Nelson Mandela died this month at the age of 95. Often considered the father of the nation of South Africa, more than anybody else, Nelson Mandela was responsible for dismantling apartheid, the systematic segregation of South African society based on race. Mandela transcended the tribalism, the violence and the prejudice, and united a scarred nation. This extraordinary leader in world history will inspire many to come in the future. May he rest in peace.
As the two week long memorial draws to a close where over 80 world leading dignitaries came to pay homage to him (even though many of these same countries had declared him a terrorist not long ago – he was on the US terror list as recently as 2008), thoughts are already turning to the future – the future of others in this world, fighting against injustice. Just what can they learn from the non-violent protest experiences of Mandela?
The South Africa of Mandela’s youth was a place of oppression. Despite this, the young Mandela was an advocate of non-violence. He spoke, wrote, and organize. As a lawyer, he attempted to help those most victimized by his country’s racist legal system. He sought political recognition for the black majority within the existing structures of government and resisted calls for violent revolution. Yet all his efforts were getting him nowhere. If anything, peaceful attempts to seek justice only brought on more brutality from the apartheid regime. So he turned to limited violence in a desperate effort to capture the attention of the world; for this, he spent 27 years in prison. Along with international sanctions and the ongoing turmoil of violence within South Africa, in the end the South African apartheid regime buckled, and had no choice but to transition power to the only clear non-violent leader of the opposition, Nelson Mandela.
What of other non-violent protestors in history. Another such leader was Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi’s advocacy of non-violence was specifically in the context of India’s struggle for independence from the British rule from the 1920s to the 1940s. He did not believe in a violent revolution or uprising to achieve this goal, and neither did he approve of terrorist activities or assassinations of British military officers, as called for by some of the more violent Indian leaders back then. He steadfastly opposed such actions on part of the Indian people, and instead, preached a non-violent, non-cooperation against the British empire in its efforts to rule over India. But the violence was there, and the British dealing with an ever troublesome Indian population had no choice, but to surrender to the non-violent leader, Gandhi.
Yet another leader in history for the non-violent protestor, was Dr. Martin Luther King (MLK). This struggle was not so much about defeating a minority controlling government, but rather fighting for equal civil rights in a highly racially discriminatory post American civil war society. Yes, MLK had huge advocacy for a non-violent, civil disobedience agenda, to achieve the grievances desired. This one I can speak to personally. I can remember well the civil rights struggle in the 1960s America. But once again there was a threat of violence. White America was terrified that a black rebellion was growing in its midst. From the activities of the Black Panthers to the infamous race riots that had occurred, finally the white establishment accepted the notion of the movement and began to implement many of the aspects of the civil rights movement. The establishment could not give into the violence, rather raise the hand of the non-violent leader and declare victory together, even in the death of MLK.
The point I am making here is that every one of these non-violent civil disobedience movements, had an element of black ops. Please understand that the non-violent leader may in fact not sanction the black ops part of the movement, but nevertheless it was there. The supposition is, that the struggle would not have been as successful otherwise. The idea is, if you want to challenge the establishment authority, you will need both, so long as the terror does not attack too much the masses that support the movement. One causes the fear, the other is to have a leader that the establishment can safely surrender to. After all you can not turn over control to the thugs.
Other smaller examples of this was Sinn Féin and the IRA in Ireland. More or less the two kept separate and the British finally dealt with the non-violent arm of the movement. Yet another example was the teamsters union in the US of the 1970s, when going on strike. When they went on strike, management listened to union leaders, as they feared independent terrorist violence (supposedly not part of the union) of bullet holes in the windshields of their independent non-union truck drivers. Do you see the pattern developing here?
So what does this all got to do with our world, our economy and markets today? As President Obama has recently said, the injustice of our time is our economic system that creates the huge wealth divides that we see today. This could be the biggest injustice the world has yet to battle. There have already been non-violent protests recently as we saw during the Occupy (OWS) movement. There was some talk of black ops OWS, but the governments of the world quickly put this movement down, as they knew where this could lead – the movement of the masses via terror. We also see this in the Middle East today. This is why there has been so much focus on the surveillance state to ensure the establishment stays one step ahead of any such movements. The establishment needs to discredit any such potential non-violent leader as well as any black ops that could support this, so they can maintain their grip on power. But clearly terrorism of all types will be on the rise.
Please understand that I am not advocating violence or any specific approval or disapproval of these issues – I am merely commenting on what I see in history and what may come to pass. My take however is that this battle will come at some point, as democracy and such wealth inequality cannot live together. The question for the world will be; when this battle starts, will the leaders that will come out of this struggle be like the non-violent Mandela variety, to guide the world to a better place or will the world descend into a much darker place.
When could this happen? Most likely not right away, as a crisis is needed to create the catalyst – but perhaps on the next dip in the world economy, which maybe sooner than we think. The current business cycle is coming to a close, setting us up for the next potential leg down. Remember however, wall street is not main street so markets will not necessarily mirror events initially – but you would think eventually the mean reversion trade will come at some point in this current divergence. If you see this develop, put your helmet on.
Blue Point Trading, William Thompson