ANNelson Mandela — the leader who chose reconciliation over retribution

Nelson Mandela was released from jail in South Africa in 1990, after 27 years of incarceration.

When he came out, the blacks were angry. Being 80% of the population, they have lived all their lives in segregation in their own country, in abject subjugation. The entire world feared revenge.

Mandela however had other ideas. He worked with the then government headed by F W de Clark to hold the first multi-racial elections in 1994. African National Conference (ANC), the party headed by Mandela came to power.

Mandela took over as the President, but after 5 years in 1999, he refused to have a second term. He died in 2013.

One of the most important steps taken by the Mandela government was to set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), headed by Bishop Desmond Tutu. The goal of TRC was to bring out the truth of the violence and deprivation, and then bring reconciliation by bringing in the victims and perpetrators in the same forum.

When apartheid was lifted, 20% of the whole population held 80% of the wealth. But unlike the British, the whites too were permanent residents of the country. So while retribution and forced redistribution were definitely on the minds of many, they had the potential to destroy the country.

Yes, it was possible to perpetuate the wounds by talking about historical injustices. It was also easy to forcefully take over the industries institutions and farms run by the white minority. But leadership of ANC led by Nelson Mandela knew that this had the potential of destroying the country.

Industries, businesses, and institutions take decades, even centuries to build. They need skills, capital, resources, and above all visionary leadership. Mandela understood that any violence would result in the flight of the talent and capital, and what would be left after the initial euphoria. So he focused on building on what was there, not destroying it.

There had been many instances of violence where large farms had been taken over, and industries attacked. But it was always isolated and almost always lacked state sponsorships. But despite all the challenges, the country survived.

Why are we discussing this when we just discussed the difference between a manager and a leader?

Well to bring to the point that even at the highest levels, not all are not naturally in providing leadership.

Nelson Mandela could have well focused on the populist short term to channel the discontent to win another election and be the undisputed one at the helm. But he focused on the long term, galvanized his credibility to build rather than disturb, fought with adverse opinions, and prevailed.

When he felt he could serve better by being outside the government, he gave up the Presidency so that a new generation of leadership could take over.

Something we always aspire to when we come to know about, but extremely difficult to achieve when we need to do it.