Op-ed

Why was Prince Harry invited to give a speech about Nelson Mandela?

Published

11 months ago

July 18, 2022

The British royal offered an insipid, cliché-laden take that only further watered down the anti-apartheid icon’s story.

The United Nations General Assembly observed Nelson Mandela International Day on Monday morning with a series of speakers celebrating the legacy of South Africa’s first Black president and its most famous anti-apartheid freedom fighter. And the keynote speaker was … Britain’s Prince Harry.

That’s pretty weird!

While the event helps Harry in advancing his tortured pivot to socially conscious royal, it’s unclear why he was invited to speak in the first place. As a member of the British royal family, he’s a figurehead of colonialism and has no record of commitment to the kinds of ideas that Mandela stood for. Unsurprisingly, Harry’s remarks were an anodyne homage that avoided reckoning with the historical figure’s political goals and strategic decisions, and instead relied heavily on clichés about bravery.

By Zeeshan Aleem, MSNBC Opinion Columnist

Harry spoke for about 15 minutes, but little of what he said was insightful or memorable. He briefly mentioned that Mandela — who fought apartheid through nonviolent protest and guerrilla warfare before being imprisoned by South Africa’s apartheid government for 27 years — suffered “state-sponsored brutality” and “racism.” But he said virtually nothing of Mandela’s upbringing, his different political phases, his management of the immensely complex demands of integrating South Africa into a multiracial democracy in the 1990s or the lessons he learned as he evolved from protester to powerful politician. Today, as the country continues to grapple with deeply entrenched inequality, the South African left debates Mandela’s efficacy as president and whether or not he made too many concessions to vested interests.

But in Harry’s telling, Mandela was most notable for surviving imprisonment — a remarkable feat indeed, but also the easiest part of his life story to depoliticize as a tale of personal endurance. Focusing on Mandela’s imprisonment allowed Harry to make use of faux-profundities like “hope is the fuel that courage requires.” And when he did mention Mandela’s great deeds, the prince said “that doesn’t mean he was perfect. No. he was something better. He was human.” I’m not sure what that meant, but I do know it allowed Harry to sound reverent without really saying anything.

Harry committed an all-too-common sin among Western liberals who frame Mandela as a kind of prophet rather than a political figure. As Gary Younge’s reflection on Mandela’s legacy in The Nation in 2013 warned: “[T]o make him a saint is to extract him from the realm of politics and elevate him to the level of deity. And as long as he resides there, his legacy cannot be fully debated or discussed, because his record is then rooted not in his role as the head of a movement, but in the beatified soul of a man and his conscience.”

It’s also not too surprising that Harry — still sixth in line to the throne of a royal institution that once oversaw the biggest empire in global history — did not discuss the role of colonialism in creating the horrific injustices Mandela and his countrymen endured.

Harry is a fratty member of the British Royal family who in earlier years used racial slurs, dressed up as a Nazi at a costume party and boasted about killing Afghans well after the war in Afghanistan became a neocolonial nation-building project. One would not expect him to be able to appraise Mandela’s legacy in a sophisticated manner, nor confess to the origins of the white supremacy that reigned in South Africa. Which again raises the question of why he was invited as a keynote instead of a real activist or politician who works within anti-colonial traditions. Perhaps the calculation was that Harry’s celebrity would draw attention to an important historical figure. But the price of such a vulgar wager is that Mandela’s extraordinary legacy was watered down even more.

♦Culled from the MSNBC

About
Latest Posts

Texas Guardian News

INTERNATIONAL GUARDIAN is the boldest and brightest issue-oriented international newspaper published in Houston, Texas. Strategically, it strives to promote private enterprise, support responsible government and advocate social justice.

Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)

Mom Who Challenged Amanda Gorman Poem Makes a Bizarre Apology - May 26, 2023
Texas House panel advances articles of impeachment against AG Ken Paxton - May 26, 2023
Nigeria’s President-Elect, Tinubu is Back in France, Days Before his Inauguration - May 25, 2023

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Dislodging the status quo: Nigerian voters must take anger and conscience to the Polls

Published

3 months ago

February 20, 2023

Texas Guardian News

Significantly, a vote for Obi and the LP would systematically dislodge a predatory two-party system that has caged this nation since the end of military rule in 1999 —Anthony Ogbo

________________________

In less than one week, on Saturday, February 25, 2023, Nigerian voters will head to the polls to elect a new president amid intensifying anger and frustration over deteriorating insecurity and economic destitution. Among a long list of contenders, candidates from three major political parties stand out. They are a former vice president, Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), a former governor of Lagos State, Bola Tinubu of the All Progressives Congress (APC), and a former governor of Anambra State, Peter Obi, representing the Labor Party (LP).

The purpose of this editorial is to reiterate the significance of this election in redeeming this country from decades of captivity under a malicious clique of political delinquents.

Since its independence in 1960, Nigeria has struggled violently with every area of democratic dividends. The voting process, which allows citizens the choice of electing competent leaders, has always been falsely designed. The constitutional structure is unfairly compromised to protect ethnic favoritism, fraud, and mediocrity. The standard of ethical leadership has been fictional, leaving this nation in sheer depression. For decades, each election year has produced the same caliber of visionless political miscreants recycled under the same crooked political organizations. Without a doubt, Nigeria as a nation has never been lucky with decent leaders.

As Nigerians prepare to head to the polls, it might be necessary to undertake a short analysis of what the country stands to gain or lose with each candidate. Each of the front-runners has indeed been in the political system for decades, yet the current electioneering trends draw sharp distinctions. It might be a waste of editorial space to go into party proposals or campaign rhetoric because those metrics have not favored the masses in the past. In the current political terrain, making electoral choices would not be a difficult one.

In the almost eight years of its incumbency, the ruling party, All Progressives Congress (APC), has rendered the worst development record in Nigeria’s political history. Besides unchallenged insecurity, accelerating inflation is reflected in the rising cost of living, leaving many families struggling to survive. The latest figures from the country’s National Bureau of Statistics show that 33% of the population is unemployed—jumping to 42.5% for young adults.

Bola Ahmed Tinubu is a ruthless political godfather intoxicated with power and greed.

Bola Ahmed Tinubu and running mate, Kashim Shettima (both Muslims), represent this party. Besides leading such a failed political entity, Tinubu is not a good man. He is a ruthless political godfather intoxicated with power and greed. Armed with a huge amount of influence, cash, and a sense of entitlement, he believes that he wants to be president because it is his turn. His running mate Shettima is a proven jihadist whose spiritual ideology abhors democracy.

A vote for this team could translate into a 16-year prolongation of APC’s disastrous stewardship. Under the current culture, the incumbents (president and vice president) have the political advantage to manipulate the system and exploit a constitutionally allowed double four-year tenure (eight years) each. Thus, an APC victory under Tinubu and Shettima could finally erase a representative governance culture from the system. Placing two radical Muslims as leaders in a secular country with a history of violent religious extremism might not be a good electoral choice.

PDP candidate, Atiku Abubakar, and his running mate, Ifeanyi Arthur Okowa, are believed to be less notorious yet politically unsafe for Nigeria. It may be recalled that the PDP has ruled this nation for 16 years, and indeed, is a coconspirator of the current draconian constitutional structure. Atiku was a vice president in a PDP regime under Olusegun Obasanjo (1999–2007) who somehow missed becoming the next president at the time. Since then, he has spent a huge amount of resources struggling to return as president.

A vote for Atiku and the PDP would yield nothing but continued governance of loot sharing and system hopelessness.

Atiku is one of those political elites who prospered through the looting of public funds. Pompously rich, he shuttles between wealthy cities in the Middle East and would swagger with money, extravagant gifts, and young women. Atiku’s fraud case with William Jefferson—a former Louisiana politician who served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for nine terms from 1991 to 2009—made global headlines. A vote for Atiku and the PDP would yield nothing but continued governance of loot sharing and system hopelessness. Voters could be looking at another 16 years of hardship.

The LP candidate, Peter Obi, and his running mate, Yusuf Datti Baba-Ahmed, are not exactly new in politics. Yet both individuals represent what could offer Nigerians a fresh start in rebuilding a nation that has never seen peace, stability, and system fairness in nearly six decades. Significantly, a vote for Obi and the LP would systematically dislodge a predatory two-party system that has caged this nation since the end of military rule in 1999.

The difference is clear. The duo of Obi and Datti Baba-Ahmed remains the most qualified team for steering this country in a different direction. Both candidates are open-minded liberals who are open to structural change and who truly see Nigeria as a united nation rather than a personal property.

The standard for political candidacy is not supposed to be a turn-by-turn privilege. Challengers must be morally and intellectually upright, tender convincing proposals for change, and show knowledge of the conversion of strategies into governance actions. To date, the APC and PDP have offered no single excuse for their years of mismanagement. Yet they have been parading basic campaign posters of unsubstantiated policy proposals irrelevant to the major issues of the moment.

Voters must leave hypocrisy at home and take their anger, conscience, and interests to the polls.

The stakes in this election are very high. Voters must leave hypocrisy at home and take their anger, conscience, and interests to the polls. They must snub their tribal or religious comradeship and opt for values that serve a national interest.

One of the core doctrines of change in the political framework is how candidates fare in significant areas of national interests. In this case, however, both APC and PDP, along with their candidates, represent fear, amoral values, and abject failure.

At this time, voters are faced with a choice between two ideologies. They may choose to embrace the brutal APC–PDP status quo and continue living in system wretchedness. Alternatively, they may opt for the LP and start over to create a nation and structures of their choice.

♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Journalism and RTF Professor, Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D. is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015) and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us