He believed in the import of his words and therefore saw little use for rhetorical devices much favoured by some of his compatriots. The new South Africa, ushered in with joy and celebration by the first democratic elections of 1994, was already experiencing the traumatic aftermath of a difficult birth.

On the ANC’s role as the governing party, Mandela said, ‘During these past three years, it has been a basic tenet of our approach that despite our people’s achievements in stabilising the democratic settlement, we are still involved in a delicate process of nursing the newborn baby into a state of adulthood.’

If the future was certain, the past was proving unpredictable. Violent crime – a legacy of previous iniquities and inequalities – was making headlines every day. Unemployment, which the government sought to confront through pro-growth policies and affirmative action, caused a measure of disaffection among the majority; this was exploited by opposition political parties, especially the National Party. Once the ruling party of the apartheid state, the National Party had withdrawn from the Government of National Unity (GNU) in 1996, citing its inability to influence government policy.*

‘The more honest among its members,’ Mandela said of the National Party’s politicians, ‘who occupied executive positions and were driven by the desire to protect the interests of both the Afrikaners and the rest of the population, did not support the decision to pull out of the GNU.’

As Mandela spoke in December 1997, there was a sense of expectation. The dramatic events of the previous year in South Africa, such as the expulsion of General Bantu Holomisa from the ANC and the formation of a breakaway political party, the United Democratic Movement, must have conjured up the trauma of the schism that gave birth to the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) in 1959.† Once a favoured son, with a reputation for speaking his mind, Holomisa was also credited with the rise of populist tendencies within the ANC, equally fostered by Winnie Madikizela-Mandela and Peter Mokaba, the outspoken president of the ANC Youth League (ANCYL).‡

Then there was the question of succession. Mandela had already voiced his intention to step down as ANC president at this conference. In a televised broadcast on Sunday, 7 July 1996, Mandela confirmed the rumours that he wouldn’t be available for elections in 1999. In keeping with his promise when sworn in as the country’s first democratic president in 1994, he felt that, although he could have served two terms as stipulated by the Constitution, one term was enough as he had already laid the foundation for a better future for all.§

Editorials and analysts presented the conference as an arena in which a trusted hero would be handing over the baton. The question of who would succeed him, Thabo Mbeki or Cyril Ramaphosa, had already been settled.** They both had sterling struggle credentials. Ramaphosa excelled in the Multiparty Negotiating Forum of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA), which started in October 1991 and ended in 1993, and which culminated in the adoption of the Constitution on 8 May 1996.* Mbeki was widely hailed for his stewardship of the country’s affairs as Mandela’s deputy.

Anxious to dispel the widely held criticism that the isiXhosa language group dominated the ANC, Mandela had in 1994 suggested Ramaphosa while broaching the question of succession to the remaining three senior ANC officials, Walter Sisulu, Thomas Nkobi and Jacob Zuma.† He was advised instead to anoint Mbeki. Mbeki was ultimately elected ANC president in 1997, thus putting him in line for the country’s presidency ahead of Ramaphosa.

A piquant flavouring to the drama of the five-day conference came from the elections for the top positions in the ANC, with only two of the six being contested. Mbeki was elected unopposed as ANC president and Jacob Zuma became deputy president. Winnie Madikizela-Mandela had considered running for the deputy presidency against Zuma, but she could not muster enough support from delegates to second her nomination and was forced to stand down. Many felt that her dalliance with populist causes and barbed comments about government shortcomings, which sometimes smacked of defiance towards her erstwhile husband, had alienated the membership and led to her humiliation. Kgalema Motlanthe, one-time trade unionist and, like Mandela and Jacob Zuma, a Robben Island alumnus, was elected secretary general, with Mendi Msimang taking over as treasurer general from Arnold Stofile.‡ Of the two contested positions of national chairman and deputy secretary general, Mosiuoa ‘Terror’ Lekota trounced one-time fellow inmate on Robben Island Steve Tshwete for the position of national chairman; and Thenjiwe Mtintso won narrowly against Mavivi Myakayaka-Manzini for the position of deputy secretary general.§

*   *   *

At the close of the conference, it was again a sombre Mandela who gave his farewell speech on the afternoon of 20 December 1997. Hands clasped in front of him, he departed from his written script to speak from the heart. Without naming names, he cautioned the incoming leader against surrounding himself or herself with yes-men and -women.

‘A leader, especially with such a heavy responsibility, who has been returned unopposed, his first duty is to allay the concerns of his colleagues in the leadership for them to be able to discuss freely, without fear within the internal structures of the movement.’

Waiting for the applause to die down, he elaborated on the contradiction that faced a leader who had to unite the organisation while allowing internal dissent and freedom of expression.

‘People should even be able to criticise the leader without fear or favour, only in that case are you likely to keep your colleagues together. There are many examples of this – allowing differences of opinion as long as those don’t put the organisation in disrepute.’

As an illustration, Mandela cited a critic of Mao Zedong’s policies during the Chinese revolution. The Chinese leadership ‘examined whether he had said anything outside the structures of the movement, which put the movement in disrepute’. Satisfied that this was not the case, the critic was brought into the central committee as president of the Chinese Chamber of Workers – the trade union movement.

They ‘gave him responsibility for which he had to account,’ Mandela said to gales of laughter, ‘and he was forced to talk less and to be more accountable.’

He went on, ‘Fortunately, I know that our president understands this issue. One thing I know is that in his work he has taken criticism in a comradely spirit and I have not the slightest doubt that he is not … going to sideline anybody, because he knows that [it’s important] to surround yourself with strong and independent persons who can within the structures of the movement criticise you and improve your own contribution, so that when you go outside your policy your decisions are foolproof and they cannot be criticised by anybody successfully. Nobody in this organisation understands that principle better than my president, comrade Thabo Mbeki.’

Mandela went on, reading from his speech, to reiterate how leaders’ association with ‘powerful and influential individuals who have far more resources than all of us put together’ could lead to their forgetting ‘those who were with us when we were all alone during difficult times’.

Following another round of applause, Mandela went on to justify the ANC’s continued relationships with countries such as Cuba, Libya and Iran. This was against the advice of governments and heads of state that had supported the apartheid state. To the foreign guests present in the hall, from all those shunned countries and the anti-apartheid movement worldwide, Mandela conveyed his gratitude. They ‘made it possible for us to win. Our victory is their victory.’

Towards the end of his address, Mandela took a moment to admit to the vulnerability of the struggle and its gains. While there had been signal successes, there had also been setbacks.

‘It is not because we were infallible,’ he said, departing from his written speech. ‘We have had difficulties in the past, like any other organisations.

‘We had a leader who also was returned unopposed, but then we were arrested together with him.* But he was wealthy by the standards of those days and we were very poor. And the security police went to him with a copy of the Suppression of Communism Act, and they say: “Now look here, you’ve got farms.