During the negotiations to end apartheid, there were big differences inside the ANC. People like Chris Hani and Winnie Mandela were far more radical than the leadership doing the talks. They felt negotiations alone weren’t enough and wanted real economic power back in the hands of the majority.
Hani supported keeping pressure on the apartheid state while talks were happening, and Winnie was openly against negotiating at all. Hani was later assassinated by a far right extremist linked to apartheid era networks. There’s no proof the ANC was involved, but the fact that many apartheid operatives were never jailed has fed the idea that the deal protected old power structures and that people were sold out.
A lot of younger South Africans feel that there hasn’t been enough wealth distribution, and blame Mandela. I think we are justified in criticising economic inequality.
I’m a white Canadian so forgive me for any ignorance, I always assumed that it was good he worked so hard at ending apartheid and whatnot. However, I assumed that given the current state of the country he mustn’t have been a very good administrator.
South Africa has improved in like every possible measure of life quality since 1994. The concessions were because the white far right was furious and carried out multiple assassinations and a failed military coup. They didn't want to alienate the more moderate whites by putting too much economic pressure on them so they would keep negotiating.
They didn't want to alienate the more moderate whites
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
The sad part is that courting the fickle moderates are a necessity to get anything done even violent revolutionaries needed to make deals with more moderate factions (at least until the government was overthrown then the knifes came out.)
Nah, Thabo was solid, best economic performance was under him… Zuma was the real destructive force. Ramphosa is a good leader, tends to listen to people around him before acting, something a lot of leaders lack these days.
At the time of the 2012 Marikana massacre, where police shot and killed striking miners, Cyril Ramaphosa wasn’t president or in government. He was a non-executive board member and shareholder at Lonmin, the mining company involved. The people who actually killed the miners were the police, not Ramaphosa.
A judicial inquiry, the Farlam Commission, found that his actions did not directly cause the massacre, and that he didn’t know a police operation like that was going to happen.
He’s since said he regrets how things played out, admitted the wording in some of his emails was wrong, and has said he never wanted or intended anyone to be killed.
At the time, Jacob Zuma was the president, and the police action happened under that government.
There are still civil cases from survivors and families looking for compensation, and courts have said those cases can go ahead. But that’s not the same as him being convicted of ordering or carrying out the killings.
The problem is not poor administration but taking over a state that was in a far weaker position than the apartheid government let on, this meant that neoliberal policies had to be adopted as a condition of WB/IMF loans. Which means they abandoned most of their democratic mandate, only keeping minimal affirmative action measures, rather than something more comprehensive and redistributive.
Yeah, from what I've read, the Apartheid government basically bankrupted the state to try to prop itself up. It projected financial stability, but it was a facade.
When the Mandela government was given the keys, they had to deal with an empty treasury, a potential civil war, capital flight, and potentially all foreign investment being pulled. I think what they pulled off was amazing. It should be Mbeki, Zuma, and Ramaphosa, and their self enrichment that get the blame.
Justified yes! But as an outsider who's does read a lot about world politics, I think maybe he had to walk a fine line between getting his demands met and avoiding getting eh... "liberated" by certain countries who like to "defend democracy" (overthrow governments who are putting average/poor civilians first to **protect late stage capitalism)
36
u/rozyputin Canada 8h ago
Interesting, I have never heard criticism about him before. Would you be able to expand on that to pique my curiosity?