I was one of the (many) people who was privileged to have a brief meeting or two with Nelson Mandela in his lifetime. In my case it was because I was, for a while, a trustee of the Rhodes Scholarships and of the Mandela Rhodes Foundation. The Mandela Rhodes Foundation was established in 2003 as a partnership between Mr Mandela and the Rhodes Trust, in celebration of the centenary of the latter’s scholarship programme. It was felt appropriate for the Rhodes Trust to reinvest in S Africa some of the assets that had originated from Cecil Rhodes’ success in S Africa and which he had used to set up the Rhodes Trust. It was an inspired idea, and the Mandela Rhodes Foundation has supported S African students to study in their own country and has fostered leadership development there. So I was thrilled to be able to meet the great man, but I am sorry to say I rather wasted the moments. I was so overawed that it was difficult to think of anything meaningful to say in the briefest of exchanges. When Mandela came to dinner in Oxford, I noticed how he went out of his way to shake the hands of the waiting and catering staff at the end of the meal, an example of his much praised courtesy to all and sundry.
I have been gripped by the coverage of his life in the media – mind you, they have had long enough to prepare it – and found that my local station, BBC Radio Oxford, had to my mind the freshest, most insightful coverage, with interviews with people who had met Mandela and talked about him in a natural way. It seems to me that the news coverage will affect younger and older audiences differently. The young need to be informed about Mandela’s life, and the difference it made, before his release in in 1990: the older ones may be more interested in how he shaped events after his release, remembering well what the situation was that led to his incarceration. I visited Robben Island twice and was struck painfully by the whiteness of the limestone quarry where the convicts were made to work at breaking rocks. I immediately donned my sunglasses. But they were not allowed to wear them during the years they worked there and the prisoners, including Mandela, suffered eye damage as a result.
Still, the coverage of his death has deprived me and all of us of the latest news about Syria, about the typhoon wreckage in the Philippines, about the Ukraine and unjust imprisonment in Egypt. Mandela would have cared about all of this, and these ongoing events have received insufficient attention in the last few days. After a few days, the only story that was selected to top Mandela on the BBC was the cancellations at Heathrow!
I thought about him again as I participated in a debate on an odd but interesting Bill in the Lords on Friday. It was a Bill to remove gender discrimination in the inheritance of hereditary titles. Just as the oldest child will be able to inherit the throne in the future, whether girl or boy, so should ancestral titles pass, regardless of gender. My own interest, as readers of this blog will know, lies in equality for husbands, who should be able to share in their wives’ titles, in the way that all wives take on the sobriquet Lady if their husbands are knighted or are peers. That change was part of the Bill, but to my amazement and disappointment, the government cut the debate short at 3pm instead of letting us finish the discussion of the amendments, which would only have taken another hour or so. I don’t know whether that Bill will ever see the light of day again.
What has this to do with Mandela? He was a prince of his tribe. As we all know, this did not entitle him to riches, nor did it make him aloof, and it did not save him from cruel punishment. But it could be that he felt an obligation to his people arising from that status. The only reason I could think of for the interest in, and the continuation of the ancient titles that were being discussed in the Lords was this: bearing such a title is justified if the holder, cognisant of the centuries of tradition behind it, feels a special obligation to serve society in whatever way he – or she – can best do.
“I was so overawed that it was difficult to think of anything meaningful to say in the briefest of exchanges. When Mandela came to dinner in Oxford, I noticed how he went out of his way to shake the hands of the waiting and catering staff at the end of the meal, an example of his much praised courtesy to all and sundry. ”
I used to be overawed by great actors but no longer since I don’t know any of the young ones. I have been involved in the public life of this country for so long, I did think that I should make a point of “meeting” Mandela. Actually “audience” is the right word. “seek an audience with!” but things like that are not necessary. Brenda does not shake hands of course.
I watched David Dimbleby’s programme, the first catch up TV I have watched for a couple of years, and there were two remarkable facts.
The first was his metamorphosis from leader of tribes to world leader, which came upon him as a surprise, it seemed in about his 50s!
The second most interesting point was his legacy, and how he saw it, which is symbolized by a museum called the museum of “Memory”.
His legacy is to “thought” and to “memory” not to the memory of him.
This has the hallmarks of Methodism pure and simple.
In saying above that he had no inkling that he would become president
(and did not want the responsibility when it was thrust upon him!)
it seemed to me that his “Dream time” would have told him clearly
that he would be a world leader, but that he never once considered it in his daily life. He merely knew that more thought was required!
I can’t help laughing at Baroness Deech being overawed at “meeting” him.
He was probably underawed at her aggression to “meet” him; she had an “audience”, regardless of his shaking hands with the loo cleaner.
What a fuss! I “met” him at a dinner, where we were both at the same table. Nothing formal about it: I was an invited guest.
This charade is already turning into a sinister political game of who can pretend the nearest connection. So, those with any sense at all will stay well clear.
Nelson Mandela, akin to Menachaim Begin and leaders of the IRA, began as a terrorist. I cannot blinker myself to reality. And as there is definitely nothing of much change or improvement in South Africa under his regime, I fail to understand the peculiar adulation.
A man is a man, no matter his colour or creed. I judge a man by the content of his character. As advised by Martin Luther King. Therefore, getting wobbly knees in the presence of anyone at all leaves me aghast, and more, astonished at the ‘naivety’ of those who lead us.
http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-nelson-mandela/
However, he did say or write a very poignant line.
‘Poverty is man made like slavery is man made, and can be taken away by the actions of human beings.’
Nelson Mandela
Pity he was unable to follow his own thoughts through to a notable outcome.
And, to add one last line of poignancy by George Orwell.
‘In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
“I judge a man by the content of his character. As advised by Martin Luther King.”
Character meaning thought. Content of his thought.
Thinking of the Baroness’ overawedom and looking at the extraordinary life of Mrs Machel-Mandela who is still only 68,
perhaps the late president did not have a distaste for the “seeker-after-office and honours” after all, (such as the noble baroness)although his deep love for his first two wives surely measured up to any man’s love for his wife.
I suspect that Baroness Deech and Mrs Machel-Mandela have got along well on meeting, and if they have not yet met, they soon will, and find plenty of ways of putting the world to rights.
I should think he found her very useful in tolerating an office that he really did not want. He enjoyed the wisdom, not the
office!! Whereas she, also a true methodist, wife of a late Marxist -Leninist president, somehow enjoys political office too.
She, as noticed by Wikipedia, is the “only woman in history to be the first lady of two nations, Mozambique and South Africa.”
Talking about the subtleties of “meeting2 and Audience2 with the political greats,
Andy Kershaw, of whom I am a big fan for his music, and to whom i listened on Friday night with his Music from the years of Mandela, told a most interesting story of meeting the great man in the middle of the crowd to whom Mandela was going to speak a few minites later in the company of Kaunda and Mugabe and the other statesmen of southern Africa…. but there was Mandela standing with Andy in the crowd!
The baroness’ “meeting” may therefore be explicable, although it sounds more like formal audience to me!
Mr Kershaw was spotted by an official and ordered to return to the Gods at the top of the stands, whichever meeting it was ,and as he did so, every man he passed wanted to shake him by the hand, for the hand that had just shaken the hand of the late great statesman of South Africa, a good example, surely, of unashamed political magnetism.
After 27 years chipping bricks (I do the same in my garden, bricklaying every day!!!)he may have felt that he had nothing to fear from….. the public, and therefore met them, rather than giving them audience at a distance.
Several of the correspondents here, if not all of them, are aware of the Freedom in the public space that fame, status,title, gives; hence the term the “Freedom of the city”(whichever). After so many years with no freedom whatsoever he may have enjoyed the closeness with his fellowman that mere “meeting” provided.
Audience entails distance from the “actor” as such, and public spectacle in the most positive sense.
It is surprising how most people are fearful of those who, for example, are prepared to work for a political cause, and will keep their distance because of it.
My good friend Peter O’Toole died on Friday. Now there was a man who enjoyed a meeting, over a glass of ale in a West End pub!!No audience for him!
Not any more. May he rest in peace.
” “meeting2 and Audience2 “
And a merry xmas ” you “