August 8, 2007 - Nehase 2, 1999 (EC)

---

The title of my article sounds a bit presumptuous. It gives the impression that I have the foresight to know how the revered freedom fighter and father of South Africa's nationalism would think and acts. Indeed I myself have been jolted by this daring idea and the impression it can give. But again, this hypothetical-scenario is an exercise that is routinely done in political science and international relation courses. His life long struggle against apartheid for the liberation, justice, human rights, civil rights and cultural rights of his people is not only a source of inspiration but also of wisdom to all Africans and oppressed people through out the world.

It is a hypothetical-scenario where I substitute the leadership of Mandela and ANC in place of Kinijit's leadership led by Engineer Hailu. If faced with the similar circumstances and situations encountered by the latter, how would the former have acted? Would Mandela and company have accepted the mediation of a political problem by Shimagles/Elders? Isn't the problem between the two parties, Mandela and ANC on the one hand and Meles and TPLF on the other, one of political power? Aren't Mandela and company incarcerated because of the fact that Meles' regime, trounced by the May 2005 election, did not want to hand-in-power to them? Isn't it true that the problem has, both literally and figuratively, imprisoned the whole nation? Aren't they the representative of the voters who were willing to trust them with their leadership acumen? Didn't the Meles' regime butcher and massacre those who were protesting about their stolen vote? If the answer to all of the above questions is in the affirmative, what would Mandela and company say to the Shimagles? It is my contention that Mandela and company, respectfully but firmly, would say to them that, regardless of the concoction and fabrication of reasons and stories by Meles and company for incarcerating us, we know and the whole world knows that we are in Kaliti prison, because we won the 2005 election. We are here because the dictatorial regime does not want to hand-in-power to the over 70% of the Ethiopians that voted against it. They would continue to say that the government is clinging to power through the use of military and police force. It is in the nature of this regime to incarcerate, massacre, butcher, torture and maim innocent people. That is why, they would say, we do not want to assume that you most honored and most respected Shimagles can resolve this awesome problem.

The root cause for the massacre of the 193 civilian supporters of ours is not and can not be the reason why we are here. The root cause of that and many other related problems is the obduracy and refusal of the regime to hand in power. This - you most honored and most respected Shimagles - should know is the root cause. So negotiation and discussion over effects will not address the very reason why we are here in Kaliti.

Mandela and company would hasten to add that if you insist that we accept your role and intervention, then you would be asking us to do the following. First of all you would be asking us to change the topic of discussion from whether the Meles' regime is legitimate or not to whether it is "magnanimous" enough to "pardon us". You would also be asking us to share responsibility with the prime minister for the massacre of the 193 civilians. The world knows that the prime minister is the sole responsible person for the massacre which he had admitted to, among others, the BBC. Hence, with due respect to you most honored and most respected Shimagles, we are not ready and or willing to do that. Mandela and company would add the fact that your entreaty at a time when the Meles' regime is isolated and in a predicament will be tantamount to resuscitating it. The Ethiopian people have refused to accept it as their legitimate government. The European Union, led by the indomitable and indefatigable Anna Gomez and the United States Congress with its HR 2003 are exerting their pressure. Almost all the international human rights organization including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are urging the Meles' regime to free the political prisoners.

I have no doubt that this would have been how Mandela would have responded to the entreaty of the most honored and most respected Shimagles. For instance, the ANC during its infancy used to work closely with the Indian community in South Africa. Mandela on writing about the beneficial experience that the ANC got from its working relation with the said community said: "The Indian campaign became a model for the type of protest that we in the Youth League were calling for. It instilled a spirit of defiance and radicalism among the people, broke the fear of prison. They reminded us that the freedom struggle was not merely a question of making speeches, holding meetings, passing resolutions, and sending deputations, but of meticulous organization, militant mass action, and, above all the willingness to suffer and sacrifice." (Long Walk to Freedom. P. 104).

Let us recall that Mandela was in the dungeon of apartheid for over twenty five years. I should point out that prison did not deter the leaders of ANC from discharging their historic responsibility. After adopting the nonviolence method of struggle on May 31, 1952, the ANC leadership used to employ "Defiance Campaign" to challenge Acts and laws that the ANC thought were unjust, insulting and dehumanizing. As is pointed out earlier ANC's close working relationship with the South African Indian Congress (SAIC) and its daring challenges of the apartheid regime helped, it not only grow its membership, but also enabled it to recruit and train committed and dedicated freedom fighters. Mandela wrote: "Prior to the campaign, the ANC was more talk than action. We had no paid organizers, no staff, and a membership that did little more than pay lip service to our cause. As a result of the campaign, our membership swelled to 100,000. The ANC emerged as a truly mass-based organization with an impressive corps of experienced activists who had braved the police, the courts, and the jails. The stigma usually associated with imprisonment had been removed. This was a significant achievement; for fear of prison is a tremendous hindrance to a liberation struggle. From the Defiance Campaign onward, going to prison became a badge of honor among Africans" (P. 139).

I would like to close by discussing how Mandela dealt with the apartheid's offer for his release. The offer was made by P.W. Botha. According to Mandela Botha made the offer compelled by the pressure that was being exerted from both nationally and internationally. Mandela wrote that "the president offered me my freedom if I 'unconditionally reject violence as a political instrument' (P.521). Mandela remembered "…that was the sixth conditional offer the government has made for my release in the past ten years" (P. 521). What was Mandela's response? This is what was read by his daughter Zindzi to the cheering crowd that was gathered at a stadium to listen.

"I am a member of the African National Congress. I have always been a member of the African National Congress and I will remain a member of the African National Congress until the day I die. Oliver Tambo is more than a brother to me. He is my greatest friend and comrade for nearly fifty years. If there is any one amongst you who cherishes my freedom, Oliver Tambo cherishes it more, and I know that he would give his life to see me free. I am surprised at the conditions that the government wants to impose on me. I am not a violent man….It was only then, when all other forms of resistance were no longer open to us, that we turned to armed struggle. Let Botha show that he is different to Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd. Let him renounce violence. Let him say that he will dismantle apartheid. Let him un-ban the people's organization, the African National Congress. Let him free all who have been imprisoned, banished or exiled for their opposition to apartheid. Let him guarantee free political activity so that people may decide who will govern them. I cherish my own freedom dearly, but I care even more for your freedom. Too many have died since I went to prison. Too many have suffered for the love of freedom. I owe it their widows, to their orphans, to their mothers, and to their fathers who have grieved and wept for them. Not only have I suffered during these long, lonely, wasted years. I am not less life-loving than you are. But I cannot sell my birthright, nor am I prepared to sell the birthright of the people to be free.

What freedom am I being offered while the organization of the people remains banned? What freedom am I being offered when I may be arrested on a pass offense? What freedom am I being offered to live my life as a family with my dear wife who remains in banishment in Brandfort? What freedom am I being offered when I must ask for permission to live in an urban area? What freedom am I being offered when my very South African citizenship is not respected? Only freeman can negotiate. Prisoners cannot enter into contracts….I cannot and will not give any undertaking at a time when I and you, the people, are not free. Your freedom and mine cannot be separated. I will return." (Long Walk to Freedom. PP. 522-23).

Now what? What is the reason for writing this paper? Well I will say that there are three mutually supportive reasons. The first one is to educate those of us who seem to chant Mandela's name without being familiar with his life history. The second one is to stress the importance of reading works on liberation movements in general and the roles of individuals in these movements in particular. And the third one is to show that Mandela's work can be applied to contemporary circumstances.

Solomon Terfa (Ph. D)

Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations.

Mississippi Valley State University

(E-mail with comments to st2151@bellsouth.net)

MediaETHIOPIA @2007

---