his flock, go off in a new direction, confident that he is leading his people the
right way. Finally, my isolation furnished my organization with an excuse in case
matters went awry: the old man was alone and completely cut off, and his actions
were taken by him as an individual, not a representative of the ANC. (Mandela
1994, 457)
This passage describes a crucial moment in the process by which apartheid was
ultimately overthrown in South Africa. It also reveals a great deal about Mandela’s own
strategic understanding of the power relation between the ANC and the government, and
about his own self-understanding as a leader of the anti-apartheid struggle.
In particular I want to develop the following themes raised in the passage.
1) Mandela sees the power conflict between ANC and government, and by
extension between black and white in South Africa as a whole, in variable-sum rather
than zero-sum terms: both sides stand to gain from a political settlement, both sides lose
in the event of civil war.
2) Nevertheless if present trends continue, the lose-lose scenario is more probable
than the win-win scenario, because “both sides regarded discussions as a sign of
weakness and betrayal.”
3) One of the duties of a leader is to resolve exactly this type of impasse: to
“move out ahead of the flock, go off in a new direction, confident that he is leading his
people the right way,” i.e. that his/her actions will ultimately accomplish these latent but
unrealized common interests.
4) But this is an extremely risky step because the leader cannot fully control the
process he/she sets in motion. One side’s willingness to take the first step may indeed
lead the opponent to suspect weakness and thus escalate its demands. Nor can the leader
fully control his/her “flock,” which retains the freedom to renounce its leaders.
3
Convention