A Personal View – May 2014
April 2014 witnessed the celebration of a number of anniversaries. Of these, the two on the 20th April were from my perspective the most important; one that the world wishes to forget and the other they ought to remember.
The first one is the birth of Hitler 125 years ago on the 20th April 1889 in Braunau am Inn, Austria. Interestingly the fascination amongst Germans themselves about Hitler is at a record high.
According to The Telegraph newspaper dated 3rd May 2014:
Germans are more interested in Adolf Hitler that at any time since the end of the Second World War, a new study has concluded. The German Media Control research group, which monitors broadcasting, found that documentaries about Hitler are aired twice a day on German television channels and that books and films about the Nazi leader are being produced in record numbers.
It established that 242 programmes dealing specifically with Hitler had been shown on television during the first four months of 2013, while 500 other films and documentaries that had dealt with the Nazi era in general had also been aired.
Some 2,000 books on Hitler were published in Germany last year.
Sociologists have attributed the rise of interest in Hitler and the Nazis to the fact that the majority of today’s Germans have had no experience of the Second World War, are less ashamed of the period than previous generations and more eager to learn about it.
They point out that most of today’s Germans had family experience of the war only through parents or grandparents
Unlike Russia where the renewed interest in the Soviet tyrant and dictator has been accompanied by homages being made to Stalin’s memory, in the case of the Germans it appears to relate only to an interest in history and not the nascent resurrection of the Nazi’s abhorrent policies.
In South Africa, the 20th April was important for a different reason. It was the 50th anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s so-called Speech from the Dock.
Portion of Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela’s statement from the dock at the opening of the Defence’s case in the Rivonia Trial at the Palace of Justice, Pretoria reads as follows:
“During my lifetime, I have dedicated my life to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and see realised. But, my Lord, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die”
This is only an extract of his four hour speech but contains the famous words at the end which were widely reported.
According to the Star:
It was April 20, 1964 when Braam Fischer surprised the court by announcing that Mandela, the first of 11 accused, would read from the defendant’s dock, rather than take the witness stand and face cross-examination.
In a nearly three hour long testimony, he told of the transition of the ANC from non-violent resistance to acts of sabotage, not to commit murder, but as a means necessary to stop state oppression of the African people.
Speaking from the dock is a tactic that can no longer be used as it was eventually outlawed by the government.
The accused counsel decided that Mandela should speak from the dock so that he could testify uninterrupted and thereby inform the world of the ANC’s legitimate demands for a fair and equal government.
To me, that three to four hour speech was truly momentous. It was an uncompromising but not confrontational speech that clearly set out the ANC’s demands unequivocally that all Blacks in South Africa had to be treated as equals and as his speech states clearly, “if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die”
This speech had been vetted by the Collective and they were fully aware that it would buttress the state’s case and possibly result in the death penalty being imposed.
But they were resolute. They never wavered. It was George Bizos, who requested the insertion of the words, “if needs be” in order to moderate its tone.
Quite correctly, Mandela’s approach was that one proclaimed one’s political beliefs and never apologised for them. As such, they were not testifying to save their own lives but rather to state their political beliefs.
As a sign of their firm and unwavering commitment and resolve to their ideal, they collectively agreed not to appeal their sentences even if it was the death penalty.
In spite of the case against Ahmed Kathrada being extremely weak, he was also sentenced to life imprisonment. It was so feeble in fact if it had been taken on appeal, the belief was that he might even be released. The unanimous decision was taken not to appeal the verdict but for two divergent reasons.
Kathrada fully supported the initial approach of solidarity which he now upheld but Ismael Mohammed, later to become Chief Justice, had a different objection to appealing. He felt that as an Indian if he was not sentenced to the same terms of imprisonment as the Black accused, that fact would be used against the ANC.
For this act of solidarity, Kathrada spent 26 years in jail for which he bears no recriminations, self-pity or bitterness.
It was only the fact that the struggle had not been escalated as proposed in the Operation Mayibuye document that the death penalty was not imposed.
From my perspective, this speech was iconic. Firstly it set out unequivocally what the ANC was requesting of the white government not in a threatening way but rather as a preamble to their demands for justice for the black people of South Africa and their desire to be treated as human beings.
Secondly it should serve as a template for other organisations facing governments with similar oppressive policies.