Mandela's Self-Restraint

Self-restraint plus respect for democracy is an equation for great leadership.

When it comes to choosing one historical leader to serve as a role model for the modern Canadian political class, the name Nelson Mandela immediately comes to my mind. In some ways, Mandela is an easy, even trite choice. After all, of all the political figures of the 20th century, the former South African president probably comes closest to being irreproachable. But I choose Mandela not for his strength of will, toughness or the resoluteness that enabled him to do the impossible. Rather, the trait which Canadian politicians would most benefit from emulating is Mandela’s restraint while in power.

His story is known well and I have recently written of it, but to me, the most remarkable thing about Mandela was, despite being smeared, beaten, and tortured throughout a quarter century of wrongful imprisonment, when he emerged to become the most powerful man in the country that had persecuted him, he did not retaliate against those who had abused him. As importantly, he also did not rule in such a way as only to promote the interests of his base or supporters. Mandela had the restraint and wisdom to govern in the best interests of all of his countrymen – even those who opposed him.

This is because Mandela understood that democracy, true democracy, is, at its core, a political philosophy of government self-restraint. As I have said before, the true beauty of democracy is not merely that this system of government “allows” the citizenry to vote, or that it is based upon a series of checks and balances which “prevents” the party in power from overriding the will of the people, but that in a true democracy, political leaders exhibit the self restraint and respect for the political system to not try to bend or break the rules which restrain them.

In other words, what Canada’s political leadership can learn from the example of Nelson Mandela is to exhibit the strength of will – and yes, of character – to resist the temptation to subvert democracy by abusing the levers of political power, say by limiting the public’s knowledge or ruthlessly demonizing political opponents. In other words, respecting the fine line between persuasion and propaganda. If politics is turned into a bloodsport, regardless of the benefits this may yield any particular political party or figure, it ultimately reflects a failure of leadership. The difference between being a leader and a politician is recognizing that those elected have a responsibility to the nation which surpasses that to even one’s party. What should stop one from doing certain things – often things one really wants to do – is the recognition that those things are wrong or harmful to the country, not just the fear that you won’t be able to get away with it.

The greatest thing that Nelson Mandela ever did was to walk away at the height of his power. It is this self-restraint and respect for democracy that is the difference between Nelson Mandela and someone like Zimbabwe’s despot, Robert Mugabe. And it is this capacity to exercise the self-restraint to see and act on what is good for the nation, rather than merely what is good for one’s party or one’s own fortunes, which our politicians need to take away from the example of Nelson Mandela.