he trained for guerrilla fighting and sought weapons for Spear of the Nation, he saw no combat. The A.N.C.’s armed activities were mostly confined to planting land mines, blowing up electrical stations and committing occasional acts of terrorism against civilians.
After the first free elections in South Africa, Spear of the Nation’s reputation was stained by admissions of human rights abuses in its training camps, though no evidence emerged that Mr. Mandela was complicit in them.
During Trial, a Legend Grows
South Africa’s rulers were determined to put Mr. Mandela and his comrades out of action. In 1956, he and scores of other dissidents were arrested on charges of treason. The state botched the prosecution, and after the acquittal Mr. Mandela went underground. Upon his capture he was charged with inciting a strike and leaving the country without a passport. His legend grew when, on the first day of that trial, he entered the courtroom wearing a traditional Xhosa leopard-skin cape to underscore that he was an African entering a white man’s jurisdiction.
That trial resulted in a three-year sentence, but it was just a warm-up for the main event. Next Mr. Mandela and eight other A.N.C. leaders were charged with sabotage and conspiracy to overthrow the state — capital crimes. It was called the Rivonia trial, for the name of the farm where the defendants had conspired and where a trove of incriminating documents was found — many in Mr. Mandela’s handwriting — outlining and justifying a violent campaign to bring down the regime.
At Mr. Mandela’s suggestion, the defendants, certain of conviction, set out to turn the trial into a moral drama that would vindicate them in the court of world opinion. They admitted that they had organized a liberation army and had engaged in sabotage and tried to lay out a political justification for these acts. Among themselves, they agreed that even if sentenced to hang, they would refuse on principle to appeal.
The four-hour speech with which Mr. Mandela opened the defense case was one of the most eloquent of his life, and — in the view of his authorized biographer, Anthony Sampson — it established him as the leader not only of the A.N.C. but also of the international movement against apartheid.
Mr. Mandela described his personal evolution from the temptations of black nationalism to the politics of multiracialism. He acknowledged that he was the commander of Spear of the Nation, but asserted that he had turned to violence only after nonviolent resistance had been foreclosed. He conceded that he had made alliances with Communists — a powerful current in the prosecution case in those cold war days — but likened this to Churchill’s cooperation with Stalin against Hitler.
He finished with a coda of his convictions that would endure as an oratorical highlight of South African history.
“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination,” he told the court. “I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realized. But my lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”
Under considerable pressure from liberals at home and abroad (including a nearly unanimous vote of the United Nations General Assembly) to spare the defendants, the judge acquitted one and sentenced Mr. Mandela and the others to life in prison.
An Education in Prison
Mr. Mandela was 44 when he was manacled and put on a ferry to the Robben Island prison. He would be 71 when he was released.
Robben Island, in shark-infested waters about seven miles off Cape Town, had over the centuries been a naval garrison, a mental hospital and a leper colony, but it was most famously a prison. For Mr. Mandela and his co-defendants, it began with a nauseating ferry ride, during which guards amused themselves by urinating down the air vents on the prisoners below.
The routine on Robben Island was one of isolation, boredom and petty humiliations, met with frequent shows of resistance. By day the men were marched to a limestone quarry, where the fine dust stirred up by their labors glued their tear ducts shut.
But in some ways prison was less arduous than life outside in those unsettled times. For Mr. Mandela and others, Robben Island was a university. In whispered conversations as they hacked at the limestone, and in tightly written polemics handed from cellblock to cellblock, the prisoners debated everything from Marxism to circumcision.
Mr. Mandela learned Afrikaans, the language of the dominant whites, and urged other prisoners to do the same.
He honed his skills as a leader, negotiator and proselytizer, and not only the factions among the prisoners but also some of the white administrators found his charm and iron will irresistible. He credited his prison experience with teaching him the tactics and strategy that would make him president.
Almost from his arrival he assumed a kind of command. The first time his lawyer, George Bizos, visited him, Mr. Mandela greeted him and then introduced his eight guards by name — to their amazement — as “my guard of honor.” The prison authorities began treating him as a prison elder statesman.
During his time on the island, a new generation of political inmates arose, defiant veterans of a national student uprising who at first resisted the authority of the elders but gradually came under their tutelage. Years later Mr. Mandela recalled the young hotheads with a measure of exasperation:
“When you say, ‘What are you going to do?’ they say, ‘We will attack and destroy them!’ I say: ‘All right, have you analyzed how strong they are, the enemy? Have you compared their strength to your strength?’ They say, ‘No, we will just attack!’ ”
Perhaps because Mr. Mandela was so revered, he was singled out for gratuitous cruelties by the authorities. On Robben Island the wardens left newspaper clippings in his cell telling how his wife had been cited as the other woman in a divorce case, and about the persecution she and her children endured after being exiled to a bleak town 250 miles from Johannesburg.
He was denied permission to attend the funerals of his mother and of his oldest son, who died in a car accident while Mr. Mandela was on Robben Island.
Friends say his experiences steeled his self-control and made him, more than ever, a man who buried his emotions deep, who spoke in the collective “we” of liberation rhetoric.
Still, Mr. Mandela said he regarded his prison experience as a major factor in his nonracial outlook. He said prison tempered any desire for vengeance by exposing him to sympathetic white guards who smuggled in newspapers and extra rations, and to moderates within the National Party government who approached him in hopes of opening a dialogue. Above all, prison taught him to be a master negotiator.
The Negotiations Begin
Mr. Mandela’s decision to begin negotiations with the white government was one of the most momentous of his life, and he made it like an autocrat, without consulting his comrades, knowing full well that they would resist.
“My comrades did not have the advantages that I had of brushing shoulders with the V.I.P.’s who came here, the judges, the minister of justice, the commissioner of prisons, and I had come to overcome my own prejudice towards them,” he recalled. “So I decided to present my colleagues with a fait accompli.”
With an overture to Kobie Coetsee, the justice minister, and a visit to President P. W. Botha, Mr. Mandela, in 1986, began what would be years of negotiations on the future of South Africa. The encounters, remarkably, were characterized by little rancor and mutual shows of respect. When he occupied the president’s office, Mr. Mandela would delightedly show visitors where President Botha had poured him tea.
Mr. Mandela demanded as a show of good will that Walter Sisulu and other defendants in the Rivonia trial be released. President F. W. de Klerk, Mr. Botha’s successor, complied.
In the last months of his imprisonment, as the negotiations gathered force, he was relocated to Victor Verster Prison outside Cape Town, where the government could meet with him conveniently and monitor his health. (In prison he had had prostate surgery and lung problems, and the government was terrified of the uproar if he died in captivity.) He lived in a warden’s bungalow. He had access to a swimming pool, a garden, a chef and a VCR. A suit was tailored for his meetings with government luminaries.
(After his release he built a vacation home near his ancestral village, a brick replica of the warden’s house. This was pure pragmatism, he explained: he was accustomed to the floor plan and could find the bathroom at night without stumbling in the dark.)
From the moment they learned of the talks, Mr. Mandela’s allies in the A.N.C. were suspicious, and their worries were not allayed when the government allowed them to confer with Mr. Mandela at his quarters in the warden’s house.
Tokyo Sexwale, who had come to Robben Island as a student rebel, recalled in a “Frontline” interview encountering Mr. Mandela in this comfortable house. Mr. Mandela walked them through the house, showing off the television and the microwave. “And,” Mr. Sexwale said, “I thought, ‘I think you are sold out.’ ”
Mr. Mandela seated his visitors at a table and patiently explained his view that the enemy was morally and politically defeated, with nothing left but the army, the country ungovernable. His strategy, he said, was to give the white rulers every chance to retreat in an orderly way. He was preparing to meet Mr. de Klerk, who had just taken over from Mr. Botha.
Free in a Changed World
In February 1990, Mr. Mandela walked out of prison alongside his wife into a world that he knew little, and that knew him less. The African National Congress was now torn by factions — the prison veterans, those who had spent the years of struggle working legally in labor unions, and the exiles who had spent them in foreign capitals. The white government was also split, with some committed to negotiating an honest new order while others fomented factional violence in hopes of disabling the black political leadership.
Over the next four years Mr. Mandela would be embroiled in a laborious negotiation, not only with the white government, but also with his own fractious alliance.
But first he took time for a victory lap around the world, including an eight-city tour of the United States that began with a motorcade through delirious crowds in New York City.
The anti-apartheid movement had had a rocky relationship with United States governments, which saw South Africa through the lens of the cold war rivalry with Communists and also regarded the country as an important source of uranium. Until the late 1980s the Central Intelligence Agency portrayed the A.N.C. as Communist-dominated. There have been allegations, neither substantiated nor dispelled, that a C.I.A. agent had tipped the police officers who arrested Mr. Mandela.
Congress, following popular sentiment, enacted economic sanctions against investment in South Africa in 1986, overriding the veto of President Ronald Reagan. Even at the time of his euphoric public welcome in the United States, Mr. Mandela was regarded with some official misgivings, because of both his devotion to economic sanctions and his loyalties to various self-styled liberation figures like Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and Yasir Arafat.
While Mr. Mandela had languished in prison, a campaign of civil disobedience was under way. No one participated more enthusiastically than Winnie Mandela.
A Troubled Marriage
By the time of her husband’s imprisonment, the Mandelas had produced two daughters but had little time to enjoy a domestic life. For most of their marriage they saw each other through the thick glass partition of the prison visiting room: for 21 years of his captivity, they never touched.
She was, however, a megaphone to the outside world, a source of information on friends and comrades and an interpreter of his views through the journalists who came to visit her. She was tormented by the police, jailed and banished with her children to a remote Afrikaner town, Brandfort, where she challenged her captors at every turn.
By the time she was released into the tumult of Soweto in 1984, she had became a firebrand. She now dressed in military khakis and boots and spoke in a violent rhetoric, notoriously endorsing the practice of “necklacing” foes, incinerating them in a straitjacket of gasoline-soaked tires. She surrounded herself with young thugs who terrorized, kidnapped and killed blacks she deemed hostile to the cause.
Friends said Mr. Mandela’s choice of his cause over his family often filled him with remorse — so much so that long after Winnie Mandela was widely known to have conducted a reign of terror, long after she was implicated in the kidnapping and murder of young township activists, long after the marriage was effectively dead, Mr. Mandela refused to utter a word of criticism.
As president, he bowed to her popularity by appointing her deputy minister of arts, a position in which she became entangled in financial scandals and increasingly challenged the government for appeasing whites. In 1995 Mr. Mandela finally filed for divorce, which was granted the next year after an emotionally wrenching public hearing.
Mr. Mandela later fell publicly in love with Graça Machel, the widow of the former president of Mozambique and an activist in her own right for humanitarian causes. They married on Mr. Mandela’s 80th birthday. She survives him, as do his two daughters by Winnie Mandela, Zenani and Zindziswa; a daughter, Makaziwe, by his first wife; 17 grandchildren; and 14 great-grandchildren.
A Deal for Majority Rule
Two years after Mr. Mandela’s release from prison, black and white leaders met in a convention center on the outskirts of Johannesburg for negotiations that would lead, fitfully, to an end of white rule. While outside in the country extremists black and white used violence to tilt the outcome their way, Mr. Mandela and the white president, Mr. de Klerk, argued and maneuvered toward a peaceful transfer of power.
Mr. Mandela understood the mutual need in his relationship with Mr. de Klerk, a proud, dour, chain-smoking pragmatist, but he never much liked or fully trusted him. Two years into the negotiations, the men were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and their appearance together in Oslo in 1993 was marked by bouts of pique and recriminations. In a conversation a year after becoming president, with Mr. de Klerk as deputy president, Mr. Mandela said he still suspected Mr. de Klerk of complicity in the murders of countless blacks by police and army units, a rogue “third force” opposed to black rule.
Eventually, though, Mr. Mandela and his negotiating team, led by the former labor leader Cyril Ramaphosa, found their way to the grand bargain that assured free elections in exchange for promising opposition parties a share of power and a guarantee that whites would not be subjected to reprisals.
At times, the ensuing election campaign seemed in danger of collapsing into chaos. Strife between rival Zulu factions cost hundreds of lives, and white extremists set off bombs at campaign rallies and assassinated the second most popular black figure, Chris Hani.
But the fear was more than offset by the excitement in black townships. Mr. Mandela, wearing a hearing aid and orthopedic socks, soldiered on through 12-hour campaign days, igniting euphoric crowds packed into dusty soccer stadiums and perched on building tops to sing liberation songs and cheer.
During elections in April 1994, voters lined up in some places for miles. The African National Congress won 62 percent of the vote, earning 252 of the 400 seats in Parliament’s National Assembly and ensuring that Mr. Mandela, as party leader, would be named president when Parliament convened.
Mr. Mandela was sworn in as president on May 10, and he accepted office with a speech of shared patriotism, summoning South Africans’ communal exhilaration in their land and their common relief at being freed from the world’s disapproval.
“Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world,” he declared.
Then nine Mirage fighter jets of the South African Air Force, originally purchased to help keep someone like Mr. Mandela from taking power, roared overhead, and 50,000 roared back from the lawn spread below the government buildings in Pretoria, “Viva the South African Air Force, viva!”
Limitations as a President
As president, Mr. Mandela set a style that was informal and multiracial. He lived much of the time in a modest house in Johannesburg, where he made his own bed. He enjoyed inviting visiting foreign dignitaries to shake hands with the woman who served them tea.
But he was also casual, even careless, in his relationships with rich capitalists, the mining tycoons, retailers and developers whose continued investment he saw as vital to South Africa’s economy. Before the election, he went to 20 industrialists and asked each for at least one million rand ($275,000 at the exchange rate of that time) to build up his party and finance the campaign. In office, he was unabashed about taking their phone calls — and bristled when unions organized a strike against some of his big donors. He enjoyed socializing with the very rich and the show-business celebrities who flocked to pay homage.
At the same time, he was insistent that the black majority should not expect instant material gratification. He told union leaders at one point to “tighten your belts” and accept low wages so that investment would flow. “We must move from the position of a resistance movement to one of builders,” he said in an interview the next day, musing on the impatience of his allies.
Mr. Mandela exhibited a genius for the grand gesture of reconciliation. Some attempts, like a tea he organized of prominent A.N.C. women and the wives of apartheid-era white officials, were awkward.
Others were triumphant. Few in South Africa, whatever their race, were unmoved in June 1995 when the South African rugby team, long a symbol of white arrogance, defeated New Zealand in a World Cup final, a moment dramatized in the 2009 film “Invictus.” Mr. Mandela strode onto the field wearing the team’s green jersey, and 80,000 fans, mostly Afrikaners, erupted in a chant of “Nel-son! Nel-son!”
Mr. Mandela’s instinct for compromise in the interest of unity was evident in the 1995 creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, devised to balance justice and forgiveness in a reckoning of the country’s history. The panel offered individual amnesties for anyone who testified fully on the crimes committed during the apartheid period.
In the end, the process fell short of both truth (both white officials and A.N.C. leaders were evasive) and reconciliation (many blacks found that information only fed their anger). But it was generally counted a success, giving South Africans who had lost loved ones to secret graves a chance to reclaim their grief, while avoiding the spectacle of endless trials.
There was a limit, though, to how much Mr. Mandela — by exhortation, by symbolism, by regal appeals to the better natures of his constituents — could paper over the gulf between white privilege and black privation.
After Mr. Mandela delivered one miracle in the shape of South Africa’s freedom, it was perhaps too much to expect that he could deliver another in the form of broad prosperity. In his term, he made only modest progress in fulfilling the modest goals he had set for housing, education and jobs.
He tried with limited success to transform the police from an instrument of white supremacy to an effective crime-fighting force. Corruption and cronyism (which predated majority rule) blossomed. Foreign investment, despite the universal high esteem for Mr. Mandela, kept its distance.
Racial divisions, kept in check by the euphoria of the peaceful transition and by Mr. Mandela’s moral authority, re-emerged somewhat as the ultimate problem of closing the income gap remained unresolved.
The South African journalist Mark Gevisser, in his 2007 biography of Mr. Mandela’s successor as president, Thabo Mbeki, wrote: “The overriding legacy of the Mandela presidency — of the years 1994 to 1999 — is a country where the rule of law was entrenched in an unassailable Bill of Rights, and where the predictions of racial and ethnic conflict did not come true. These feats, alone, guarantee Mandela his sanctity. But he was a far better liberator and nation-builder than he was a governor.”
In addition, Mr. Mandela bequeathed his country a virtual one-party system with a circle-the-wagons attitude toward allegations of corruption, a distaste for criticism in the news media and a tendency to treat rival parties as verging on treasonous. Neither liberal nor conservative opposition parties managed to organize themselves into a credible alternative to the A.N.C.
Mr. Mandela himself deferred to his party, notably in the choice of a successor. After the party favorite, Mr. Mbeki, had succeeded to the presidency, Mr. Mandela let it be known that he had actually preferred the younger Mr. Ramaphosa, the former mine workers’ union leader who had negotiated the new Constitution. Mr. Mbeki knew and resented that he was not the favorite, and for much of his presidency he snubbed Mr. Mandela.
Mr. Mandela mostly refrained from directly criticizing his successor, but his disappointment was unmistakable when Mr. Mbeki showed his intolerance of criticism and his conspiratorial view of the world. When Mr. Mbeki questioned mainstream medical explanations of the cause of AIDS, stifling open discussion that might have helped cope with a galloping epidemic, Mr. Mandela spoke up on the need for protected sex and cheaper medicines. When his eldest son, Makgatho, died in 2005, Mr. Mandela gathered family members to publicly disclose that the cause was AIDS.
In the 2007 interview, speaking on the condition that he not be quoted until after his death, Mr. Mandela was openly scornful of Mr. Mbeki’s leadership. The A.N.C., he said, had always succeeded as a movement and a party because it had drawn on the collective wisdom of its many constituencies.
“There is a great deal of centralization now under President Mbeki, where he takes decisions himself,” Mr. Mandela declared. “We never liked that.”
Mr. Mbeki often found it excruciating to govern in Mr. Mandela’s shadow. He felt his predecessor had dealt him a nearly impossible hand — first by encouraging the notion that South Africa’s liberation was the magic of one great black man, and second by emphasizing accommodation with white power and thus doing relatively little to relieve the impoverished black majority.
In interviews published in Mr. Gevisser’s biography, Mr. Mbeki chafed at President Mandela’s ability to rule by charm and stature, with little attention to the mechanics of governing.
“Madiba didn’t pay any attention to what the government was doing,” Mr. Mbeki said, using the clan name for his predecessor. “We had to, because somebody had to.”
As a former president, Mr. Mandela lent his charisma to a variety of causes on the African continent, joining peace talks in several wars and assisting his wife, Graça, in raising money for children’s aid organizations.
In 2010, the World Cup soccer games took place in South Africa, another sporting-world benediction of the peace Mr. Mandela did so much to deliver to his country. But for Mr. Mandela, the proud occasion turned to heartbreak when his 13-year-old granddaughter Zenani was killed in an auto accident while returning from an opening-day concert. Mr. Mandela, who had been instrumental in luring the tournament to its first African setting, canceled his plans to attend the opening day.
By then, his hearing and memory shaky, he had already largely withdrawn from public debate, declining almost all interview requests and confining himself to scripted public statements on issues like the war in Iraq. (He was vehemently against it.)
When he received a reporter for the 2007 interview, his aides were already contending with a custody battle over Mr. Mandela’s legacy — including where he would be buried and how he would be memorialized. Mr. Mandela insisted that his burial be left to his widow, and be done with minimal fanfare. His acolytes had other plans.
Published: December 5, 2013

November 24, 2013

12 reasons it's better to travel in a group




‘GROUP TRAVEL’ has become a byword for the lazy, frightened, and inexperienced traveler. It conjures the stereotype of a ‘packaged’ experience — a commodity — letting tourists off the hook from the ‘burden’ of independent travel.
For a long time I was an independent travel snob. A lone wolf, a headstrong, know-it-all, adventure-and-backstreet addict, who could think of nothing worse than arriving in a small village in Peru in a shiny white tour bus and being ushered like livestock through a local market.
But a recent group tour in the Peruvian Amazon caused me to ponder: Might travel experiences be better shared among a small group of like-minded individuals? Here are 12 reasons why the answer is yes.
1. You’ll gain valuable local knowledge.
Two people making food
Laughing up a storm on a group food tour, Siem Reap Province, Cambodia
In my 14 years of traveling, I have never regretted hiring a guide at a heritage site or for a nature trek. The expertise of a good local guide is priceless. From pinpointing off-road diners, music venues, reading spots, gardens, and beaches, to having stories to complement each location, experienced group leaders have evolved tourism from ‘ticking off’ sightseeing boxes to a more interactive cultural experience.
After four years of working in Cambodia as an anthropologist, I had bypassed hiring a guide at local sites, thinking I was enough of an ‘expert’ on the region. It wasn’t until my family came to visit that I hired a local tour company. I was astonished at the magnitude of in-depth historical information I learnt about Khmer culture, family life, and customs from a local’s perspective.
2. You can save money.
Paying up front for group travel can be daunting but may actually save you some coin in the long run. In 2006, my little brother and I decided to deviate from our ‘milk run’ route through Malaysia — Kuala Lumpur to the Perhentian Islands — and make a pit-stop in the Cameron Highlands. We were thrifty students in those days; traveling independently meant we could cut corners and keep our budget in check. But after a few too many karaoke-beers in KL’s Chinatown, Chris and I stumbled into the office of a tour company.
I was adamant this was not the path for us, convinced we were about to get swindled. Chris told me to hear the salesperson out. After punching in various calculations, I swallowed my pride and admitted that we would save 30% by traveling with a group. The package included transfers, meals, accommodations, and activities, sold collectively at a reduced cost. Group travel harnesses the power of buying in bulk, and spreads the cost of guides, ground transportation, and other items across the whole group, giving you more experience per dollar.
3. You can relax.
Independent travel can be a worrisome job. Whenever you venture off the beaten track to countries where visas are complicated and access difficult — especially when you have limited time — organized group travel can be the most sensible route to follow. Navigating red tape on your own can be exhausting, especially when you don’t know the language or customs.
On the Southeast Asian leg of a one-year sabbatical, my partner and I joined an educational group tour exploring indigenous communities in Northern Laos. The company negotiated our visas and transfers at the Thai/Laos border. We received VIP treatment, skipped lines, and sailed through immigration. The hassle of organizing transport and negotiating on transfer rates was eradicated, allowing us to actually enjoy the place.
4. You’ll maximize your precious time off.
People riding camels
Camel trek through the deserts of Northern Rajasthan, India
Vacation time is a commodity. Packing in Rajasthan, Delhi, the Taj Mahal, coastal Goa; partaking in local holidays; and dealing with transport and seasonal weather on a quick trip to India would be hard to coordinate without a guide organizing it. Although I have traveled extensively in this region, I seem to craft these logistically impossible itineraries that work in opposition to my limited travel time.
During my last trip I popped into the local tourism office in Delhi to get a free pen and gather some advice on transport. I was welcomed with a chorus of laughter. “You want to do what and go where? Do you know how big our country is, lady?” I pulled my shoulders back, handed the tourism official my map scrawled with my red-penned route, and asked him to “please make it possible.” He dismissed me and waved me in the direction of an international group tour company office. And thank goodness he did.
Along with the coordination of transport and accommodation, the group organizer also injected my itinerary with an adventure package through Rajasthan and Nepal. My time in the region was so limited that without this aid I would have never reached Nepal, trekked to Annapurna, camped in the Indian sand dunes, or tracked Bengal tigers.
5. You can maintain a sense of balance.
When time is tight and you’re attempting to check off a long list of activities, having a sound itinerary is vital. Tour groups have the ability to balance engagement in activities and down time to a tee. Though most tours will cram in as many experiences as possible, they still retain a degree of flexibility for those who need extra R&R and those who want some solo time.
After my big move to New York this year, a good friend came for a visit. The trip was last minute and there was little to no time to research. Evenings together in Brooklyn became stressed, with Caroline concerned she’d missed sights that day. Rather than a relaxing holiday, she was bombarded with self-imposed pressure and had no equilibrium.
After some recent reflection, we discussed the potential benefits of using the services of tour companies during short trips. She observed, “At least (on a group tour) you can go to sleep at night, knowing that you’re not missing out, that the next day will be as exciting and fulfilling as the one before.”
A person at Angkor
Partner in crime, James, exploring Angkor Wat
6. You’ll share first-time experiences with someone else.
Seeing a wonder of the world, tasting something new, reaching a goal, and watching a new culture unfold by yourself can — to be blunt — suck. I have traveled extensively through Cambodia alone. The first time I visited Angkor Wat, I went solo. I spent a lovely but lonely day, stopping strangers to ask them to take a classic ‘me and a temple’ photo.
I couldn’t help this nagging feeling that I was missing out. I returned to Angkor Wat four years later with my partner and basked in his smile and excitement as we cycled up to the first temple. Beaming in awe of this man-made wonder, he remarked, “Take a load of that, girl!” This memory makes me smile. Sharing a special moment with others is what travel is all about.
7. You can find a travel family.
When your crew is unable to travel with you, organized group travel presents a solution. My family have all been fortunate enough to travel extensively. When my mother recently asked my father if he would like to take a trip to Morocco, he replied with a dismissive grunt: “I am too tired dear.” A lone traveler for the first time at the age of 55, Mum packed her lens and journal and joined a food tour for a week.
Gorging on mutton tagine and dancing through the spice markets of Marrakech, she had a ball. We were all so proud of her. She took a leap of faith and ventured outside her comfort zone. She didn’t let fear or dislike of solo travel deter her from ticking an item off her bucket list; instead, she did so in the company of individuals with interests similar to her own.
8. You’ll practice patience.
Traveling with a group can be a selfless practice; you must share your space, deviate from your personal tempo, and move in synchronicity with others. Rather than seeing this an annoyance, it can be celebrated as a challenge.
A year ago I joined a group of detox-ers at a yoga retreat in Bali. Every morning we would rise before the sun and stroll down the cliffs to the water. I often changed my pace in order to enjoy varied conversation and to keep a few stragglers company. I realized that slowing down actually meant I listened more attentively and took in more of the surroundings. Practicing patience through group activities was a rewarding exercise for me.
9. You just might find love.
“Do you like to travel?”
This was one of the first questions I used to ask potential suitors. It became a deal breaker if the response was no. My love for seeing the world and experiencing new cultures is part of my soul. I find that my energy levels and spirit soar when I’m out on the road, a realm where socially acceptable laws of attraction go out the window, granting you freedom to truly shine and be yourself.
Coupled with attributes common to those choosing group travel — such as a desire for exposure to differing cultures and a drive for adventure — it seems a no-brainer that this form of travel could spark romance.
10. You can more easily access challenging destinations.
There are certainly some destinations where it comes highly recommended you take a little help from experts. Trekking up Kilimanjaro or venturing to Everest Base Camp with all the logistics in hiring a Sherpa / porter team would be near impossible without the backup of an experienced trekking organisation.
In 2004, a group of us Scots embarked on a trek to Kilimanjaro in memory of Hazel Scott Aiton, a family member who had passed away in an accident six months prior. The journey, supported by the Scottish public, recruited a team of her mates, friends of the family, and the clan. A pick’n’mix of backgrounds, fitness levels, climbing ability, and travel experience, our team was a comical sight! As amateur climbers, we hired support from professional guides. In challenging terrain, there is no shame in employing the services of a tour company — in fact, it’s just common sense.
11. You’ll meet different kinds of people.
People at Kilimanjaro
The family clan ready to take on Kilimanjaro!
People who travel in groups are bound to connect with others who they would never have given the time to at home. Characters we meet and learn about as we venture outside our familiar home environment can significantly enhance understanding, tolerance, and humanity, both nationally and globally.
I was recently fortunate to be invited on a press trip to the Amazon Jungle in Peru. One of the most rewarding parts of this experience was meeting and enjoying conversation with such a wonderful range of people, all with differing backgrounds, cultures, and travel experiences. Making human connections with people of other cultures and beliefs helps to build mutual respect and good faith. Personally, I consider this the main value of travel and a major component for building more peaceful communities.
12. You can make friends for life.
Following my group tour in Peru, our gang has demonstrated lasting connections, creating a shared dropbox for images, exchanging blog posts and articles, and building a social network through email and Facebook. The bonds we established during this trip will not be forgotten; perhaps in the future we will have an opportunity to experience other regions of the world together. 


November 14, 2013

Students interview Hotel Rwanda Hero

In preparation for our Investigative Journalism Rwanda Trip, Friendship Tours brings Paul Rusesabagina, the Hotel Rwanda hero who saved over 1200 people during the genocide. Santa Barbara Middle School Students interview Paul Rusesabagina in a casual conversational environment. See parts one and two below. 




Watch the trailer of Mzungus in the Mist


November 13, 2013

Paul Rusesabagina, Rwanda's hotel hero

In preparation for our Investigative Journalism Rwanda Trip with Harvard-Westlake School  and ABC News, Friendship Tours brings Paul Rusesabagina to California to meet students and tell his story. Recall that Paul is the Hotel Rwanda hero who saved over 1200 people from slaughter during the genocide. Celebrated Los Angeles Times journalist Patt Morrison interviews Paul in the Op-Ed section today.



In April 1994, as general manager of the luxury hotel where he worked, he protected more than 1,000 people who had fled the killing rampage in the country. Now he lectures about human rights.



Most bio-pics are made about somebodies — warriors, kings, artists. This was a bio-pic about a nobody who became a somebody during the Rwandan genocide, a bloody crossroads for a country with deep-seated ethnic frictions. In April 1994, Paul Rusesabagina was brevetted as general manager of the luxury hotel where he worked, and where more than 1,000 people had fled from the killing rampage. For more than two months, he managed to protect them from being slaughtered. Ten years later, the world saw "Hotel Rwanda." Today, there is no love lost between Rwandan President Paul Kagame and Rusesabagina, who lives in San Antonio and travels to lecture about human rights, as he did in Los Angeles not long ago.
Is there such a thing as a post-ethnic society? The government in Rwanda wants everyone to be not Hutu or Tutsi but Rwandan.
The problem with today's Rwandan government is trying to say that ethnicities do not exist. That is maybe because we fear what we did ourselves, [now] we want to say all of us are Rwandans. We have a group of [mostly Tutsi] elite who are taking power because they [proclaim that they are] Rwandans.
Whenever they talk about ethnicity, they always talk [of] Hutus who kill Tutsis — bad guys who kill good guys. They position themselves as victims and others as perpetrators. They say whatever they think will solve their problem for that minute. When they become victims, they become Tutsis. When they are not victims and they are in power, they are Rwandans.
Didn't European colonists codify these distinctions with ID cards?
Yes and no. Go to the meaning of the words. "Tutsi" means "the elite, one who is better, who has wealth." Wealth before colonization was measured in cows. "Hutu" means "follower, a servant, a slave." These words were created by us, not by colonizers.
But then isn't it a good idea to get rid of names that reinforce distinctions?
Anything can be good, but the way they are doing it is the wrong way. [For example,] in 2008 someone decided overnight that Rwanda should become an English-speaking country. Anything which is forced always becomes a bad thing.
What do you miss most about Rwanda?
I miss everything! The hill where I used to sit in the afternoon every rainy day, and when the whole sky would break clear and I would see maybe 100 miles. I miss the place where I was born and raised.
Have you been back since you left in 1996?
I went back in 2004 before the movie came out. I sensed what was going to happen: the hatred from the Rwandan president seeing a Hutu becoming a hero, where he had positioned himself with his people as heroes. So we took our three younger kids there so they would know where they came from.
What do you think of efforts to discredit you, such as protesters showing up when you speak?
I like it. This shows the weakness of [the Rwandan] government. I can never imagine a president who is supposed to be busy [with] politics running after me, a small citizen. The president is making me more important than I am supposed to be.
Do you worry that you are still a target?
If I were to worry, I wouldn't do anything. I would just lock myself in my house. So if anyone wants to kill me, I think that will be that person's problem, not mine. In 1994, this helped me to go on. I was targeted because I was protecting the most wanted people. The elite intellectuals were in my hotel. The business elite, also ordinary and common human beings were there. I said to myself, "Oh well, I will be killed; shall I give up? No. let me do one more small thing before I die." I kept on going like that. Since that time, every day, every month, every year, I call it a bonus.
What do you think of the United Nations' role in Rwanda then?
I was disappointed on many occasions. When the United Nations came to Rwanda in October 1993, we were sensing something. We were smelling death. The whole country was nervous and tense. When the United Nations sent in forces, we called them peacekeepers. Their mission was not to keep peace. Their mission was to observe. As weak as they were, when we saw the United Nations pulling out of Rwanda, abandoning our nation to thugs and gangsters and running away, all of us were caught. So I was disappointed at that time by the United Nations.
How do you regard American misperceptions of Africa?
There have been reasons why Americans do not really think about Africa. One reason is that Africa is far from America. The American continent is more or less self-sufficient. But since 9/11, Americans would like to know what is happening elsewhere. The opinion is changing, and we want to be part of the change.
You've been speaking at places like Harvard-Westlake School. Why those audiences?
This is my mission, telling tomorrow's leaders that you guys are rich, you are safe, but there are many kids [who] do not have that chance in a country called Rwanda. These kids will only be saved by you. All those kids worth talking to today are tomorrow's congressmen and women, tomorrow's secretaries of state, tomorrow's presidents.
Some in the West point to Rwanda now as a model, with decent schools, electricity, clean streets.
In 2011, in Rwanda, [U.N. Ambassador] Susan Rice was taken to the genocide memorials. They showed her the new [office] towers they had built, and I loved her statement. [Rice praised Rwanda's educational, economic and agricultural advancements.] She [also] told them, "Listen, as long as there is no democracy in this country, as long as human rights records remain as they are, as long as there is no freedom of speech, all these achievements will be like a castle made of paper."
Are you worried Rwanda could turn on itself again?
Unfortunately, history repeats itself, and we never learn lessons. As long as you have so many people silenced, so many people outside the country as refugees, you are sitting ducks. As long as you [deny] people the opportunity to talk together, as long as people can't criticize — that can never last forever. Rwanda is more or less like a simmering volcano that might erupt at any time.
What could change that?
There are powerful countries that have a lot of influence on President Kagame — the United States, the United Kingdom. If they take their courage and tell him, "You have had your 15 minutes." Every leader who is there for 10 years, 20 years, will not bring anything new to his people besides reinforcing dictatorship.
The best way to solve this conflict is through words. We have tried for 60 years and more to solve our conflicts through guns. It is clear that guns have failed, so why don't we sit around the table, face to face, bring whole truths to that table. Who did what? The people know; they witnessed everything. Give them an opportunity to express themselves freely. This is the only way that justice can be practiced and that sustainable peace can come to Rwanda and the whole region.
If you could ask President Obama to do something for the 20th anniversary of the genocide, what would it be?
I would ask him to tell Rwandans and the whole world that it is high time that people should sit down together and solve conflicts.
What's the path to justice and reconciliation?
The way the Rwandan government has done it is very weak and biased. It has been politicized; it is not clean.
In the beginning, Rwandans were willing to cooperate and tell who did what. But when they saw the government just taking all the Hutus into prison, killing them, innocents and criminals, they decided to remain silent. The Rwandan government wants people to say, "OK, I did it," even if they're not criminals. President Kagame said all Hutus, even those who were not born in 1994, will have to pay a price to Tutsis.
What do you mean when you say the Rwandan government is selling genocide like a product?
The Rwandan government has confused politics and genocide. With the international community, they always play the genocide card: Everybody should apologize to them [for not intervening]. You saw Bill ClintonTony Blair: "We are sorry, we are sorry." Whoever tries to raise a voice is silenced by this word "genocide." The Rwandan Patriotic Front [the current ruling party] killed many Hutus before the war. "Genocide" is losing its value because they are playing around with it. It is a pity.
I lost many members of my immediate family [including his Tutsi wife's mother and siblings, nieces and nephews]. It is our legacy; seeing someone selling it, it makes us mad.
Your mother was Tutsi, your father Hutu. What does that make you?
I was born to a mixed couple, but in Rwanda, we follow our fathers. I am very proud to be what my father was. And my father was a gentleman.

This interview was edited and excerpted from a taped transcript. patt.morrison@latimes.com. Twitter:@pattmlatimes