The Role of Language in the Mandela Strategy

The peaceful and non-violent transformation of an officially racist and discriminatory minority-governed society into a non-racist inclusive democracy is one of the remarkable events of the 20^th century. A fundamental part of this transformation was Nelson Mandela’s strategy. This article will assess the role of language in the Mandela strategy.

Introduction

South Africa is the site of some of the oldest fossil remains of human settlement, and ruins of ancient archaeological constructions have been identified there. Contact with Europeans did not occur until 1485 when the Portuguese explorer Diego Cão arrived at the western coast in search of a passage to India, a task which was completed by Vasco de Gama.

In 1652, the Dutchman Jan van Riebeek established a victualling station in Southern Africa for the Dutch East India Company at what became known as Cape Town. A substantial number of Dutch settlers came, but Great Britain occupied Cape Town between 1795 and 1803 and again in 1806, and tension developed between the Dutch, supplemented by French Huguenot, German, Danish, and other settlers, who later self-identified as Afrikaners or Boers. The abolition of slavery by Great Britain in 1833 and the substantial arrival of British settlers caused the Afrikaners to resettle inland and, in the process, establish republics: the South African Republic, the Natalia Republic, and the Orange Free State. These republics were in conflict with some African nations as well as with the British, notably the Zulus.

The discovery of gold and then diamonds and other minerals and gems within the territory of the republics meant that Britain found it necessary to go to war with the Boers in two Anglo-Boer wars (1880–1831) and (1899–1902), which saw British victory in the second. Afrikaner memory was particularly engraved with the loss of life of some 20,000 Afrikaner women and children in the Concentration Camps of the Second Anglo-Boer War.

Great Britain decided to grant self-government within the British Empire to a Union of South Africa in 1910, following the model of Canada (1867), Australia (1901), and New Zealand (1907). However, within the now self-governing South Africa, Afrikaner memory of World War I (1914 to 1918) was highly negative. In World War 2, many Afrikaners were somewhat reluctant parties, with some significant figures supporting Hitler and the Axis cause (Thompson, 2001).

The Apartheid Era

A predominantly whites-only election was held in 1948 and won by the Afrikaner-dominated Nationalist Party, which began implementing a policy known as Apartheid, a policy of institutionalised separation, specifically but not only of races. Under this policy, South Africa was separated into four groups defined by race: White, Black, Indian, and Coloured, and separated by law in residence, occupation, industrial relations, education, and family and sexual relations. Any political activity that was deemed to be ‘communist,’ which was most, was banned, as were the sponsoring organisations, notably the African National Congress (ANC).

Thus, at the end of World War 2, there existed in South Africa a distinct white population of some 2,000,000 or about 5% of the total population, sharing their own language, culture, religion, and sense of God-given destiny, having survived in a country where they shared power with another distinct and antagonistic political minority, which was those of British and other white origin, who were dominant economically (Bunting, 1969).

International Reactions to Apartheid

International reaction to the introduction of Apartheid was initially subdued, apart from some objection by India at the United Nations, which was overruled, as the UN could not involve itself in the internal matters of member states. It was also a time of Cold War fears of expansion of communist influence, which South Africa sternly resisted.

The Apartheid regime received unfavourable international attention with two events that brought home to the outside world the situation of the relations between the races in South Africa. The first was the massacre at Sharpeville in 1960, where 69 African demonstrators were shot and killed by police (Sampson, 2000, p. 275).

The second, even more attention-raising event was the massacre of demonstrating schoolchildren at Soweto in 1976. The children were demonstrating against the government requirement that 50% of classes be given in the Afrikaans language, which was strongly opposed by pupils and teachers. In a confrontation with police, a large number of children were killed, possibly in conjunction with other related incidents at that time, reaching a total of 500 to 1000 (Sampson, 2000).

The period of the National Party’s political control lasted from 1946 to 1991 when it came to an end after white electors voted in the majority to allow universal suffrage in elections.

Change of Direction of the Afrikaners

How did the Afrikaners come to accept the need for this fundamental decision to change the direction of their self-created destiny? There are many factors involved in the decision to accept this fundamental change: the international community had created pressure for liberalisation, the South African economy was failing, and other regimes had seen a turn to majority rule, particularly Zimbabwe, Angola, and Mozambique. Many writers agree that there was one outstanding factor, above all else, that was important: specifically, the Mandela leadership strategy.

Nelson Mandela was born in 1918 and was highly educated in African schools and in law. After finishing law school, he helped create the African National Congress, which soon came to be outlawed by the government. Mandela rose to prominence through the ANC, and his liberal politics were modelled on Gandhi’s successful opposition to British colonial rule in India. Mandela accepted that the defining characteristic of Gandhi’s policy was non-violence.

In 1961, Mandela co-founded a militant wing of the ANC in partnership with the South African Communist Party and was convicted soon after of treason. He was spared the death penalty but condemned to life in prison. A major part of his 27 years of imprisonment was spent on Robben Island. In the final stages of his imprisonment, Mandela was offered incentives in exchange for his freedom, but he chose not to accept these offers, preferring to remain in prison as a symbol of oppression. Finally, he was released from prison in 1990, whereupon he became President of the ANC and ultimately President of South Africa in 1994. The year previously, in 1993, Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk, the National Party leader, were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace for achieving by largely non-violent means a voluntary transfer of power, a very rare occurrence.

The Mandela Strategy

The basis of the Mandela strategy of leadership has been defined by the leadership theorist Schoemaker (2014) as (i) encouraging inclusive racial harmony, (ii) forgiveness without forgetting, (iii) power sharing, and (iv) a strong focus on the future, not the past.

Inclusivity

In regard to racial harmony, Mandela had, from the early times, been well prepared to allow power-sharing among ANC leadership and membership. This he did with acceptance into important roles of persons from Indian, Asian, and diverse European backgrounds, including Jewish, as well as coloured groups. Unlike some other African parties, the ANC was steered by Mandela away from the goal of racial purity among its adherents (Mandela, 1995, p. 282).

Forgiveness Without Forgetting

In this regard, Mandela accepted the call from his personal friend Archbishop Tutu for a truth and reconciliation inquiry, later to be formalised as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, an institutionalised measure adopted by other countries, notably Canada. This policy was to be exercised within a framework focused on building a new society.

Power Sharing

Mandela was deeply fearful that a majority-ruled South Africa might follow the path of neighbouring Zimbabwe, where under Mugabe’s corrupt rule, a brain drain of white expertise had occurred. In South Africa, Mandela saw that white expertise was an important resource to maintain, and he set out to calm fears among whites.

Focus on the Future, Not the Past

Mandela’s vision was of the future, not the past. His future view of South Africa was that of a rainbow nation, a term invented by Desmond Tutu and adopted by Mandela, who emphasised that in a rainbow, all elements come together in harmony. This was based on the observation that non-violent policy was successfully used in India’s struggle to end Britain’s colonial rule. When the apartheid state resorted increasingly to violence, Mandela reluctantly accepted the need for violence, accepting that it was necessary but confining it to material objects and facilities.

The Role of Language

It is clear that Mandela saw that language was an essential component because it carried identity, though he rarely made statements about the subject. He recognised how important identity was to the Afrikaners and that it was contained in their language of Afrikaans. He also saw that if Afrikaners were to come on board with his strategic goal of an inclusive society, their language must be protected, even though it was hated by many Black populations. The idea that one language could overrule all others, if necessary, by force was a highly unproductive route to follow as it established the conditions for revenge (Sampson, 2000, p. 275).

Languages in South Africa

The Dutch language was brought to Southern Africa in 1652 and continued to have official status after the Cape Colony was ruled by the Great British in 1814 when English was made the official language. In 1910, Dutch was given equal status with English, and in 1925, the new language of Afrikaans replaced Dutch as the equal official language of South Africa, alongside English, a situation that remained until majority rule. In a subsequent development, the languages Dutch, then Afrikaans, and English became two competing vehicles of identity for white South Africa, while the Coloured population spoke a form of Afrikaans.

Mandela was aware that the Afrikaner-dominated policy, which they called “Bantu Education,” promoted education in the African mother-tongue plus Afrikaans, was nothing more than a way of keeping the African population localised and unsophisticated (Mandela, 1995, p. 223).

When South Africa adopted a new Constitution in 1996, Section 6 of Chapter 1, Founding Provisions, laid down the principles of language policy. It recognised 11 official languages (with the addition of Sign Language in 2024, recognising 12 Official Languages) and stated that practical and positive measures must be taken to elevate the status and advance the use of the Indigenous languages and that all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and equality of treatment (The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 2023).

Surrender Without Defeat

The question of how the Afrikaner-dominated minority government came to accept the principle of majority rule without a struggle or ‘surrender without defeat’ has been raised persistently throughout the country (Giliomee, 1997). The answer is multifactorial, but it can be argued that under Mandela’s guidance, the ANC-led majority government adopted an unexpectedly tolerant policy towards Afrikaans, considering its long history as a symbol and vehicle of oppression. Mandela was well aware of the mental state of the Afrikaners as one of collective fear of loss of identity through loss of language, which had been articulated in many statements by Afrikaners. In the words of one observer, there was every prospect that a black government would elevate English to the status of being the sole official language, spelling the end of Afrikaans and Afrikaner culture–and with it, the Afrikaner people (The Constitution of Namibia, 1990).

Many Afrikaners were well aware that the newly independent Namibia had chosen English as the sole official language, though with the recognition of educational rights in other languages. The fact that the Southwest Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO) (The Constitution of Namibia, 1990), the leading independence movement in the forthcoming Namibia, had long made it clear that Afrikaans, the then prevailing lingua franca of Namibia, would be replaced by English (McLean, 1999).

The post-apartheid ANC under Mandela’s leadership thus offered Afrikaners some security, with language policy at the basis of the appeal, surprisingly coming from a former victim.

Mandela and Afrikaans

During his long period of incarceration in the prison of Robben Island, Mandela was subjected to what he found to be the unpleasant use of Afrikaans on a daily basis, where the warders always spoke to him in Afrikaans. Mandela observed that if you replied in English they would say ‘Ék verstaan nie daardie kaffireboetie se taal nie. (I don’t understand that Kaffir-lovers language.)’ (Mandela, 1995, p. 405).

Rather than rejecting Afrikaans, Mandela, during his 27-year-long incarceration on Robben Island, undertook to learn Afrikaans himself. This he did by taking lessons from a warder with whom, like many Afrikaans-speaking warders, was keen to learn English. Mandela later noted that he was always looking for ways to improve his Afrikaans. He and the warder made an agreement that the warder would speak to Mandela in English and Mandela would answer in Afrikaans, and in that way, both practised the language which they both sought to master (Mandela, 1995, p. 651).

The Mandela Strategy on Language

Mandela’s strategy was to see South Africa in a new formulation where all groups in the new society, including even his former persecutors and their language, would have a place. On this last point, one commentator has noted that (ex) President Mandela has been ‘highly sensitive to the language issue’ and went on to observe, as further confirmation, the personal opposition of Mandela to the phasing-out of the use of Afrikaans in the South African military and police (Schiff, 1996).

Mandela and Indigenous Languages

With regard to African languages, Mandela was aware of the risk of inter-ethnic conflict precipitated by language conflict. It was, therefore, necessary to de-stigmatise them from the hangover of their previously assigned official position of inferiority and to give them an enhanced status by process of official recognition. However, equality was not in itself enough to achieve the desired outcome.

An important area of concern in post-apartheid South Africa is the impact of the English language and its implications for the survival of other languages (Mazrui, 1988). This is a universal reaction to the power of the world languages, in particular English, within the highly fluid linguistic situation in South Africa. In addition, English is impacting the grammatical structures of the African languages (Kamwangamalu, 2003).

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to show that what has been called the Mandela strategy has played a critical role in the achievement of majority rule and the subsequent transformation of South Africa from an officially racist country to a ‘rainbow nation.’ At the basis of the discussion, it is clear that the functioning, even survival, of a new South African society depends upon the emergence of a new sense of identity, to which language policy can make a contribution. This is done by avoidance of what has been called linguistic exclusion. Mandela understood the survival of languages to be a fundamental part of his strategy for the survival of communities and of the state.

Within that strategy, the treatment of language, specifically but not exclusively, the Afrikaans language, as well as eleven indigenous languages, has played a highly constructive part. Had majority rule been achieved without official recognition of Afrikaans and eleven Indigenous languages, providing a transition to majority rule would have been much less stable with greater uncertainty prevailing.