How Nelson Mandela Brought The 20th Century To A Close

The last of the past century's 'counter-history' leaders, Mandela represented the ultimate triumph over the destructive powers of the notion of racial superiority.

Nelson Mandela in 1994
Nelson Mandela in 1994
Achille Mbembe*

This one wish, he expressed many times. No mausoleum. On his grave, no epitaph. One simple word carved in the stone would be sufficient: “Mandela.” This wish is about to be granted, but several questions linger.

First, is it really true that, the name “Mandela” being enough, there is no need for anything else and that, once it is pronounced, there is nothing left to explain? Is there anything to add to this now universal name, when the man being buried is the one who represented, deep in his flesh, in his skin and in his bones, the hopes of freedom of a whole era, a whole part of humanity and an entire people?

Or do we still have one last gesture to carry out? There is the risk of turning his funeral into the sort of ecumenical celebration of life, and of reconciliation that, by erasing the difficulty of the choices he came to take on, would then make us forget what he stood up for, and fought against?

Until the end, Nelson Mandela was a 20th century man. His misfortune — or his luck — was to be born in a country eaten away by nostalgia for the 19th century and determined to go back in time in the hope of regaining stability and security. During the 19th century, Europe indeed finished consolidating its supremacy over the known world. It not only occupied the space, Europe also claimed to be the driving force of history.

But after destructive colonial wars, massacres and annexations across the globe, the 20th century opened up with a brutal boomerang effect as genocidal impulses arrived on the Old Continent.

Two cataclysmic wars claimed millions of lives as humanity witnessed the largest-scale genocide of its history and, for the first time, nuclear hellfire. Fascism and Nazism were eventually defeated, only to give way to a new global battle opposing democracy and totalitarianism. The defeat of communism put an end to the Cold War and led to the birth of globalization and, with the 21st century, the era of “terror.”

But the 20th century also has a counter-history, the one that produced Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Ho Chi Minh, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Kwame Nkrumah, Amilcar Cabral, Frantz Fanon and many others. Because, at the beginning of the 20th century, two-thirds of humanity lived under the yoke of colonialism, a relatively primitive form of racial domination.

In the history of the modern world, this form of domination first materialized with the plantation system, under slavery, between the 15th and 19th centuries. It was based on two dogmas: first, the racial superiority of white people; then, the subjugation of non-white people, who were relegated, especially “negros,” to the status of human objects or human merchandise.

During the 19th century, the ideology of white supremacy started to be fought openly by several emancipation movements. By promoting the idea of a world without slavery, they radically challenged the orthodox definitions of humanity that, at the time, were based on racist and evolutionary premises. And, even beyond the captives’ emancipation, they were also looking to defend a certain idea of mankind and of the innate rights attached to it.

Apartheid's death

The question of equality is also in the middle of two movements that have left a deep mark on the 20th century. First, there were the struggles for decolonization. Just like the abolitionist movement had enabled the extension of the modern conception of fundamental human rights, the struggles for decolonization led many to deeply rethink the modern conception of international law.

Then, there were the struggles for civil rights, with the U.S. as epicenter. Here, the concept of a colorblind democracy served as leverage to the movement for equality. Black people were not asking for preferential treatment. They did not want to build a community separated from the rest of the nation. They demanded to be treated like everyone else. The relationship between democracy and difference (whether it is racial or gender-based) were bound to be redefined.

The abolition of apartheid, in 1991, represented the last stage of this long cycle of struggles, and Nelson Mandela became its defining figure, the last of the great witnesses. To a large extent, it brought the 20th century to a close.

The history that Mandela struggled to deconstruct is one made of borders, walls and enclosures. It is also a history based on the principle that this world belongs, in reality, to only a few people and that we do not all partake of it equally.

Mandela’s voice carried it so far that it continuously reaffirmed one simple truth: there is only one world and what we have in common is the desire to be, deep down in every one of us, humans beings in our own right. And to do so, the first condition was that we considered every other one of us as human beings.

He knew that, to build this world we have in common, those who had been deprived of their inherent share of humanity had to recover it. The links that had been broken had to be repaired and the parts that had been amputated reassembled. For both the victims and the persecutors, there could be no reconciliation without restitution; they could only keep on giving up on this project he consistently called for — the collective rise of humanity. This was the foundation of his reconciliation theory. Restitution and reparation were therefore at the heart of the possibility of the construction of a common global conscience.

Mandela knew there was a share of intrinsic humanity in every person. It makes us, objectively, at the same time different from each other and similar. Because it is inherent from restitution and reparation, the ethic of reconciliation implies the acknowledgement of what one might call “the share of the other,” which is not mine, but for which I am responsible, whether I like it or not. This share of the other, I cannot monopolize without any consequences for the concept of oneself, equality, justice, rights or even simply humanity and the universal project, if this indeed is the final destination.

*Achille Mbembe is a Cameroon-born professor of philosophy and expert on African post-colonialism.

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!

Iran-Saudi Arabia Rivalry May Be Set To Ease, Or Get Much Worse

The Saudis may be awaiting the outcome of Iran's nuclear talks with the West, to see whether Tehran will moderate its regional policies, or lash out like never before.

Military parade in Tehran, Iran, on Oct. 3


LONDON — The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said earlier this month that Iranian and Saudi negotiators had so far had four rounds of "continuous" talks, though both sides had agreed to keep them private. The talks are to ease fraught relations between Iran's radical Shia regime and the Saudi kingdom, a key Western ally in the Middle East.

Iran's Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian has said that the talks were going in the right direction, while an Iranian trade official was recently hopeful these might even allow trade opportunities for Iranian businessmen in Saudi Arabia. As the broadcaster France 24 observed separately, it will take more than positive signals to heal a five-year-rift and decades of mutual suspicions.

Agence France-Presse news agency, meanwhile, has cited an unnamed French diplomat as saying that Saudi Arabia wants to end its costly discord with Tehran. The sides may already have agreed to reopen consular offices. For Saudi Arabia, the costs include its war on Iran-backed Houthis rebels fighting an UN-recognized government in next-door Yemen.

The role of the nuclear pact

Bilateral relations were severed in January 2016, after regime militiamen stormed the Saudi embassy in Tehran. Amirabdollahian was then the deputy foreign minister for Arab affairs. In 2019, he told the website Iranian Diplomacy that Saudi Arabia had taken measures vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear pact with the world powers.

It's unlikely Ali Khamenei will tolerate the Saudi kingdom's rising power in the region.

He said "the Saudis' insane conduct toward [the pact] led them to conclude that they must prevent [its implementation] in a peaceful environment ... I think the Saudis are quite deluded, and their delusion consists in thinking that Trump is an opportunity for them to place themselves on the path of conflict with the Islamic Republic while relying on Trump." He meant the administration led by the U.S. President Donald J.Trump, which was hostile to Iran's regime. This, he said, "is not how we view Saudi Arabia. I think Yemen should have been a big lesson for the Saudis."

The minister was effectively admitting the Houthis were the Islamic Republic's tool for getting back at Saudi Arabia.

Yet in the past two years, both sides have taken steps to improve relations, without firm results as yet. Nor is the situation likely to change this time.

Photo of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in 2020

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in 2020

Riyadh's warming relations with Israel

Iran's former ambassador in Lebanon, Ahmad Dastmalchian, told the ILNA news agency in Tehran that Saudi Arabia is doing Israel's bidding in the region, and has "entrusted its national security, and life and death to Tel Aviv." Riyadh, he said, had been financing a good many "security and political projects in the region," or acting as a "logistical supplier."

The United States, said Dastmalchian, has "in turn tried to provide intelligence and security backing, while Israel has simply followed its own interests in all this."

Furthermore, it seems unlikely Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei will tolerate, even in this weak period of his leadership, the kingdom's rising power in the region and beyond, and especially its financial clout. He is usually disparaging when he speaks of Riyadh's princely rulers. In 2017, he compared them to "dairy cows," saying, "the idiots think that by giving money and aid, they can attract the goodwill of Islam's enemies."

Iranian regime officials are hopeful of moving toward better diplomatic ties and a reopening of embassies. Yet the balance of power between the sides began to change in Riyadh's favor years ago. For the kingdom's power has shifted from relying mostly on arms, to economic and political clout. The countries might have had peaceful relations before in considerably quieter, and more equitable, conditions than today's acute clash of interests.

If nuclear talks break down, Iran's regime may become more aggressive.

Beyond this, the Abraham Accord or reconciliation of Arab states and Israel has been possible thanks to the green light that the Saudis gave their regional partners, and it is a considerable political and ideological defeat for the Islamic Republic.

Assuming all Houthis follow Tehran's instructions — and they may not — improved ties may curb attacks on Saudi interests and aid its economy. Tehran will also benefit from no longer having to support them. Unlike Iran's regime, the Saudis are not pressed for cash or resources and could even offer the Houthis a better deal. Presently, they may consider it more convenient to keep the softer approach toward Tehran.

For if nuclear talks with the West break down, Iran's regime may become more aggressive, and as experience has shown, tensions often prompt a renewal of missile or drone attacks on the Saudis, on tankers and on foreign shipping. Riyadh must have a way of keeping the Tehran regime quiet, in a distinctly unquiet time.

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!