Madiba

Nelson Mandela died today, but that is okay, what matters is that he lived.  He was 95!  That is old.  It's amazing to think he was already an old man when released from prison.  His death was curious timing for me as I have been reading his autobiography over the last few weeks.  I didn't know much about him before reading the book, and I was only reading it out of interest in civil disobedience, but he led a great life, a true man of service, and there is no higher calling and no higher gift with which to use our lives.  Bless him.    

Alas, no tribute is needed here.  I think he himself would acknowledge that it is ideals that matter, not individuals.  Certain individuals have exceptional power to carry an ideal, but if the ideal is empty or morally bankrupt then however well the man carries it it will simply be consigned to dust sooner or later.  Er, when I say 'man', I mean mankind / humanity.  Everything includes the ladies too!

I don't want my blog entries to become essays.  I hope at some point to have a readership who engage in discussion with me, so at the most I want these entries to be conversation starters.  So when I share a view this should kept in mind.  I don't share views lightly or without reason, so if something seems a bit thin on argument or evidence then it is likely because I wish it to provoke a discussion where all angles can be explored, and not just present my views fortified and armed.

I am not sure that Nelson Mandela was right to engage his oppressors with violence.  His point was that the oppressed must fight the battle on the level determined by the oppressor... if there oppressor oppresses with violence then the oppressed must resist the oppressor with violence.  As I understood it, the power of non-violence was in the meeting of violence with non-violence.  It is no great achievement to meet non-violence with non-violence.  We all do that everyday.

His argument was that non-violence had been initiated for a long time with no success, and as such it was time to change strategy.  He did acknowledge that he regarded non-violence simply as a strategy and not as a moral imperative.  Gandhi, for example, actually saw non-violence as an end in itself, not just as a means to achieve an end.  I agree with Gandhi.  

For me, the problem is that when violence becomes established then it creates violent minds - very rarely can a man attack with the viciousness of violence and maintain a peaceful, loving mind.  This might be less of a problem during the struggle itself, but what about afterwards?  What type of people are we left with?  Not peaceful people, but violent minds who have come to regard violence as a justified means of solving problems.  Minds are not black and white.  We cannot easily compartmentalise our different attitudes.  A mind that has become accustomed to violence in one area is likely to find violence spilling over into other areas of their life, or into situations where violence is not (regarded as) appropriate.  

Peace is the end, and can only be achieved through making peace your means.  South Africa is free of white rule, but it is not free of violence.  Many live in desperate poverty, crime is high, and, so it seems, is corruption.  Those minds that adopted violence to solve their problem could not be switched off just because their problem was solved.  Those minds still pervade their societies.  This might seem like harsh criticism, but there are many now talking of revolution in the UK, and these are things that need to be considered very carefully before action is taken.  

Anyway, peace be with you, Madiba, and all your people.