South Africa’s former President Nelson Mandela and President Robert Mugabe are southern Africa’s most recognisable political figures.
They had a lot in common, but differed widely in various aspects of life. Leon Hartwell makes a comparison of the two in his article, The Democrat and the Dictator: Comparing Nelson Mandela and Robert Mugabe. Below is an excerpt from the article.
It is challenging to compare the impact of President Robert Mugabe and South Africa’s first black President Nelson Mandela’s economic policies because their terms in office differ widely, giving the Zimbabwe leader a much longer period over which to deliver.
Also, development (or underdevelopment) should be measured over a long period. Thus, one leader’s choices and actions could have consequences long after he has left office.
Nonetheless, here are some highlights throughout Mandela and Mugabe’s time in office:
Both leaders had the tremendous task of transforming their governments and economies into systems that would serve the country as a whole, as opposed to a White elite. When Mandela came into office, he introduced the Reconstruction and Development Plan (RDP).
The plan was considered ambitious and aimed to extend housing, land, and social services. He inherited a huge public debt with a budget deficit close to 9,5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which meant RDP’s funding became problematic.
By 1996, the RDP was abandoned and the ANC introduced the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (Gear) programme, which was aimed at creating economic distribution through economic growth.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Following Mandela’s presidency the economy experienced the longest period of continuous economic expansion since the Second World War.
By 2007, South Africa had a budget surplus. More importantly, by 2007, the ANC-led government built 2,6 million houses; the number of households with electricity doubled; over 87% of South Africans had access to clean running water; and 14,1 million South Africans benefited from social welfare.
Overall, South Africa’s economic performance has been much better than that of Zimbabwe’s.
This is true whether one compares the economies from the moment of ‘liberation’ (which is 1980 for Zimbabwe and 1994 for South Africa) to the first terms in office, or the long-term implications of their actions.
In the immediate post-independence period Mugabe also focused on expanding education and healthcare for all Zimbabweans. Initially, the country had impressive results in increased literacy rates, reduced child mortality, and expansion of government services.
However, government spending was unsustainable and Zimbabwe’s macroeconomic situation was threatened. According to the World Bank, public expenditure made up approximately 45% of Zimbabwe’s GDP during the 1980s. Consequently, Zimbabwe had to adopt the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP), which meant huge cuts in public programmes, civil service reforms, privatisation of public enterprises and so forth.
ESAP, combined with droughts in the early 1990s, did not improve the situation for the average Zimbabwean as de-industrialisation and unemployment increased, and the economy as a whole performed poorly, shrining as much as 7.5% in 1992.
Later in the 1990s, Mugabe pushed ahead with his land reform programme, which had devastating consequences. Just before dollarisation of the economy in 2009, Zimbabwe was suffering disturbing hyper-inflation; in December 2008, Zimbabwe’s inflation rate was reported at “6,5 quindecillion novemdecillion percent … [or alternatively expressed as] 65 followed by 107 zeros”. In 2009, the International Red Cross stated, “Zimbabwe has one of the lowest life expectancy rates in the world, estimated by the United Nations at 34 years for women and 37 years for men.”
Today, the average Zimbabwean is poorer than what they were in 1980. The average South African is today almost twice as wealthy as they were in 1994. This does not mean that South Africa does not have serious social and economic challenges. Both Zimbabwe and South Africa experience high levels of poverty, huge unemployment and deep inequality, but it is much more severe in Zimbabwe.
Although Mandela and Mugabe grew up in similar circumstances, they turned into very different individuals. One of the key reasons, as argued, relates to the choices that they made. While Mandela became the change that he wanted to see in South Africa, Mugabe’s long rule in office saw the old man becoming more and more bitter. Mandela is rightfully hailed as one of the world’s greatest leaders while the nonagenarian Mugabe continues to rule a broken country.
At the time of the controversial 2008 presidential run-off election in Zimbabwe, Mandela celebrated his 90th birthday he was saddened by the “the tragic failure of leadership in our neighbouring Zimbabwe”. Mugabe for his part claims that “Mandela has gone too far in doing good to the non-Black communities … he has been too much of a saint.”
Mugabe’s statement fails to acknowledge how successful Mandela was in building an inclusive state against all odds. Perhaps Mugabe is simply resentful of Mandela because the latter accomplished what the former never attained. Moreover, Mugabe’s battle has not been directed solely against rich White Zimbabweans, he has violently clamped down on any form of opposition to his dictatorship.
When Mandela came to power, he was clear that he wanted an ANC based on the future and not ride on past glories. With regards to the ANC’s first election campaign, Mandela said; “I felt that our campaign should be about the future, not the past.” He admitted that “some in the ANC wanted to make the campaign simply a liberation election, and tell the people: Vote for us because we set you free …[but] we wanted people to vote for the ANC not simply because we had fought apartheid for 80 years.”
In contrast to the future-orientated Mandela, Mugabe chooses to focus on Zanu PF’s past glories as if the entire nation must forever be indebted to the party for “liberating” them. When listening to Mugabe’s speeches one cannot help but think that he sounds like a teacher presenting a history lessons, in which he rehearses and glorifies Zimbabwe’s liberation war for his audience.
His speeches also reveals that he is an old man occupied with the past because he knows he does not have much of a future to look forward to.
More importantly, Mugabe talks about the distant past because he is trying to reinterpret history over and over again. He does this because he has skeletons in his closet. In order to stay in power, Mugabe has to paint a picture of an alternative “truth”; one in which he is the hero and those who oppose him are the villains.
Mandela’s time in office (and in fact his life) proves that he was a great man. Mandela became the embodiment of the ideals that he preached for many years. He left behind strong democratic institutions (compared to Zimbabwe) that continue to be tested, which is one of his greatest legacies.
Nevertheless, even though it could be argued that Mandela was a greater man compared to Mugabe, this does not necessarily mean that South Africa is a better country than Zimbabwe. South Africa still needs to learn a number of lessons that Zimbabweans have already forgotten. Currently, South Africa is experiencing a major crisis of leadership that threatens the relatively young democracy.
Challenges to Chapter 9 institutions are worrying and if they persists could cause major setbacks for South Africa’s political and economic stability.
However, Mandela’s extraordinary leadership means that South Africans have a very high benchmark to judge the actions of their leaders and institutions.
Mugabe used his time in office to develop a strong authoritarian regime. The Zimbabwean liberation hero’s legacy has been tainted by centralisation of power, corruption and mass murder.
As a result, expectations in Zimbabwe are low and institutions have been hollowed out to the point where the separation of powers and the rule of law are meaningless.
Even opposition politicians emulate Mugabe in certain ways as they have not yet had a leader who has mapped out an alternative democratic state where power comes with responsibilities and freedom is shared by all.
