Zimpapers Logo

According to his foundation, “Conversations with Myself” is “a collection drawn from Mandela’s personal archive of letters and journals, providing a glimpse into the human being behind the public image”.
They constitute Mandela’s interior monologue during his 27-year incarceration on Robben Island.
Apart from the imprisonment by the apartheid regime, people are for the first time being let into the psychological trauma, pain and stress that Mandela felt, including the separation from his wife Winnie Madikizela-Mandela and their small children.

In one of the letters he wrote her, Mandela expressed the loneliness he felt at realising that when he went to bed, she would not be by his side and when he woke up every morning, he would not be able to see her beautiful face.
At one point when Winnie was arrested, Mandela wrote to their children and told them that it would take a long time before they would see their mother.

In one of the streams of consciousness, Mandela also recorded the pain he felt when one of his children died in a traffic accident and he was denied the right to bury his own child.
Despite all that, he believed in a non-violent approach as a means of dismantling the apartheid system. But, more significantly, these letters show the true Nelson Mandela and not the man certain quarters turned into a project to achieve their selfish ends.
What the former South African leader did is aptly described by Stuart Chase in his book “The Tyranny of Words”: “Thinking creatures are forced to make sharp distinction between the happenings inside their skins and those without. Inside is the ‘me’; outside is ‘the world’. The ‘me’ is unique, individual, different from every other ‘ME’. No two ladybugs, or even amoebas, show identical characteristics. The chief business of the ‘me’ is to come to terms with the world, reproduce its kind, live as long and as comfortably as possible.”

Prison life; especially the worse than Alcatraz-type like Robben Island were test cases for tenacity and steadfastness. How would one remain resolute in his or her principled stand against an inhuman system, an experience African nationalists faced?
They survived, but did not get peace prizes. They organised themselves, did self-talking, and with the help of accomplices sometimes smuggled out their individual or corporate mindsets. Writing created some form of normalcy, and Mandela was not the only one who did this.

When Mandela finally emerged from Robben Island in 1991, for the sake of South Africa and future generations, he was willing to compromise — to climb down so to speak — to the shock of many, and they entered into a negotiated settlement with the Afrikaner government.
However, when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, together with former president Frederik Willem de Klerk, there were questions on why Mandela had to share that Peace Prize with De Klerk, who despite his liberal inclinations, was a representative of the very system that inflicted the pain the world is now getting to know about Mandela in his new book?

According to the Nobel committee, Mandela and de Klerk were jointly awarded the peace prize “for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa”.

Could we argue that while still on Robben Island, Mandela was not a suitable candidate? He was only worthy of consideration after his release, and after the Western world had been reassured that their interests would be “permanently” taken care of. Co-sharing the Nobel Peace Prize also implied that Mandela despite spending 27 years in jail was only useful during the transitional period — when they were discussing the settlement with the Afrikaner government, and not before.

So, when the innermost elements of Mandela’s prison life have finally been published, and he shares that pain with the world, what does that co-shared Nobel laureate mean to de Klerk, who did not share that same pain? With these new revelations on what the persecution and torment did to him and his family, does the Nobel committee believe that Mandela should have co-shared this prize with his former incarcerators?

What I am driving at is whether the criteria used by the Nobel committee to select their laureates are still valid, as per Alfred Nobel’s objectives?
When one is nominated as a Nobel laureate for peace, what “peace” are we referring to?

The 2009 Nobel Peace prize laureate was United States of America President Barack Obama. His nomination generated heated debate as people questioned the criteria used to give such an award that has a strong bearing on the geo-political sphere. For, Obama had barely completed a year as president, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were still raging on.
The fact that Obama as Senator had also supported his predecessor George W. Bush’s warmongering adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed to have been overlooked by the Nobel committee.

Critics continue to argue that Obama became a Nobel Peace Prize winner simply because he was the first black person to lead the superpower. That’s his legacy, even if he might end up with a failed presidency. It’s also his legacy, even if the United States of America’s foreign policy continues to be a threat to a peaceful world.
Last week, The Herald published a detailed analysis by Stephen Gowans about the Nobel Peace Prize and its links to capitalist interests.

As it is now, it is one of the many instruments used by the West in their foreign policy exploits — rewarding the good boys.
Turning to Zimbabwe, despite producing prolific writers and experts in other disciplines, it is surprising that lobbyists for these Nobel laureates have been conspicuous by their silence in lobbying for our novelists to get this award. Are they not good enough?

Then came the meltdown in 2009, after the formation of the inclusive Government. Western-sponsored lobbyists now believe that MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai is a worthy candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2009, he lost to Obama, and this year Tsvangirai was again one of the contenders, but lost to the Chinese “Tiananmen Square” dissident Liu Xiaobo. Who makes the recommendations and using what criteria?

If real peace is the issue, does the MDC-T leader really qualify? Zimbabwe is currently reeling under economic sanctions, which were invited from the West by the MDC. The removal of sanctions is one of the key issues in the implementation of the GPA, but the MDC has continued to vacillate on their lifting, until “their” demands are met by Zanu-PF.

When an economy is operating the way it is with “ordinary” people suffering immensely, where is the peace or has peace assumed a new definition?
If Zimbabwe is finding it difficult to implement the Millennium Development Goals because of sanctions, where is the peace? Are these acts of bravery that should be rewarded with a Nobel Prize?

Despite the multi-currency regime introduced in 2009, what fundamental changes has it brought about? Electricity and power generation are a problem. When jobs cannot be created and the nation loses the little that is in the fiscus importing basic goods, why should some people feel that Tsvangirai be rewarded, especially when Zimbabweans remember that he at one point pleaded with the South African authorities to cut power and fuel supplies to Zimbabwe? Should there be a Nobel Peace Prize taker for such acts?

When someone publicly says that if President Mugabe does not willfully step down from power, then they will violently overthrow him, is that an act of chivalry that should be rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize? Analysts question whether this desperate attempt at a Nobel Peace Prize for Tsvangirai is not a sign of gratitude by the West that he might have succeeded in their illegal regime agenda! What citation would they have written for Tsvangirai?

Mandela, who suffered immensely under the apartheid system, had to share the prize with his oppressors, but some quarters believe that Tsvangirai should get the award for wanting to dislodge one of the founding fathers of this country whose principled stand against Western policies in Africa they loathe so much.

If Tsvangirai’s handlers want to commend themselves, through Tsvangirai, for making President Mugabe agree to form an inclusive Government, why should he be the only one to get recognition? How about the facilitators? Did anyone ever think of the time they spent making the parties come to a workable agreement, and that they could be good candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize?

While I admit that one’s efforts on worthy causes should receive recognition and in some cases be well rewarded, it becomes very disturbing when the recognition and awards are made to placate someone, and in some cases as a way of punishing certain individuals.

When the original intent loses focus, then there is need to go back to the drawing board and ask introspective questions. Those managing the Nobel laureates (all categories) should do some soul searching as to whether they are still following his prescription, or they are following the whims and caprices of individuals, governments and organisations whose motive is to ensure that Western interests remain deeply entrenched in so-called developing countries.

The prestigious Nobel prizes call for such honest introspection. It is cause for concern when after nominations are published and/or the award is made there are dissenting voices about the recipient(s), voices of authoritative forces.