By Paul T. Shipale
READING a paper titled; “Collective leadership during Thabo Mbeki’s presidency: A Rhetorical Perspective,” by S’fiso Eric Ngesi, a PhD candidate in Rhetoric Studies at the University of Cape Town, who also holds an MPhil (Rhetoric Studies) from the same university and a Masters in Political Science from the French University of Bordeaux, I was curious to find out how President Pohamba’s last State of the Nation address will sound like, from a rhetorical perspective that is.
Mind you, like Mbeki, Pohamba followed in the footsteps of a founding president. In this regard, both leaders’ inaugural State of the Nation addresses were arguably one of their most crucial speeches as there were still questions as to whether their presidencies would continue with their predecessors’ nation-building and/or reconciliation projects or whether they would mark a departure from these and, if so, what this meant for their respective countries.
Ngesi asserts that when Mbeki succeeded Nelson Mandela, there was a generally held view that he was just what the nascent post-apartheid South Africa needed. Touted as “Africa’s Renaissance man” Mbeki was determined to make Africa — as a whole — stable, democratic and less poor. Conversely, Mbeki’s critics described him as enigmatic, aloof and arrogant. Others viewed him as paranoid. Whether these were accurate characterisations or not, Mbeki as the president of both the ANC and South Africa, left a lasting imprint on his country’s political landscape. He is accredited, inter alia, with the founding of institutions like the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and the African Union (AU). His international standing, however, took a knock in 2000 when it emerged that he had questioned the link between HIV and AIDS. He equally courted controversy over his handling of the crisis in Zimbabwe, even if he later redeemed himself with the handling of the issue of Sudan. Ngesi’s paper, focusing on the “African Renaissance” and the racism debates, looks at the arguments advanced by Mbeki during his tenure and attempts to analyse the rhetorical techniques used or arguments advanced as Mbeki had been mandated by the ANC or the Tripartite Alliance to lead the ANC and South Africa.
Following in Mandela’s footsteps — someone revered as an international icon and on whom a “saintly” status had been conferred — would have been an almost insurmountable task for anyone. In an attempt to shake off Mandela’s shadow, Ngesi says Mbeki chose the “African Renaissance” as one of the rallying points for his presidency and as a doctrine for Africa’s political, economic and social renewal at his presidential inauguration on 16 June 1999. According to Ngesi, the “African Renaissance” was first mooted within the ANC in 1997 at the party’s 50th National Congress as a key component of its ideological outlook, particularly pertaining to international matters. The ANC’s contention was that South Africa’s destiny was intrinsically linked to that of the African continent. It followed then that South Africa could not succeed without the success of the African continent. Through this lens, the “African Renaissance” debate could be characterised as a classic example of an argument of inclusion. When on 11 October 1999, Mbeki launched the African Renaissance Institute in Pretoria, he used this occasion to elaborate on what he meant by “African Renaissance”. According to him, the concept meant “rebirth, renewal, springing up anew.” Mbeki told his audience that throughout its existence, the ANC had “been exposed to the inspiring perspective of African unity and solidarity and the renewal of our continent.” Acknowledging that the idea of an “Africa Renaissance” was not his own invention — which can be viewed as a commonplace of precedent — and conceding that its attainment had previously been merely a pipe dream, Mbeki expatiated: “Accordingly, what is new about it today is that the conditions exist for the process to be enhanced, throughout the continent, leading to the transformation of the idea from a dream dreamt by visionaries to a practical programme of action for revolutionaries.”
Here, Mbeki made use of the common topic of possibility. He sought to persuade his audience that the existence of the conditions that he enunciated made the realisation of the “African Renaissance” possible. Although this argumentative technique has a persuasive effect, its success hinges on the interlocutor believing that the proposed course of action is feasible. A common way of inspiring an audience with confidence in the practicality of the particular proposed course of action is to cite examples of people who have accomplished a similar or identical thing, asserts Ngesi. In a State of the Nation Address on 4 February 2000, after highlighting some inroads made in creating a “humane and people-centred society”, Mbeki argued that racism still remained one of the challenges that had the potential of jeopardising the gains that had been made. To buttress his argument, he extensively cited from an electronic mail in which a certain company engineer had made some racist remarks. When Mbeki cited the company engineer, he had recourse to an argument by example. This was intended to give credence to his contention that racism was still an issue in the new South Africa. Mbeki’s technique had the potential to persuade his audience to concur with him that this was, indeed, the case, contends Ngesi.
Moreover, during the debate on the State of the Nation address on 10 February 2000, Mbeki read a letter that he had received from a white South African, Paul A. Dunn, who was reacting to his assertions on racism. Mbeki also made reference to a second letter from another white South African, Mr Lemmer, who said he “was sceptical… when the ANC first won the elections.” Confessing that he used to revel in the ANC’s shortcomings and would cite these as an indication of incompetence on the part of the ANC, Mr Lemmer asserted that he had had a change of heart and had committed himself to making a positive contribution to the creation of a non-racial South Africa.
The two cases chosen by Mbeki, rhetorically speaking, qualify as an argument by model. The actions of the individuals cited serve as models of the kind of behaviour that should be emulated. The fact that the individuals that Mbeki referred to were Afrikaners might have persuaded some in Mbeki’s audience to argue that the individuals in question demonstrated that despite his contention that there was racism, there were people who were ready to embrace the new South Africa. Ultimately, Mbeki’s story is one of success – in winning first the succession, then the leadership of the continent and a respected place in international forums. Now Mbeki serves as an elder giving advice and lectures. He lately weighed in on the thorny issue of tribalism, calling it a “homeboy” phenomenon. To contextualise this, contrary to Mbeki who at times ignored calls from his predecessor, if Gumede’s writing is anything to go, Pohamba’s has high consideration and esteem for his predecessor. “(I) express my deep-founded appreciation to Comrade Sam Nujoma, the legendary freedom fighter, leader of the national liberation struggle and founding President of the Swapo Party, the first President of the Republic of Namibia…,” said Pohamba who further elaborated that “Comrade President Nujoma will go down in history with distinction for uniting and leading the Namibian people in the struggle for national independence; for fostering peace, stability, security and national reconciliation; and for spearheading the social and economic reconstruction of Namibia… We must endeavour to uphold the legacy of President Nujoma by continuing to maintain unity, peace, security, stability and prosperity,” reads Pohamba’s inaugural address. Based on this address, Pohamba kept his words and also earned the respect of many contrary to those who were alleging that he was running the country as if it was his own village. In addition, in his inaugural address in the first Cabinet meeting on 31 March 2005, Pohamba told the ministers that his administration was “… fully committed to addressing the economic and social plight of our citizens, especially in rural areas.” Furthermore, he reminded them of the need to address corruption “with a sledge-hammer,” and vowed to implement the party’s manifesto.
I would love to find out, which rhetorical techniques and or arguments, following a theme, President Pohamba will use in his final State of the Nation address to outline his successes. Will he reiterate his rallying point of rooting out corruption and call for unity? Despite the principle of collective leadership, as the modus operandi used to carry out the task as he had been mandated by his party Swapo and its affiliates, was he able to move out ahead of the flock in a new direction, including taking unpopular decisions, if any, confident that he was leading the nation the right way in the interests of all its people? I hope he will use the techniques outlined above to exit with a memorable speech.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer and this newspaper, but solely reflect my personal views as a citizen.