Joseph Lelyveld is a respected ournalist, editor at The New York Times, and that paper’s one-time southern Africa correspondent based in South Africa. Nonetheless, I’m not sure I entirely embrace the argument expressed in the title of his (otherwise fine) New York Review of Books essay on Mark Gevisser’s A Legacy of Liberation: Thabo Mbeki and the Future of the South African Dream, “How Mbeki Failed.” I think the story of Mbeki’s presidency is a lot more complex than the simple dualism of “Success” or “failure” and that it simplifies and reduces history to turn politics into a win-loss percentage.
Mbeki had obvious areas of failure: He lost the personal battle between himself and Jacob Zuma (the two will forever be inextricably intertwined); his AIDS policy was irredeemable; he did not do enough to address poverty; many believe that his administration embodied Machiavellian power-scheming; his Zimbabwe policy frustrated many; he never seemed to grasp the enormity of crime, either on the ground or as it manifested itself psychologically. These are definite shortcomings and in soem cases failings.
But every politician has failings. At the same time, South Africa experienced consistent, uninterrupted economic growth that is the envy not only of Africa but of most of the world. The country maintained its status as the region’s superpower without overplaying that hand. Under Mbeki the country continued to move from the Apartheid-era, a transition that went so smoothly that it is easy to forget just how seemingly impossible that transition was, and just how onerous and oppressive the Apartheid regime was. And from the perspective of pure politics, Mbeki consolidated the power of the ANC – this last accomplishment might be a dual-edged sword in the eyes of many, but as a political accomplishment, Mbeki, who was no Nelson Mandela (which might itself be a huge part of Mbeki’s perception issue) nonetheless brought the ANC to heights Mandela never took the party.
In short, Mbeki’s presidency was a mixed-bag. It was complex and contentious. It had its successes amidst its clear failings. Mbeki was human. And his administration represented the difficulties of his place and time. I do not come to defend Mbeki, but rather to make clear that it does a disservice to history and political analysis to reduce his administration, or any, to a tally sheet.