Introduction
Mahatma Gandhi was born in India in 1869. He is recognized as a political and religious leader of India, as well as the Indian independence movement. Gandhi was the founder of Satyagraha, an idea that focuses on truth and confronting evil through active, non-violent resistance. This philosophy led India to self-government and inspired movements for civil rights and autonomy around the world.
Before leading India to independence, Gandhi initially engaged in peaceful civil disobedience during the Indian community’s fight for civil rights in South Africa (Gandhi&et al 121). Despite his contributions to society, he was tragically assassinated at the age of 78.
Nelson Mandela was born in 1918 in South Africa. He was an anti-apartheid campaigner and the leader of the African National Congress. Mandela served as the 11th president of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. He is also a Nobel Peace Prize winner, awarded in 1993. Today, he is an esteemed elder statesman who continues to offer his views on contemporary issues. In 2001, he became the first living individual to be made an honorary Canadian citizen.
In 1990, Mahatma Gandhi was posthumously awarded the Bharat Ratna Award by the Indian Government. This paper aims to compare two world leaders: Mahatma Gandhi from Asia and Nelson Mandela from Africa. We will analyze their strengths and weaknesses as leaders. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, and Nelson Mandela are considered to be followers of Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence.
The Indian government awards the Mahatma Gandhi peace prize annually to notable social workers, world leaders, and citizens. One non-Indian recipient of this prestigious award is Nelson Mandela, recognized for his fight against racial prejudice and isolation. Mandela has repeatedly credited Gandhi as a chief source of motivation in his life, both for the values of non-violence and for facing hardship with self-respect.
As a result, Mandela’s strategy was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi, who inspired him and subsequent generations of South African anti-apartheid activists. Mandela was among the key participants in a conference in New Delhi in 2007 aimed at marking the 100th anniversary of Gandhi’s introduction of Satyagraha in South Africa (Meredith 46).
The Strengths of Mandela and Gandhi as World Leaders
The two world leaders, though from different continents and born at different times, seem to have many things in common, particularly in their style of leadership. Both of them led in the struggle for independence and could be considered symbols of freedom and equality. Gandhi was very vocal in his call for the British to quit India, especially during the Second World War.
During this time, he claimed that he would not allow his country to join the rest of the world in war to fight for democracy, which did not exist in his very own country. Mandela was also very vocal in resisting apartheid in South Africa. He even went to the extreme of refusing to negotiate with white people, for example with P.W. Botha, claiming that prisoners could not enter into contracts (Mandela 76).
They both fought against domination not only in their motherland but also in other parts of the world. Gandhi protested cruel taxation and extensive bias among poor farmers and laborers in India. He led nationwide campaigns to mitigate poverty, promote women’s freedom, foster brotherhood among diverse religious and racial groups, end untouchability and caste prejudice, and achieve economic independence for the nation.
We find that Mahatma Gandhi started his agenda not in India, but in South Africa where he fought greatly for the rights of the Indian minority. Similarly, Nelson Mandela had an agenda for his people and led South Africans in their call to end apartheid and the need for equal treatment of people regardless of their race or color. He fought against white domination in South Africa (Mandela 134).
It is interesting to note that both Gandhi and Mandela were imprisoned during their struggle for what they believed in. At one point, both of them were imprisoned in South Africa. Gandhi was imprisoned numerous times for many years in both South Africa and India. He began his civil disobedience movement while he was imprisoned in South Africa, fighting to ensure that the Indian minority there were recognized as legitimate citizens. Meanwhile, Mandela spent 27 years in prison, much of it on Robben Island, for crimes including sabotage committed while he led the fight against apartheid. (Meredith 88)
Both of them practiced and advocated non-violence and truth in all situations. Gandhi began to question his people’s position within the British Empire, as well as his individual place in the social order, after directly witnessing discrimination, unfairness, and bias against Indians in South Africa.
As a result, he embarked on non-cooperation and peaceful confrontation as his weapons to fight against discrimination. He is said to be the father of non-violent protest. Mandela seems to have adopted Gandhi’s policy in his struggle against white domination. When this type of struggle failed, South Africans resorted to armed struggle, which Mandela said they used as a last resort when mounting oppression and aggression from the state persuaded him that many years of non-violent complaint against apartheid had not achieved anything and therefore could not be successful (Mandela 122).
However, Mandela later admitted that the ANC had also dishonored human rights in its fight against apartheid. This resulted in a lot of criticism, especially from his party members who wanted these statements withdrawn from the truth and reconciliation commission. Nevertheless, Mandela refused. This clearly demonstrates that, like Gandhi, he was ready and willing to die for what he believed was the truth. They are both great world icons because they were prepared to sacrifice their lives to achieve a democratic and free world where all people live in harmony with equal opportunities (Rolland & Daae 54).
Differences between Gandhi and Mandela
Although they share many similarities, there are key differences that make each of them unique as world icons. One thing that sets Gandhi apart is his willingness to undergo extended fasts lasting over a month for both self-cleansing and protest. Understanding Gandhi requires an appreciation for his spiritual faith and trust, which played a fundamental role in promoting harmony and accord among people who worship different gods or no god at all.
He is on record for claiming that the most vital battle to wrestle with was conquering his own demons, worries, and insecurities. It is also important to note that Gandhi was not the inventor of the belief in non-violence, but he was a pioneer in applying it on an enormous level within the political field. However, he was conscious that this level of nonviolence required unbelievable assurance and bravery, which he realized not everybody possessed. As a result, he advised that each person did not need to adhere strictly to nonviolence, especially if it were used as a cover-up for fear (Gandhi & Fischer 77).
Following Mandela’s release from prison in 1990, he adopted a strategy of reconciliation and cooperation which helped lead the transition to a multi-racial democratic system in South Africa. This approach was unique compared to the struggle he had endured. At the age of 77, Mandela became the oldest elected President of South Africa and the first black South African president in 1994.
Nelson Mandela made the decision not to run for another term as President. Instead, he retired in 1999 and was succeeded by Thabo Mbeki. As a result, he is the only African president to have served only one term. This demonstrates that his struggle was not solely for personal gain, unlike many other African leaders. Rather, it was for the betterment of South Africans and the world as a whole. (Mandela 231)
Weaknesses of Nelson Mandela and Gandhi as World Leaders
Everything that has a strength always seems to have a weak point as well, and this applies to our two world leaders. They have also had their low moments. For example, commentators and detractors, including AIDS campaigners such as Edwin Cameron, have criticized Mandela for his government’s incompetence in stemming the AIDS catastrophe. Mandela himself admitted that he might have failed his motherland by not paying more attention to the HIV/AIDS scourge. However, he has since taken advantage of many opportunities to emphasize this South African and global disaster (Meredith 89).
Nelson Mandela has faced criticism for his positive remarks about the diamond trade, specifically regarding blood diamonds. Some critics suggest that his comments may have been influenced by personal interests, as he was close friends with Harry Oppenheimer, a former chairman of De Beers. Additionally, South Africa’s significant role in diamond production could have played a part in Mandela’s statements. (Mandela 244)
Mandela has been greatly criticized for his failure to use his power to convince Mugabe to moderate his policies or plead with him to step down, especially in light of the recently disputed presidential elections. By doing so, he could have helped the people of Zimbabwe who are clearly suffering. (Mandela 88)
Gandhi faced criticism from various Congress party members and other Indian political groups, both pro-British and anti-British. Some believed that opposing Britain’s life or death resistance was morally incorrect, while others thought that he was not doing enough in his efforts towards Indian independence (Rolland & Daae 97).
‘Gandhi’s unbending ahimsa implied pacifism’, which was a source of censure across the political spectrum. He also faced political criticism for disapproving those who sought independence through violent means. Gandhi’s refusal to dispute the execution of Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Udham Singh, and Rajguru resulted in criticism from some parties. Some people questioned the effectiveness of Gandhi’s theory of non-violence and argued that it only achieved token compromises from the British. Others claim that British fear of fighting, rather than non-violence, led to Indian Independence (Gandhi&et al 231).
Looking at the weaknesses of two world leaders, it is clear that both were mainly criticized for not doing what people expected of them. They did what they believed was true and good for the people they were fighting for. Some of their weaknesses came about as a result of over-expectation from people who forgot that they were also human and had limitations (Gandhi & Fischer 252).
Gandhi had a significant impact on leaders and political movements, such as Martin Luther King and James Lawson. They were able to develop their theories of non-violence from Gandhi’s writings. Nelson Mandela could also be considered someone who finished what Gandhi started. It is interesting to note that Gandhi began his struggle in South Africa rather than India, just like Mandela did.
Due to Gandhi’s assassination, it could be said that he was not in a position to finish what he had started. Therefore, another world icon from South Africa came along to finish what he had laid down as his foundation. Just like Samson in the Bible, many scholars say that Gandhi achieved more in death than when he was alive (Rolland & Daae 121).
Great leaders lead through their thoughts, not through positional influence and power. This has been clearly demonstrated by Gandhi and Mandela. Even without positions or power, they were able to maintain bravery in times of panic, promote accord in times of disagreement, and encourage hope in times of misery.
In the case of Nelson Mandela, having spent 27 years of his life in prison due to what he was advocating, it would have been my expectation that after becoming the President of South Africa, he would remain in that position for as long as he wished. However, he proved me wrong and others like me. It was a worthy cost that he was willing to spend 27 years to achieve what was not his personal interest but the interest of his people and this makes him a real leader” [6] (Mandela 432).
Gandhi was once battered in South Africa as he faced prejudice directed towards Indians in the country. However, he took no steps to ensure that the person accountable faced justice. This was mainly because of his personal values, which dictated not to request redress for an individual wrong in a court of law. He stood by this belief and did not go against it for personal interests or gains. Therefore, both Gandhi and the person who attacked him are world icons who deserve to be remembered not only for this generation but also for generations to come. They are role models and will continue being so for many years ahead (Gandhi&et al 324).
Conclusion
It is due to their great contributions that the United Nations General Assembly collectively adopted an affirmation declaring October 2nd as an International Day of Non-Violence. However, it is disappointing to note that Gandhi and Mandela both symbolize those who resisted repression completely.
However, what they resisted the most seems to have become the order of the day not only in the countries that they represented but in the world as a whole. One cannot help but wonder what would happen if Gandhi were to come back to life today. What would he say to our current leaders? What would he say to someone like President Mugabe, who has not only ignored the cry of his own people but also that of international communities? These two leaders and other great figures brought us change that few of our current leaders seem ready to uphold. We have therefore not only disappointed our awesome world figures but also failed to keep their legacy. (Meredith 423)
Gandhi and Mandela were both prepared to die for what they believed in. However, they were not ready to kill for it. In our current generation, leaders are willing to kill for their beliefs but not die for them. This lets down our world icons. Man’s decency is a blaze that can be concealed but never extinguished. Integrity shines through in life and death, just as it did with Gandhi and Mandela.
We therefore need another Gandhi and another Mandela to keep this fire burning. We need a leader who is ready and willing to die for the common good of all people. A leader who values the ideal of an independent and free society in which all persons live together in agreement with equal opportunities. Someone who is ready to openly address the fears and cancer in our societies that no one seems ready to talk about.
One who is ready to stand firm in what they believe, despite criticism and threats, can be counted among the great leaders of all time. We need a Mahatma Gandhi or Nelson Mandela for our current and future generations. The question is: who is ready to step up and be counted? Let us be the change we want to see in our society. It’s time for us to rise up and make a difference. (Rolland & Daae, 204)
Reference
- Gandhi, et al. An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Beacon Press, 1993. ISBN: 0807059099.
- Gandhi, M. & Fischer, L. The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas. Vintage Books, 2002. ISBN: 1400030501.
- Mandela, N. Long Walk To Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. Back Bay Books, 1995. ISBN:0316548189.
- Mandela, N.The Struggle is My Life.International Defence and Aid Fund.,1978.ISBN:0904759253
- Meredith,M.Nelson Mandela:A Biography.Martin’s Press.,1999.ISBN:0312199929.
- Rolland,R.&Daae,C.Mahama Gandhi:The Man Who Became One with the Universal Being.The Century Co.,1924.
