Madiba's legacy: Time to reclaim the soul of the struggle
Image: AFP
Zamikhaya Maseti
As the world paused to observe Mandela Day this week on July 18, 2025, we are reminded that this day, solemnly declared by the United Nations in 2009, stands not as a decorative event on the calendar but as a global summons to political and ethical conscience.
Mandela Day was never meant to be reduced to a moment of philanthropy. It is a moral provocation. It demands reflection, honesty, and action from all of us, particularly those who profess to walk in the shadows of the long and unfinished journey that began long before 1994.
On February 11, 1990, President Nelson Mandela emerged from Victor Verster Prison with his fist raised high in the air, a gesture that immediately entered the symbolic archive of revolutionary imagery. It was not a sign of triumphalism. It was a signal. A political message carved into the conscience of this country and the watching world.
That image did not mark the end of the struggle. It marked its transformation. It did not signify closure. It announced a continuation. It called upon the oppressed and the marginalised, the landless and the working poor, to pick up where he and his fellow Rivonia Trialists had left off. The prison gates had opened, yes, but the gates of justice remained locked for millions.
He did not emerge bitter after twenty-seven years of carceral humiliation. He came out with the integrity of purpose intact, preaching reconciliation, peace, and coexistence. The reconciliation was meant to be just, it was meant to be transformative, and it was meant to be rooted in redress.
This year's Mandela Day finds South Africa at a historical crossroads. It coincides with the build-up to what may become a defining moment in the life of our post-Apartheid democratic project, the much-anticipated National Dialogue, now just a month away. In a previous reflection, I described the National Dialogue as a conversation we did not know we truly needed.
It is now apparent that we are a society adrift, lacking a common moral vocabulary and torn apart by deepening social fragmentation. In the context of Mandela Day, we must be courageous enough to pose the most uncomfortable but essential questions. Have we remained faithful to the founding ethos of our democratic transition? Have we honoured Mandela's radical legacy, or have we betrayed it?
We were once a society celebrated for the moral imagination of our negotiated settlement, hailed as a Rainbow Nation that chose dialogue over destruction, political patience over military confrontation. That fragile consensus has disintegrated. Today, we speak less like a Nation and more like a federation of bitter factions divided by race, class, geography, and ideology. The dream of non-racialism has withered into suspicion.
The national unity once imagined in the fervour of 1994 has been replaced with racial scapegoating and retreat. This is not the country Mandela sacrificed his freedom for. This is not the inheritance his fellow Rivonia Trialists hoped to bequeath to future generations.
Mandela Day must not be reduced to cooking for communities or painting classroom walls. These gestures are not inherently wrong, but they are dangerously insufficient. They become symbolic bandages on wounds that require political surgery. We need to elevate Mandela Day beyond gestures. It must become a platform to interrogate structural injustice, economic exclusion, and the social distance that continues to define our post-1994 reality.
The uncomfortable truth is that we have regressed. The South African Nation, post-February 11, 1990, defined by an ethos of Rainbowism, has collapsed into a contest of parallel grievances. The original project of inclusive nation-building has been corroded by policies that, while well-intentioned on paper, have had contradictory consequences in practice.
The Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policy, for instance, while aimed at redressing apartheid-era dispossession, has inadvertently alienated certain sections of the Black majority (Africans, People of Colour, People of Indian origin, and the Khoisan People).
When I refer to Black people, I do so in the tradition of the liberation movement as a historically defined social category forged through a collective struggle against colonialism, land dispossession, and Apartheid. That Black unity, painstakingly built in the trenches of resistance, is today fraying at the seams.
We are witnessing a tragic reversal, a balkanisation of the oppressed into fragmented groupings, each speaking a different political grammar, each wounded by a different historical wound. Instead of deepening national unity, certain policies have created perceptions of intra-Black competition, fuelling resentment, bitterness, and ultimately disunity.
We must confront the ideological implications of this drift. The emergence of what I call the Lumpen Bourgeoisie, a predatory class in itself, lacking revolutionary consciousness, obsessed with accumulation and proximity to power, stands in stark contrast to the National Bourgeoisie, a class for itself with a progressive mission, national vision, and clarity of purpose.
The former is transactional and extractive. The latter, at least in theory, is meant to be developmental and historically conscious. The BEE unintentionally fostered the rise of the former while neglecting the ideological nurturing of the latter.
This is not an attack on BEE per se. It is a call for its recalibration, for its redistributive potential to be realigned with the historic aspirations of the Freedom Charter and the social compact imagined at the birth of our democracy. Policies must not only transfer wealth, but they must build productive capacity, foster unity among the oppressed, and dismantle systemic privilege at its root.
Equally important is the role of White South Africans in the post-1994 Nation. We cannot build a united country if significant sections of the population continue to self-isolate and insulate themselves from national challenges.
The recent episode involving forty-nine self-exiled White farmers who left South Africa under the illusion of genocide and were caught in the geopolitical crossfire of a now-fractured Trump-Musk alliance is telling. It reveals the continued racial distrust, the misinformation industry, and the alienation of White South Africans from the collective destiny of this country. It also reveals a troubling reality that we are once again singing from two hymn books, one Black, the other White.
These wounds will not heal through sentimentality. They require political honesty, institutional courage, and leadership with historical memory. That is why the National Dialogue is important. It must be a space where these contradictions are surfaced without fear. The Dialogue must ask why Mandela's Rainbow Nation has faded.
The reconstruction of national unity cannot be subcontracted to slogans. It must be lived, nurtured, and constantly renewed. Mandela Day offers us a moment to recommit to the work of Nation-Building.
It invites every South African, Black or White, rich or poor, urban or rural, to become an active participant in the unfinished struggle for a just and equal society. We all have a role to play in bridging the fissures of mistrust and despair.
Mandela Day must be a call to civic renewal, to ethical leadership, and deep, principled reconciliation. Not the reconciliation of forgetfulness, but the reconciliation of truth, justice, and inclusion. In the name of Mandela, we must confront the fractures, realign our compass, and rebuild a Nation worthy of his legacy.
* Zamikhaya Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst with a Magister Philosophiae (M. PHIL) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), now known as the Nelson Mandela University (NMU).
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Citizen
3 hours ago
- The Citizen
Is the leader of the GNU lost at sea? : Ramaphosa's leadership style questioned
Many South Africans have expressed disappointment with the manner Ramaphosa dealt with the Mchunu allegations. President Cyril Ramaphosa is losing the country. His hold on it is unravelling like a ball of frayed string rolling downhill. The government of national unity, which had vowed to rescue South Africa, is dysfunctional, largely because of the president's appalling lack of leadership. Unprecedented depths of economic and social distress have heightened public discontent and one senses that it needs just a spark to erupt. The ever-faster cascade of events has punctuated the president's customary sang-froid. He has made foolish decisions and he has been caught in fabrications that he should have realised were bound to be exposed. Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's explosive allegations about political meddling, cadre deployment and institutional capture in law enforcement and the justice system left Ramaphosa flat-footed. It says much about how out of touch Ramaphosa has become that, despite the gravity of Mkhwanazi's allegations, he genuinely seemed to think he could shield his close ally, police minister Senzo Mchunu and deputy national commissioner Shadrack Sibiya. Public outrage swiftly made his stance untenable. As Mchunu's stand-in, Ramaphosa chose Prof Firoz Cachalia. A respected academic who, on paper, looked like a safe choice, Cachalia arrives with baggage of his own. When Mkhwanazi earlier this year went public for the first time with claims of political meddling, Cacha lia accused him of 'public grandstanding' and urged him to stick to the internal police channels that he had accused of corruption. But the comedy continues. Farcically, the portfolio in the meantime has been handed to Gwede Mantashe, the most compromised but longest-serving minister Ramaphosa has had. It's during all this slapstick that Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni deemed it to be an opportune to release the 2024-2028 National Security Strategy assessment, which confusingly concludes that, despite political assassinations, incipient terrorism, violent extremism, economic sabotage and ram pant corruption, South Africa is a stable and secure nation. She then went on to make some extraordinary remarks at the press conference about a potential coup d'état. 'There is,' Ntshavheni told the increasingly bewildered journalists, 'a potential risk of a coup d'état. We have identified it and put measures in place to mitigate against it. So, that's why we say to South Africans that there will not be anyone attempting to do a coup in South Africa.' ALSO READ:'Cyril must fall': Organisations march against Ramaphosa to Union Buildings on Mandela Day In the past few days or in the past few weeks, there has not been anyone attempting to do a coup in South Africa. That does not mean people are not planning one. Or, as Lewis Carroll put it with greater elegance and far less chance of rocking national confidence: 'If it was so, it might be. And if it were so, it would be. But as it isn't, it ain't.' Unfortunately for Ramaphosa, his other pet project, the National Dialogue, is not going to save the day for him. To many, it's just the latest manifestation of Ramaphosa's preference for symbolism over action. Even ANC legacy foundations, long accustomed to wielding quiet influence behind the scenes, are now publicly voicing their frustration. This week, the Walter and Albertina Sisulu Foundation issued a blistering statement, warning that Ramaphosa's habit of 'preaching dialogue while insulating political elites from accountability' amounts to little more than political theatre. The foundation charged that his leadership – tarnished by the still unresolved Phala Phala scandal – 'contradicts the very principles his administration claims to uphold'. The foundation's conclusion was stark: it's time for Ramaphosa to resign. NOW READ: What now for Senzo Mchunu? Police minister's political career on the ropes


Daily Maverick
10 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The GNU has failed the only test that matters: growing the economy and delivering jobs
The national coalition is entering yet another week it may not survive. While there have been real mistakes of leadership – and the ANC and the DA cannot give up their patterns from the past – it is becoming increasingly obvious that what is missing is a sense of mission. Because the parties involved are not focusing on the economy, and particularly youth unemployment, the coalition can give the impression that it is doomed. When the national coalition was formed and the ANC and the DA agreed to work together, along with eight other parties, there was some discussion about how to assess, in the future, whether the coalition was a success. Because the lived experience of so many South Africans has become so much tougher so quickly, it was pretty obvious, back in June 2024, that the real test was the economy. As has been said many, many, many times before, our youth unemployment is now so bad that it is easily the biggest long-term problem we face. Despite this obvious fact, disputed by nobody, the coalition has done nothing. At the same time, it appears the coalition is missing a sense of unity around a purpose. There appears to be no sense of 'mission' that could help bring people from different political backgrounds together. Instead, it can give the impression of a group of people united only by their belief that they should be in Cabinet and the MK party and the EFF should be out of it. If the coalition had created a sense of mission by focusing on youth unemployment, perhaps this could have brought them together. Surely parties as far apart politically as the PAC and the FF+ agree that helping young people into jobs and giving them hope is vital for our future. If the coalition had this sense of mission, perhaps it would have been able to overcome the lack of leadership and personal chemistry that is currently on display. It would have been much easier to overcome disagreements over the Budget, or the still-strange firing of the DA's Andrew Whitfield, if there had been another ultimate aim. But that is curiously lacking. And, strangely, it is not just the coalition. Direction unknown While there are many differing views about whether a National Dialogue would really be constructive, one of the most powerful arguments against it is that it will lack focus. It appears to include people from almost all parts of our public life. And their job is to discuss pretty much everything. This will probably be fatal to the process. It is hard to see what can really be achieved. Surely no decisions will be made that will alter the nature of our economy. Instead, it appears that many of our politicians, whether they are a part of the coalition, or supporting a dialogue, are more comfortable discussing issues other than the economy. There is a curious lack of focus. Of course, Operation Vulindlela and the progress it is making should not be ignored. Some of its measures, dealing with load shedding and the progress it's made at Transnet, are making slow changes to our economy that should be celebrated. But our politicians appear to lack the will to make the real changes that will matter. This is part of a pattern which took hold some time ago. Fifteen years ago, I made the same point about the ANC's lack of focus on the economy. At least eight years ago, ANC members made the same point on these pages. Government itself said back in 2020, even before the pandemic, that the economy was not going to grow unless there was action. This lack of focus obviously predates President Cyril Ramaphosa. Rather, it may be a feature of how the ANC has governed over the years. In 2007, days after winning the ANC leadership at Polokwane, Jacob Zuma gave very few clues on governance priorities. In 2009, the ANC said it had five 'apex priorities'. During the Zuma era in government, this lack of focus revealed itself in interesting ways. For example, in 2014 he appointed inter-ministerial committees to deal with particular issues. These committees were huge. The committee appointed to work against corruption (this was in the relatively early days of the Zuma era – the full irony of this committee would emerge later) included nine ministers. The committee on information and publicity had 12 (twelve!) members. It should be no surprise to anyone that nothing constructive was done here. Too many cooks There is, of course, a structural reason for all of this. As our society is so diverse, with so many different constituencies, politicians often struggle to be involved in discussions that will involve trade-offs. They do not want to be seen to be losing a single vote. The fact that the ANC set the tone for this may well be because it had the most diverse group of constituencies of all our parties. Simply put, it was always too broad a church to create economic policy that could include trade-offs. Something similar might well be happening today. The coalition is simply too broad to make the decisions that matter. For this reason, the National Dialogue might well appear to fail as well. It is true that there are many other factors holding our economy back. They include the fact that so many people have literally been betrayed by our education system, that inequality generally harms economic growth and that our infrastructure has been allowed to rot. None of this will be overcome without political will. For the moment, members of the national coalition are displaying none of the will, and the unity, necessary to change this. There will be many casualties as a result of this inaction.


eNCA
11 hours ago
- eNCA
European powers plan fresh nuclear talks with Iran
BRUSSELS - European powers plan fresh talks with Iran on its nuclear programme in the coming days, the first since the US attacked Iranian nuclear facilities a month ago, a German diplomatic source told AFP on Sunday. Britain, France and Germany, known as the E3, "are in contact with Iran to schedule further talks for the coming week", the source said. The trio had recently warned that international sanctions against Iran could be reactivated if Tehran does not return to the negotiating table. Iran's Tasnim news agency also reported that Tehran had agreed to hold talks with the three European countries, citing an unnamed source. Consultations are ongoing regarding a date and location for the talks, the report said. "Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. That is why Germany, France and the United Kingdom are continuing to work intensively in the E3 format to find a sustainable and verifiable diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear programme," the German source said. Israel and Western nations have long accused Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran has consistently denied. On June 13, Israel launched a wave of surprise strikes on its regional nemesis, targeting key military and nuclear facilities. The United States launched its own set of strikes against Iran's nuclear programme on June 22, hitting the uranium enrichment facility at Fordo, in Qom province south of Tehran, as well as nuclear sites in Isfahan and Natanz. - Kremlin meeting - Iran and the United States had held several rounds of nuclear negotiations through Omani mediators before Israel launched its 12-day war against Iran. However, US President Donald Trump's decision to join Israel in striking Iranian nuclear facilities effectively ended the talks. The E3 countries last met with Iranian representatives in Geneva on June 21 -- just one day before the US strikes. Meanwhile on Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin held a surprise meeting in the Kremlin with Ali Larijani, top adviser to Iran's supreme leader on nuclear issues. Larijani "conveyed assessments of the escalating situation in the Middle East and around the Iranian nuclear programme", Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of the unannounced meeting. Putin had expressed Russia's "well-known positions on how to stabilise the situation in the region and on the political settlement of the Iranian nuclear programme", he added. Moscow has a cordial relationship with Iran's clerical leadership and provides crucial backing for Tehran but did not swing forcefully behind its partner even after the United States joined Israel's bombing campaign. - Snapback mechanism - Iran and world powers struck a deal in 2015 called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which placed significant restrictions on Tehran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. But the hard-won deal began to unravel in 2018, during Trump's first presidency, when the United States walked away from it and reimposed sanctions on Iran. European countries have in recent days threatened to trigger the deal's "snapback" mechanism, which allows the reimposition of sanctions in the event of non-compliance by Iran. After a call with his European counterparts on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the Western allies had no grounds for reactivating sanctions. "If EU/E3 want to have a role, they should act responsibly and put aside the worn-out policies of threat and pressure, including the 'snap-back' for which they (have) absolutely no moral (or) legal grounds," Araghchi said on X. However, the German source on Sunday said that "if no solution is reached over the summer, snapback remains an option for the E3". Iran last week said there would be no new nuclear talks with the United States if they were conditioned on Tehran abandoning its uranium enrichment activities. fec/gv By Femke Colborne