Cum se plâng eroii…. (3) Madiba – partea 1

Motto: “Niciodată să nu uitaţi că un sfânt este un păcătos care nu se lasă bătut.” (Never forget that a saint is a sinner who keeps on trying) – Nelson Mandela

Despre Nelson Mandela (1918-2013), trecut de curând dintre noi (la 5 decembrie 2013), aş fi vrut să fi scris mai demult. Am aşteptat mai întâi să se încheie cele 10 zile de doliu naţional, încheiate ieri cu înmormântarea sa la Qunu, satul copilăriei sale (el fiind născut în localitatea Mvezo).

S-a mai întâmplat şi altceva: am mai aflat că Nelson Mandela nu a fost chiar un „Gandhi”. Primul loc unde l-am văzut etichetat drept „terorist” a fost pe blogul Roxanei Iordache. Recunosc, acest lucru m-a bulversat un pic, şi am încercat să găsesc un răspuns acestei întrebări: „A fost Mandela un terorist?”. 

Voi răspunde acestei întrebări citând dintr-un editorial „Wall Street Journal” (apud Vladimir Tismăneanu): „A would-be Lenin who became Africa’s Vaclav Havel. … Mandela became the biggest of African men by refusing to act like a typical African “Big Man.” He transcended his party’s history of Marxism, tribalism and violence. The continent and world were fortunate to have him.” În continuare, puteţi citi articolul lui Vladimir Tismăneanu, elogiatior pentru personalitatea lui Nelson Mendala,aici.  

Studiind datele biografice la îndemână, concluzia mea ar fi următoarea:

“Am luptat împotriva dominaţiei albe şi am luptat împotriva dominaţiei negre. Idealul meu cel mai scump este acela al unei societăţi libere şi democratice în care toţi să trăiască în armonie şi să aibă şanse egale.” – Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela a fost, în primul rând, un luptător împotriva apartheidului şi al colonialismului. Metodele lui au fost la început gandhiste, de nesupunere civilă (metode pe care el le considera nu doar etice, ci şi pragmatice), prin „Defiance Campaign against Unjust Laws” (1952), în cadrul mandatului sub care a condus African National Congress (1950-1954).

Deşi iniţial neîncrezător în comunism, influenţat de anumiţi prieteni şi de susţinerea războaielor pentru independenţă de către URSS, a ajuns un simpatizant al doctrinei marxiste, dar nu un marxist – era atras de ideea unei „societăţi fără clase”, care, recunoaşte şi el, „springs in part from Marxist reading and, in part, from my admiration of the structure and organisation of early African societies in this country” (veţi vedea explicaţia mai jos).

În 1955, după ce toate mijloacele paşnice au părut că nu mai pot reuşi, a ajuns să îmbrăţişeze ideea luptei armate violente. În 1961 a fondat Umkhonto we Sizwe („Lancea poporului”), inspirat de mişcarea din 26 iulie a lui Fidel Castro. În perioada 1956-1961, a fost arestat şi judecat de mai multe ori, însă nu a fost condamnat. În 1962, a fost arestat pentru acţiuni teroriste şi condamnat la închisoare pe viaţă.

În celebra mărturie depusă la procesul Rivonia din 1964, putem observa că Mandela a fost pe deplin conştient de însemnătatea acţiunilor „Umkhonto we Sizwe”:

„Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of the country which is not produced even by war.   Secondly, we felt that without sabotage there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy [….] 

But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes. We believed that South Africa belonged to all the people who lived in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We did not want an inter-racial war, and tried to avoid it to the last minute.”

Disperarea resimţită de Mandela este cred foarte bine reflectată „in the words of my leader, Chief (Albert) Luthuli, who became President of the ANC, and who was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (1960)”, pe care Mandela îl citează în timpul procesului:

 „Who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all”. 

Referitor la relaţia cu Partidul Comunist: „Another of the allegations made by the State is that the aims and objects of the ANC and the Communist Party are the same. I wish to deal with this and with my own political position”:

The ideological creed of the ANC is, and always has been, the creed of African Nationalism. It is not the concept of African Nationalism expressed in the cry, ‘Drive the White man into the sea’. The African Nationalism for which the ANC stands is the concept of freedom and fulfilment for the African people in their own land. The most important political document ever adopted by the ANC is the Freedom Charter. It is by no means a blueprint for a socialist state. It calls for redistribution, but not nationalisation, of land; it provides for nationalisation of mines, banks, and monopoly industry, because monopolies, big monopolies are owned by one race only, and without such nationalisation racial domination would be perpetuated despite the spread of political power. It would be a hollow gesture to repeal the Gold Law prohibitions against Africans when all gold mines are owned by European companies. In this respect the ANC’s policy corresponds with the old policy of the present Nationalist Party which, for many years, had as part of its programme the nationalisation of the gold mines which, at that time, were controlled by foreign capital. Under the Freedom Charter, nationalisation would take place in an economy based on private enterprise. The realisation of the Freedom Charter would open up fresh fields for a prosperous African population of all classes, including the middle class. The ANC has never at any period of its history advocated a revolutionary change in the economic structure of the country, nor has it, to the best of my recollection, ever condemned capitalist society.
As far as the Communist Party is concerned, and if I understand its policy correctly, it stands for the establishment of a State based on the principles of Marxism. Although it is prepared to work for the Freedom Charter (cea adoptată de ANC – n.m.), as a short term solution to the problems created by white supremacy, it regards the Freedom Charter as the beginning, and not the end, of its programme.
The ANC, unlike the Communist Party, admitted Africans only as members. Its chief goal was, and is, for the African people to win unity and full political rights. The Communist Party’s main aim, on the other hand, was to remove the capitalists and to replace them with a working-class government. The Communist Party sought to emphasise class distinctions whilst the ANC seeks to harmonise them. This is, My Lord, a vital distinction.

It is true that there has often been close co-operation between the ANC and the Communist Party. But co-operation is merely proof of a common goal – in this case the removal of white supremacy – and is not proof of a complete community of interests.
My Lord, the history of the world is full of similar examples. Perhaps the most striking illustration is to be found in the co-operation between Great Britain, the United States of America, and the Soviet Union in the fight against Hitler. Nobody but Hitler would have dared to suggest that such co-operation turned Churchill or Roosevelt into communists or communist tools, or that Britain and America were working to bring about a communist world. [….]

I believe that communists have always played an active role in the fight by colonial countries for their freedom, because the short-term objects of communism would always correspond with the long-term objects of freedom movements. Thus communists, My Lord, have played an important role in the freedom struggles fought in countries such as Malaya, Algeria, and Indonesia, yet none of these states today are communist countries. Similarly in the underground resistance movements which sprung up in Europe during the last World War, communists played an important role. Even General Chiang Kai-Shek, today one of the bitterest enemies of communism, fought together with the communists against the ruling class in the struggle which led to his assumption of power in China in the 1930s. [….]” 

Şi, cât priveşte doctrina lui politică:

„My Lord, I wish now to turn to my own position. I have denied that I am a communist, and I think in the circumstances I am obliged to state exactly what my political beliefs are in order to explain what my position in Umkhonto was, and what my attitude towards the use of force is.
I have always regarded myself, in the first place, as an African patriot. After all, I was born in Umtata, forty-six years ago. [….] Today I am attracted by the idea of a classless society, an attraction which springs in part from Marxist reading and, in part, from my admiration of the structure and organisation of early African societies in this country. The land, then the main means of production, belonged to the tribe. There was no rich or poor and there was no exploitation.
It is true, as I have already stated that I have been influenced by Marxist thought. But this is also true of many of the leaders of the new independent states. Such widely different persons as Gandhi, Nehru, Nkrumah and Nasser [Jawaharlal Nehru, Kwame Nkrumah, Gamal Abdel Nasser – politicieni „emancipatori” în India, Ghana, respectiv, Egipt] all acknowledge this fact. We all accept the need for some form of socialism to enable our people to catch up with the advanced countries of the world and to overcome their legacy of extreme poverty. But this does not mean we are Marxists.
Indeed, My Lord, for my own part, I believe it is open to debate whether the Communist Party has any specific role to play at this particular stage of our political struggle. The basic task at the present moment is the removal of race discrimination and the attainment of democratic rights on the basis of the Freedom Charter, and a struggle which can best be led by a strong ANC. In so far, My Lord, as that Party furthers this task, I welcome its assistance. I realise that it is one of the main means by which people of all races can be drawn into our struggle.
But from my reading of Marxist literature and from conversations with Marxists, I have gained the impression that communists regard the parliamentary system of the work – of the West as undemocratic and reactionary. But, on the contrary, I am an admirer of such a system.
The Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Bill of Rights are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world.
I have great respect for British political institutions, and for the country’s system of justice. I regard the British Parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the independence and impartiality of its judiciary never fail to arouse my admiration.
The American Congress, that country’s doctrine of separation of powers, as well as the independence of its judiciary, arouse in me similar sentiments.
I have been influenced in my thinking by both West and East. All this has led me to feel that in my search for a political formula, I should be absolutely impartial and objective. I should tie myself to no particular system of society other than that of socialism. I must leave myself free to borrow the best from West and from the East.”

Şi, minunata încheiere a discursului său: 

„During my lifetime I have dedicated my life to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. 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 realised. But, My Lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

O primă concluzie: 

  • – mai în glumă – cred că înţeleg motivul pentru care Vladimir Tismăneanu, a cărui liberalism şi anti-comunism nu poate fi contestant, îl admiră pe Nelson Mandela: el ştie să citească în limba engleză 🙂

Reformulând concluzia, pentru a fi serioasă:

Cred că nimeni care citeşte mărturia lui Mandela din 1964 nu are motive să-l acuze de marxism sau de terorism.

(va urma)

Nu ştiu ce este mai convingător: propria lui mărturie sau faptul că a fost fotografiat cu secera şi ciocanul în spate?

Nu ştiu ce este mai convingător: propria lui mărturie sau faptul că a fost fotografiat cu secera şi ciocanul în spate?

12 comentarii

Din categoria Eroi adevarati, Jurnal

12 răspunsuri la „Cum se plâng eroii…. (3) Madiba – partea 1

  1. „Attending communist talks and parties, Mandela was impressed that Europeans, Africans, Indians and Coloureds were mixing as equals. He stated later that he did not join the Party because its atheism conflicted with his Christian faith, and because he saw the South African struggle as being racially based rather than class warfare.”
    (cf. Nelson Mandela, „Long Walk to Freedom Volume I: 1918–1962. Little, Brown and Company”, p.106)

    „Nelson Mandela was apparently a man of great faith, who kept his Christian beliefs discreet in favour of his great life work of reconciliation. That is the picture emerging from a number of ministers who regularly met to pray with Mandela in prison as well as throughout the latter part of his life. […]
    At a religious conference in 1999, he said: „Without the church, without religious institutions, I would never have been here today … Religion was one of the motivating factors in everything we did. But Mandela held an aversion to speaking publicly about his own faith for fear of dividing or – even worse – using religion as a political tool, as the apartheid regime did.”

  2. Ioan Cadar

    Omul Mandela a utilizat şi el mijloacele de care a putut dispune pentr a-i putea elibera pe concetăţeni săi oprimaţi.
    S-a adaptat timpurilor!

  3. Apostolul Pavel nua fost un asupritor violent al primilor crestini? Si nu a fost el primul care a recunoscut asta? Trebuie sa spun ca lunga pledoarie pro domo a lui Nelson Mandela nu m-a convins. Ere mult mai simplu sa ma convinga daca adopta metoda paulina: aceea de a aminti cu fiecare ocazie „da, am fost un terorist si acum multumesc lui Dumnezeu ca mi-a dat inca o sansa”

  4. A, abia acum am observat poza. Despre Winnie Mandela ce se poate spune? Nu cumva a ramas adepta mijloacelor violente pana in timpurile cand Mandela era presedinte?

  5. Dan Ghenea

    Tot in legatura cu poza: cand ai de ales intre cuvinte si gesturi, pariaza pe gesturi.

  6. Dragă domnule Dan Ghenea,
    În acest articol, am încercat să arăt două lucruri:
    1) Cauza lui Mandela (lupta împotriva apartheidului) a fost una bună, şi conştientiza pericolele unei „răsturnări extreme” a situaţiei: “Am luptat împotriva dominaţiei albe şi am luptat împotriva dominaţiei negre. Idealul meu cel mai scump este acela al unei societăţi libere şi democratice în care toţi să trăiască în armonie şi să aibă şanse egale”.

    Când, în 1986, s-a negociat eliberarea sa, aceasta a fost condiţionată de respingerea publică a mijloacelor violente. El a refuzat: “Nu eram dispus să renunţ la violenţă, dar le-am precizat că violenţa nu putea să conducă la o rezolvare definitivă a situaţiei Africii de Sud” (scrie în memoriile sale).
    Mijloacele violente spre care s-a întors au fost rele, dar:
    2) Nu îl consider comunist, iar acuzaţia de a fi „doar un terorist” (şi atât) mi se pare neechilibrată. „But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism” – aici nu ştiu, o fi fost, n-o fi fost, mai are importanţă?

    Eu cred că Mandela n-a fost nici Gandhi, dar nici Lenin. Cred că n-a aplicat principiul sănătos a lui Gandhi („violenţei se răspunde cu violenţă”), ci principiul lui Machiavelli: „Un scop bun scuză mijloacele.”

  7. Despre Winnie Mandela nu ştiu….
    Poate acest concept este greşit şi vine dintr-o naivă încredere în cuvinte, dar îmi să acord mai multă importanţă cuvintelor decât gesturilor 🙂

  8. Eu i-aş reproşa tocmai asta: că a renunţat la principiul non-violenţei şi nu a rămas Gandhi până la capăt 🙂

  9. Pingback: Cum se plâng eroii…. (3) Madiba – partea 2 | tudorvisanmiu

  10. Nu as putea sa sustin ca a fost „doar” terorist. De aceea am facut paralela cu Sf. Pavel. Am spus ca intr-o anumita etapa a fost terorist.

  11. Dragă domnule Ghenea,
    Eu nu polemizam cu dumneavoastră 🙂 – ci cu anumite persoane care l-au acuzat de a fost un terorist…. şi atât.
    Şi eu sunt de acord că, între 1956-1964, activitatea lui poate fi considerată teroristă. Dar cred că, spre deosebire de alţi terorişti (precum bolşevicii sau fanaticii islamişti), scopurile sale erau „curate” – adică Mandela era un terorist al unei cauze bune 🙂 Reproşul pe care i l-aş aduce ar fi unul etic, privind mijloacele sale, nu principial.
    Din nou, nu polemizam cu dumneavoastră 🙂 – ci cu cei care l-au acuzat că a fost teroristul unei cauze rele.
    Bineînţeles, personalitatea lui Nelson Mandela trebuie judecată în ansamblu, „şi cu bune, şi cu rele”. Nu înţeleg de ce unii judecă doar „relele” – poate li se pare suspect imensul val de simpatie care l-a atins.
    Din nou, nu polemizam cu dumneavoastră 😉 – ci cu cei care spun că a fost un om rău.

    Recunosc, retorica mea cam deviază spre un monolog 🙂

  12. Pingback: Recapitulare (25) Copacul cu răvaşe | tudorvisanmiu

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:


Comentezi folosind contul tău Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Google

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s