by BO staff writer
Late last year in Oxford University, the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) Julius Malema unexpectedly unleashed a blistering criticism of two of Africa’s icons, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and the late Nelson Mandela of South African. The attack on Mugabe has been explained by the fact that the EFF had met the representatives of the British Crown in London at Chantam House. The deliberations of the meeting remain unknown. As BO reported recently, what is known from leaked photographs is that amongst those that the EFF met was one Robin Renwick who has been trying to effect an illegal regime change in Zimbabwe after President Mugabe’s government took the land from white settlers and gave it to black Zimbabweans. Therefore the attack on Mugabe was part of carrying out the agenda of London to get rid of Mugabe.
The attack on Nelson Mandela was difficult to link directly to the British and western interests because Mandela has been a darling of the white world. Malema told his Oxford audience that, “Mandela sold out (the) Freedom Charter after separating with Winnie Mandela”. He also said that Mandela had gone to stay at the house given to him by white men “who own SA”. This criticism is even more baffling considering that when Mandela had passed on, Malema lead a public procession to Mandela’s home in Houghton. The officially printed placard amongst others reflected the message, “Mandela we honor you”. Malema himself then said, “(t)hank you (Mandela) for ushering in political freedom…. Those who came after you failed to deliver economic freedom”. He further said, “(w)e are picking up this battle…Viva the militant Nelson Mandela, viva”. While in 2013 Mandela, according to Malema, was a hero who delivered political freedom and the next step of economic freedom was betrayed by those who came after him, in 2015 Malema while in London changed his tune by calling Mandela a sell-out thereby soiling his legacy.
In 2012 when a blogger who goes by the name of Youngster penned a criticism of Nelson Mandela it was the current Deputy President of the EFF, Floyd Shivambu, who responded to refute the claim that Mandela sold out. Shivambu scolded Youngster for criticising Mandela instead of wishing him a happy birthday. To this end, and in direct contradiction to what Malema later said in London, a part of Shivambu’s responses to the letter of Youngster was:
“… it is not true that “Shortly after the 1994 election, you (President Mandela) even submitted the ANC’s economic program to Oppenheimer for approval and made several key revisions to address his concerns, as well as those of other top industrialists. Shame on you for selling out of minerals and land to the imperialists”, as claimed by the Youngster in the letter he wrote. The ANC had developed various economic policy frameworks during transition including the Discussion Document on Economic Transformation (DDEP), Ready to Govern, the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), and the report of the ANC commissioned Macro Economic Research Groups (MERG), all of which took a broadly consultative approach in an attempt to build consensus on how the economy should be transferred. With expanded capacity in government and the ANC, President Mandela could have not consulted one individual to seek approval on an economic policy.”
What about Mandela and the Freedom Charter? Well in 2012 Shivambu said, “President Nelson Mandela is one of the most renowned defenders of the Freedom Charter, who even when it was not fashionable to do so, stood firm in defence of the Freedom Charter”. Well in 2015, in London, the same Mandela is said to have sold out the same document. The version of 2012 places Mandela at the center of the Freedom Charter. Shivambu tells his readers that, “(i)n his first public address after the release of political prisoners in 1990, Nelson Mandela said,“nationalisation of the mines, banks and monopoly industries is ANC policy, and any change to this policy is inconceivable””
And here is the punch line! According to Shivmabu, “(i)t is important to note that this articulation was not part of his written speech, but something he said as a way of re-affirming the central message of the ANC. What many people do not know is that President Mandela made this statement in direct response to the assurances given to apartheid capitalists by the political leadership in exile that the Freedom Charter might be abandoned”. In 2012 those who wanted to sell out the Freedom Charter were the exiled leaders – in 2015 in London it was Mandela.
To complete the picture, what in 2012 was seen as“necessary retreats and tactical temporary detours had to be taken to secure a peaceful transition and transfer of political power from the white minority to the elected majority, black and white”, in 2015 in London is called a sell-out. The real question is what had changed from 2012? What explains this massive detour? In 2012 Mandela was the great defender of the Freedom Charter. In 2013 when he passed on he was honored but in 2015, from London, he is called a sell-out? In this piece we don’t entertain the veracity or otherwise of the Freedom Charter as a document of national liberation. The point is that the EFF leaders like Malema believe it is a document of liberation.
A new theory has emerged that seeks to explain this attack on Nelson Mandela by Malema. First, Malema has taken over the position of a trusted agent of the west to carry out their agenda after losing face with Jacob Zuma who is now seen as part of the eastern block of Russia, India and China. This theory suggests that the western world having elevated Mandela too high and having used him to safeguard their interests no longer needs him hence the need to destroy his legacy. Mandela’s image as a saint has to be annulled because it disrupts the logic of white supremacy that reduces all blacks to savages incapable of certain heights of achievement which are the sole preserve of the white greats. White supremacy is inherently conspiratorial against blacks. Mandela had been elevated above the general black position in the white imagination. Incidentally, it was whites who elevated him and now they want him cut to size. Malema has become a willing agent in this battle of the white world to re-establish itself and expel Mandela from the symbolic place of greatness.
It would appear that the London controllers of the regime change process demanded, amongst other things, the attack on Mugabe, Mandela, Zuma and the Guptas. The attack on Mandela has been the most difficult to understand but the theory put forward begins to give coherence as to why Mandela’s legacy must be destroyed so that his place in the symbolic order of whiteness is obliterated. That is how white supremacy functions. It uses you and then abuses you. This is the fate awaiting those who have gone into an alliance with the likes of Johann Rupert – they shall be used and then abused.
Malema’s criticism of Mandela has gained him some new admirers even from some Black Consciousness and Pan Africanist quarters. The followers of these ideologies has long and correctly identified Mandela as a leader who had a great weakness for whites. This criticism of Mandela from such giants as Robert Sobukwe was principled. However the current assault on Mandela is a white project aimed at purifying itself. EFF leaders, wittingly or otherwise, have offered themselves the job of assisting whites to carry out this programme of destroying the legacy of Mandela. What those blacks, who work with whites against blacks, don’t know is that like Mandela they shall be used and then abused.
There is an unbroken link between the assault on Mandela’s legacy and now the calls for armed struggle. The whole of the African continent is littered with rebel armies funded and armed by imperialism. We would do well to remember that Johann Rupert, one of the richest men in South Africa, assisted by the media has called for a coup. It is now public knowledge that Malema has called out to Rupert to help him topple President Zuma. Rupert has delivered on engineering economic terrorism against the Guptas as we have seen in the banks’ closure of Oakbay Resources and Energy Accounts and KPMG’s withdrawal as Oakbay’s Audit Firm. What is left to be seen is whether political destabilization, that would include political terrorism so as to impose white control completely again, can be engineered. If they can go for Mandela, who is safe?
See the following links: