Reading people
Nelson Mandela
Reconciliation
Nelson Mandela (South Africa · 1918–2013) — Reconciliation.
What actually happened?
In 1994, at his inauguration as the first democratically elected black president of South Africa, three of the white warders who had guarded him on Robben Island were seated among the guests of honour. He had invited them himself. Four years earlier, walking out of the prison gate after twenty-seven years with every camera in the world pointed at him, he had raised his fist and declined to say anything angry at all. He put it later in one sentence: as he walked towards the gate, he knew that if he did not leave the bitterness and hatred behind, he would still be in prison.
Hatred is the second prison
Resentment is drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. He had unusual amounts of time to watch what it did to people: men whose bodies were released and whose minds stayed locked in the anger. What he chose was not forgiveness, which requires an apology from someone else, but letting go, which requires only your own decision.
He read Stoic philosophy in prison, and Sun Tzu, and anything that kept him clear-headed. The cell became a school, which is the same move Frankl made in the camps.
Twenty-seven years of conversion
He went in a militant who wanted the apartheid state overthrown by force. He came out the most patient man at the negotiating table. That is not softening, it is an upgrade: he had worked out that an overthrow manufactures more hatred, and that only reconciliation produces a country that lasts.
The change is itself the argument. He had tried the other road first, which is why his conclusion is worth more than anyone's who only ever held one position.
Inviting the warders was political design
Seating his own jailers in the guests of honour was not a display of magnanimity. It was an exactly aimed signal to white South Africa that there was a place for them in the new country. Reconciliation was the moral choice and also the optimal strategic one.
Reconciliation that lasts always satisfies both the moral and the practical case, so both sides can accept it because it suits them, not only because it is right.
Truth in exchange for amnesty
Forgiving needs the other side to admit what they did; letting go does not. Rather than demand universal apology he built the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: tell what happened and you can be pardoned. It gave perpetrators a way out and gave victims an answer, which is a form of justice that is not punishment.
Societies coming out of conflict have studied the model ever since. Its insight is that sometimes the truth itself is the justice that was missing.
How do I use it today?
Next time you notice an old grievance still drawing on you, make his distinction: forgiving and letting go are separate acts. You do not have to forgive anybody. You can decide unilaterally to put it down, not for their sake but to get yourself out of the second prison.
Deep read
Read alongside
Further
Lines to keep
It is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.
Courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it.
Sport has the power to change the world.