Visiting Robben Island where post-apartheid enthusiasm has been replaced by bitterness and disillusionment

A year ago today, I visited Robben Island for the second time. We were taken by coach around the island with a tour guide who had been a political prisoner for eight years from 1977. He was in parts funny, moving and inspiring although with a touch of bitterness as his five-year contract as a guide had been terminated from the end of the following week.

We were shown the house of Robert Sobukwe, the leader of the Pan African Congress (a breakaway from Mandela’s ANC). He was kept separate from all the other prisoners as his black nationalist ideas were seen as particularly dangerous. We toured the lime quarry where Mandela worked and where his eyesight was severely damaged because the apartheid prison authorities refused to issue sunglasses to protect the prisoners’ eyes from the glare of the sun.

Mandela’s cell on Robben Island

After the tour of the island we went into the prison itself where another former political prisoner (who served five years from the age of 18) told us about the degradations experienced by black prisoners. Finally, we were taken to the courtyard where Mandela and the other ANC leaders had been forced to break stones with small hammers, and then along the corridor past Mandela’s tiny cell.

We spoke to the guide who said that he relives the horror of his imprisonment with every tour and that he would leave if only he could get another job on the mainland. 

Currently the only guides who show people around the actual prison are former political prisoners but they are getting older and one day there won’t be any.

I have been to Robben Island before and had had a similar tour, back in 1998. However, at that time there was enthusiasm for the future. Mandela was still President and there was none of the bitterness and disillusionment that we detected today. Nevertheless, it was an inspiring and moving experience.

(Postscript: As a teenager growing up in Cape Town in the 1970s, from my bedroom window I could see Robben Island in the distance out to sea. But it wasn’t until I arrived in England that I first saw a photograph of Mandela – an old black and white photo taken many years before.)

Amongst today’s politicians, there isn’t a single one who is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Nelson Mandela

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 29th November 2023)

Next Tuesday is the tenth anniversary of the death of Nelson Mandela. Today he is one of the most recognisable people on the planet, even a decade after his death.  Yet in the sixties and early seventies, Mandela had become invisible in South Africa and throughout the world.

He had been in prison since 1963 and for most of that time his image was banned in South Africa. In fact, displaying any image of Mandela carried a prison sentence. He could not be quoted in public and for the majority of white South Africans, he was out of sight and out of mind. For the first seventeen years of his incarceration he was held in a prison on Robben Island, six miles off the coast of Cape Town. 

When growing up in Cape Town, I had no particular view of Mandela.  I had heard his name but knew little, if anything, about him.  When my friends and I cycled to Cape Town Docks, we were aware of the high security berth where the ‘terrorists’ were taken from the mainland to Robben Island, and that Mandela was one of them.  That area now forms part of the Waterfront, a mecca for tourists and rich South Africans alike.

From my bedroom window I could see Robben Island in the distance out to sea. But it wasn’t until I arrived in England that I first saw a photograph of Mandela – an old black and white photo taken many years before. Today I have on my wall a large ANC election poster from 1994, dominated by the warm, smiling face of Mandela who we had been told in the bad old days of apartheid, wanted to drive all white people into the sea. Archbishop Desmond Tutu used to quip: “How can we drive you into the sea when you don’t even allow us on to the beaches?” Under apartheid the best beaches were reserved for white people only.

In the nineteen sixties, seventies and eighties, few would have predicted that a peaceful transition would be achieved, from apartheid to democracy, nor that a single individual, long out of public view, serving a life sentence for acts of terrorism, would be the catalyst for this monumental change. Many people tend to forget that Mandela did, indeed, lead the arm struggle, and was responsible for planting bombs. Margaret Thatcher is alleged to have described Mandela as “that grubby little terrorist”. But, as they say, one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another person’s freedom fighter.

The world now rightly regards him one of the greatest figures of the modern era, and pays homage to him for his dignity, his courage, and his willingness to forgive. Yet it is worth remembering he had his shortcomings, and today’s corrupt ANC government is also part of his legacy.

A true monument to Mandela, himself without an ounce of corruption, is to build on the legacy of the Rainbow Nation, by routing out the corruption that is endemic throughout the new ruling class in South Africa, and which is holding back the cause of fairness and freedom.

We need the likes of Nelson Mandela today in many parts of the world, not least in Israel and Palestine, someone who can reach across historic divides, of painful, violent histories, who can be a catalyst for peace.

In spite of the above, I have always been uncomfortable at how people have co-opted the image of Mandela to demonstrate their own virtues. It was always easy for progressives in the U.K. to oppose the abomination of apartheid from six thousand miles away, yet turn a blind eye to injustice and oppression closer to home. 

When Mandela addressed a combined session of the British Parliament, there was not a single dissenting voice amongst the MPs and Lords present. They basked in being in his presence.  Yet many had not lifted a finger in his support when it did not suit their interests and prejudices. Today, too, many of our leaders fail to deal with the injustices in our own society, like homelessness, poverty and violence. They might say the right thing, but words (unlike under apartheid) come cheap. The Conservatives have destroyed much of the welfare state, while a likely Labour government will fail to act because they want to be seen as being fiscally responsible. 

If political leaders in this country had a tiny fraction of the courage and determination of Nelson Mandela, then great things could be achieved. But amongst them there isn’t a single one who is worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as him.

Andrew Bowden: a politician of great ability and charm

(This item first appeared in the Argus on 25th January 2023)

In the early 1980s there were increasing calls for sanctions against apartheid South Africa. These were resisted by the newly-elected US President, Ronald Reagan, and by Margaret Thatcher (who allegedly had described Nelson Mandela as a ‘grubby little terrorist’).

As the local organiser of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, I was asked to do a BBC radio debate on sanctions against South Africa with the Member of Parliament for Brighton Kemptown, Andrew Bowden.  Having not been in the country long, I had never met a Conservative politician and, in my naivety, I had assumed he would be a rabid right-winger. 

Sir Andrew Bowden (Photo: The Argus)

When we met at the local studio, then in Marlborough Place, Mr Bowden was charm personified. He sympathised with me for having had to leave South Africa to avoid conscription, and at such a young age.  He said that we had to do whatever we could to end apartheid. The only thing we disagreed on, he said, was the means for doing so. He said that sanctions would mostly harm black people and that he was in favour of “jaw-jaw rather than war-war.” 

I disagreed with his view. The African National Congress and eminent figures like Desmond Tutu (later to become the Archbishop of Cape Town) were calling for sanctions.

Just before we went on air, Mr Bowden said to the presenter that he had recently read in the House of Commons’ Library that this particular programme had audience figures of around 200,000 people. Having been wrong-footed by his charm, I now visualised a mass gathering of 200,000. 

When later I listened to a replay of the debate, Mr Bowden came across as calm, measured and sincere as he spoke quite intimately to the presenter, whereas I came across as hectoring, dogmatic and speechifying, trying to address an audience of 200,000. It was one of my most important lessons in working with the media and for that I am grateful to Andrew Bowden.

I got to know Andrew many years later. He is, genuinely, a charming man and was a very able politician who won over many working-class Labour voters in East Brighton, particularly when he was opposed by arrogant, middle-class academic Labour candidates. He was a regular at Whitehawk Football Club, and ate fish and chips at the same local chippy in Whitehawk for many years.

Like any good Member of Parliament, Andrew nurtured his constituency, making himself available to take up issues on behalf of his residents and maintaining a very high profile. When the national political mood might have turned the political tide against him, his substantial personal vote helped to see off various challenges. He was, perhaps, helped by the contrast that could be drawn when comparing him to his fellow Conservative MP, Julian Amery, who represented Brighton Pavilion.

Mr Avery could not have been more different. He was rarely seen in the constituency prompting a letter to The Argus asking whether he was, in fact, dead as he hadn’t been seen since the previous general election. As a prominent member of the right-wing Monday Club, Mr Amery was a vocal supporter of the apartheid regime and the white-minority government in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). 

This earned Mr Amery the title of ‘Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion and Johannesburg South’. (More recently, Jacob Rees-Mogg is sometimes referred to as the Member for the Seventeenth Century).

Mr Bowden represented Brighton Kemptown from 1970, when he defeated Labour’s Dennis Hobden, until 1997 when he lost the seat to Des Turner. Even Andrew Bowden was unable to survive the political landslide that took Tony Blair into Downing Street.

Mr Bowden acted as vice president of the League Against Cruel Sports and through this he became close friends with the former Vicar of Brighton, Canon Dominic Walker (who later became Bishop of Monmouth). Dominic was president of the Anglican Society for the Welfare of Animals, and together they participated in a demonstration against live animal exportation.

After leaving Parliament, Sir Andrew (having been knighted in 1994) took up another activity – poker. In 2006 he told The Independent newspaper: “I am a reasonably gifted amateur but that is the best I would say. My political experience has certainly helped. 

“I did 10 years on the Council of Europe as well as 27 years in Parliament, and when you’re trying to get amendments through or get your point across it is very useful to watch the people around the table for their reactions and body language. Those skills translate very well to the poker table.”

I recently saw Sir Andrew at an event at Brighton Town Hall to mark the retirement from The Argus of Adam Trimingham. Now in his 93rd year, Sir Andrew has various physical health challenges, but the intellect and his abundant charm remains unaffected.

Four lessons on leadership we can learn from Rugby Union

Pride comes before a fall

When the South African Springboks lined up for the anthems before taking on Japan at the Brighton Community Stadium, nobody thought for a moment that they were about to witness the biggest shock result in international history, not least me. The Springboks did not field their strongest team, and I was not alone in predicting a forty point win for the Boks. I even tweeted arrogantly the night before, making lighthearted reference to “the unthinkable”. A try in the fourth minute of extra time gave Japan victory.

Leaders should never take anything for granted, they should take care of the basics, and be aware than things can take a turn for the worse (even in the 84th minute!).

Don’t go with the flow

When the ANC, fresh from an overwhelming victory in the first-ever democratic elections in South Africa, they had the opportunity to rid the country of one of the symbols of the apartheid years – the springbok as the emblem of South African rugby. The easiest thing for Nelson Mandela would have been to go with the flow. He was enjoying national and international adulation. Yet he realised that he needed to reach out to the vanquished Afrikaners, even if it cost him support from his own party. His subsequent decision to attend the Rugby World Cup Final, wearing a Springbok rugby jersey with the number 6 (the number of the Bok captain, Francois Pienaar).

Leaders should think through each situation on its merit and reach out to created new alliances and to align and inspire people.

Trust your instincts and live with the consequences

With the score 32-29 to the Springboks, with a minute remaining on the clock, Japan were awarded a penalty near to the South African line. Most captains would have taken the three points from the penalty and secured an historic draw. But the Japan captain made a decision, the outcome of which he could not know. The rest is history: a kick to the corner, wave after wave of attacks until they scored their historic try.

When leaders make decisions, they don’t have the advantage of hindsight. In the moment they won’t know what everyone else will know the following morning.

Leaders need courage, and they will need to accept the consequences of their decisions.

Make your own judgements – whatever others decide might not be right for you

A week after that historic (and for this South African traumatic) result, with minute to play, and the score 28-25 to Wales,England were pressing the Welsh line. Awarded a penalty, the England captain, Chris Robshaw, could have taken the three points needed for the draw that would keep England’s World Cup hopes alive. Conscious of the brave and successful decision made by the Japanese captain a week earlier, Robshaw opted for a kick to the corner and a throw in. The rest is history. Great defence by the Welsh forwards and Wales defeated England. (For my Welsh friend, I repeat those magical words “Wales defeated England”).

What other people do is interesting. So too is how they do it. But leaders need to display judgement, not merely copy decisions others have made.

In summary, pride comes before a fall, don’t go with the flow, trust your instincts, and make your own judgements. You will have to live with the consequences.

Reflections on my trip to Cape Town March 2014

I returned today from a two week trip to Cape Town. This was my fourth return trip to South Africa since I moved to England in 1979. This trip followed ones in 1995, 1999 and 2010. The first trip was characterised by optimism about the future. Mandela had been elected the year before, and the Rainbow Nation was in full bloom. Mandela was the great hope, while Winnie Mandela was portrayed as a cause for concern who, potentially, might destroy what Nelson was creating.

In 1999 the fear of crime seemed to dominate most things. Street children were in great evidence and the ANC government had not addressed the gross inequalities that were so obvious. The sense of honesty that existed previously about apartheid and racism, had been replaced by collective denial from those who had previously supported apartheid. It was virtually impossible to find anyone who would admit to having ever supported apartheid. ‘Incomers’ such as squatters and ‘Nigerians’ were being blamed for crime and destroying communities.

There was a siege mentality amongst the white community in 2010. Julius Malema was at the height of his influence, and tensions were exacerbated by the murder of the white supremacist leader, Eugene Terreblanche, midway through my trip. Malema’s ‘Kill the Boer’ song symbolised the threat some in the white community feared.

This time I have been pleasantly surprised by what I have observed in Cape Town. In general conversation, there was next to no reference to crime, although I understand that gangsterism remains a big problem in poorer communities. I felt as safe, if not more so, as I did on my previous trips, walking around the city centre on my own, although it was during the morning that I went out. Whether I would have felt the same had I been a lone woman is another matter.

There is much evidence of a prosperous economy (notwithstanding the weakness of the Rand). The city and middle class suburbs are clean and roads are very well maintained. Traffic flows well, and in the City itself there was next to no obvious extreme poverty such as street children. I saw a number of rough sleepers, but no more than in Brighton. Outside the city the informal settlements (squatter camps) are much in evidence, although a great deal is being done to provide housing, electricity and sanitation. However, while I was there, there was some rioting by people from the informal settlements protesting at slow progress in improving their lives.

However, ‘load shedding’ – rolling power cuts – were introduced nationwide as the generating company, Eskom, could not cope with demand. It seems as though many of the state controlled businesses, such as Eskom and Metrorail, due to political patronage, are badly run and inefficient. The trains, while very cheap, were appalling, doors not working and graffiti inside every carriage and outside on all trains.

In Cape Town the Democratic Alliance (DA) are evidently competent administrators under the leadership of Helen Zille. The DA can expect to gain in strength on 7th May (the next national and provincial elections) although not exceeding even 25% of the popular vote. It should comfortably hold its power base around Cape Town with an increased majority.

The ANC, riddled by corruption and misuse of patronage, will get a large majority, but its vote could drop to as low as 60%. An opinion poll published on Sunday March 9th had the ANC as low as 45%, but that is unlikely to be reflected in the polls.

President Jacob Zuma has had some achievements, including playing down the race card in national politics by sidelining Malema, although he has indirectly introduced an element of ethnicity into politics by promoting Zulus at the expense of others. Other political parties don’t really feature, being small, regional or marginal. Zuma is implicated in scandal, most recently the amount of public funds spent on his private residence, Nklanda.

Overall, poverty and inequality persist and are obvious but, in Cape Town at least, there are signs of progress. However, unless there is a strong opposition to the ANC, there will be little sense of urgency to bring about the transformational change needed across the rest of the country.

The political situation can best be summed up by this quote from Eusebius McKaiser, a political analyst: “… we will only ever have a sustainable and stable democracy if we have a competitive political system. This means that a ruling party, ideally, needs to harbour some fear that it might lose an election. Such fear will surely increase the chances of responsive and accountable government.”

The national and provincial elections on May 7th will indicate what we can expect in the future.