Print article   email story

City Press, with the Nelson Mandela Foundation, is celebrating Madiba's 90th birthday this year with interviews featuring leading South Africans and Africans. They highlight the perspectives of important thinkers on the state of Africa, South Africa, democracy and leadership under the theme of A Celebration of Ideas. Tara Turkington talks to Kenya's Professor Ali Mazrui.

TARA Turkington (TT): A few years ago you were vilified for your views on Israel and Palestine. What is your take on where we are with political and religious tolerance in the world at the moment?

Ali Mazrui (AM): I think we still have a substantial distance to cover before we achieve a truly open world in terms of points of view.

Israel is a striking example of one particular subject that is pretty risky to handle critically. I spend part of the year in the US and I can criticise Uncle Sam with impunity, yet it’s risky for people within Israel to criticise the country. I have known people whose tenures at universities have been compromised because they expressed views sympathetic to the Palestinians.

Israel is virtually the only country which enjoys impunity at the United Nations because any time a resolution is proposed that is critical of Israel, the US ensures that it is not passed.

It is sad that although Jews have been victims of intolerance across the ages, now that they have a state of their own, instead of being a paragon of tolerance and compassion, they are occupying a people and treating them harshly.

This is my broad interpretation of what has happened: we have gained on issues connected with colour prejudice and race defined in terms of physical differences, but we are losing in matters of tolerance with regard to issues of cultural differences and religious differences.

South Africa is a much better place now than it used to be before the 1990s and the US is a more tolerant society than it was when I arrived here more than a quarter of a century ago, from the point of view of issues of colour. But the US is definitely a less tolerant society about religious differences now.

TT: Why is that? How much of this has to do with issues of leadership and the way the US has been led for the past decade or two?

AM: Part of it is US foreign policy and the consequences of its relationship with the Muslim world.

Part of it is the reaction of more radicalised Islam towards feeling under siege as a result of US foreign policy.

The administration of George W Bush is one of the least enlightened regimes in the western world since the end of World War II.

These factors have created a climate which is far less accepting of differences in values than before.

In fairness to the US, it was making progress on issues of religious tolerance before September 11, 2001.

Under President (Bill) Clinton we started recognising that this country is not just Judeo-Christian. September 11 was a major blow to that trend. It was unfortunate that we had an unenlightened regime in terms of its response to such aggression, and that unleashed an unnecessary war on Iraq, unconnected with September 11.

We hope that the upcoming elections in the US will result in new leadership which may begin the process of mending American foreign policy and healing some of the wounds between civilisations.

TT: Now coming to Nelson Mandela in his 90th year, and you also hold a visiting professorship in Albert Luthuli’s name from a Nigerian university – these are men from South Africa who stood up in the face of adversity and led people at extreme personal danger, and yet who are also known for their peacefulness. Do you think that the world can learn anything from people like this at this sort of time?

AM: Absolutely. Nelson Mandela is one of the most extraordinary individuals in my lifetime, and fortunately widely recognised by the world as extraordinary.

So that is a very important element in our situation. We have not had many such people in history. South Africa has a major burden on how to handle itself.

Having suffered so much under apartheid, is there a way in which South Africa can become a major moral leader in the world?

You have not done too badly. Of course you have your own problems and your own crusade of justice is not yet complete. While it is true that political apartheid has been dismantled, there are major problems with regard to economic apartheid.

On the other hand there are ways you are dealing with change that are impressive, such as the greater hesitation about taking life as a way of punishment.

Unfortunately the US still exercises the death penalty, and many African countries do the same.

And then there is South Africa’s effort to find ways of dealing with gay people so that they can have acceptance in society.

These are major moral steps taken by South Africa in the very first decade-and-a-half of the post-political apartheid era.

But your standards are fragile and we have to watch that you succeed in retaining this remarkable standing you have in world affairs.

TT: What is your take on Kenya, a country that seemed to have so much going for it, and which surprised the world when it erupted in violence?

AM: None of us expected that scale of reaction. In fact, when the parliamentary results were being announced we were feeling very reassured, because one powerful Kenyan after another was losing his or her seat in Parliament and it really appeared as if transparency had prevailed.

The pinnacle of the election became the presidency, and what we thought was an angry electorate throwing out the regime suddenly seemed to spare the head of state.

And that is what was incredible: how could the ruling coalition have lost so badly in parliamentary elections, yet have prevailed at the presidential level?

The collapse that subsequently took place is the worst event that has hit Kenya since independence.

It may have been caused by a variety of factors which were awaiting resolution, including land grievances, poverty and then the eternal problem of ethnic rivalry and tribalism.

But we should try to recapture what was going well before, and still address what was imperfect, flawed, even in those years of relative stability, as we attempt reconciliation.

I was very, very disappointed at what happened in the elections and their aftermath, because I never expected the president to allow himself to be influenced badly by a circle of loyalists. He could have avoided and spared the country this catastrophe if he had made other choices.

TT: Zimbabwe is gearing up for an election shortly. In South Africa there is a lot of criticism, fairly or unfairly, of our own government for not taking a stronger line with Zimbabwe. We see cartoons in the newspapers showing Thabo Mbeki’s quiet diplomacy and Robert Mugabe laughing behind his hand because he knows he will never carry through on promises he has made Mbeki. So Mbeki is often criticised about this. What is your take on what is happening there?

AM: Mugabe really should retire. He spoilt what was a remarkable record of heroism, fighting for freedom, by clinging to power regardless. It is very sad. I think he thinks history will vindicate him. I do not think so.

I am more ambivalent about what South Africa should do. It is true that African countries should take the issue of peer review seriously, and should attempt to influence each other when things go wrong either economically or politically; it is not a good idea just to wait until things collapse and then move in to deal with a failed state. So that prompts me to say to Mbeki: “Come on, do something.”

On the other hand, South Africa has disproportionate power over its neighbours, and under previous white-dominated regimes that power was used to bully the neighbours.

I am hesitant to recommend how far South Africa should go, even for a good cause, to use its power to bully Mugabe.

I do think Mbeki could try harder with the carrot rather than with the stick, and could find ways of influencing Mugabe with extending forms of welcome, with residence in South Africa as well as in Zimbabwe – forms of honours that could be bestowed on him for his previous services.

I don’t know how it should be done, but we should struggle with ideas, sparing people’s dignity even if they really don’t deserve it.

I don’t think Mugabe deserves it, but we need to do it for the sake of Zimbabweans and their future.

TT: As an “inside outsider”, how do you see what is happening in South Africa? The ANC successfully changed its leadership in December, but there are South Africans who are uncomfortable with the prospect of Jacob Zuma being president.

AM: You passed the test of succession within the party, but the electorate still has a choice. I can understand people are worried that the reputation of the strongest candidate for the head of state has been sullied by a number of scandals, but ultimately we just have to see how the electorate will behave.

It is true that the electorate do not always vote for the most virtuous to take over, but that is in the nature of democracy, and those who are against Zuma should make it clear what is wrong with him and see if that sticks.

If it doesn’t stick, let us see how he performs. If the worst comes to the worst and he’s performing badly but the country is still free enough to impeach, then you can impeach him while he is still in office.

TT: What’s going to happen in the US? Who do you think is going to take the Democratic candidacy, and what’s the likely long-term outcome of the election – is it possible that we could have another Republican president?

AM: Yes, unfortunately, it is conceivable for John McCain to win, partly because the Democrats are fighting each other dirty and partly because the society may not be ready for a black president, although they are much nearer to it than they have ever been.

I’d like to see Barack Obama become president because I believe he would be a different type of American leader, not just because of his race, but because of his ideas, his style and his ambition to try and bring the country together.