Mandela’s Global Elders is a Bad Idea

Nelson Mandela just turned 89, and he remains one of the few world leaders who hasn’t made an ass of himself by betraying every scruple he ever had. “Madiba,” as he is affectionately known in his homeland, carries a great deal of moral authority even though his political days are behind him. It is that moral authority that he seeks to harness in a proposal to create a group of “Global Elders,” to tackle some of the world’s tougher problems. It’s a nice idea, yet a very bad one.

Back in 2001, Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic and Peter Gabriel (the truly talented part of the band Genesis) approached Mr. Mandela and his wife to lead such a project. It has taken 6 years of thinking and discussing, and they have agreed. According to The Telegraph, “As well as Mr Mandela and his wife, Graca Machel, the group comprises Desmond Tutu, the Anglican Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town; Jimmy Carter, the former American president; Mary Robinson, the former Irish president; Kofi Annan, the former secretary general of the United Nations; and Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel laureate economist and founder of the Green Bank in Bangladesh, where he is known as ‘banker to the poor’.” The paper goes on to add “Li Zhaoxing, until two months ago the foreign minister of China, has also been invited to join, along with Ela Bhatt, the Indian activist and founder of a women’s association, and Gro Harlen Bruntland, formerly prime minister of Norway and director of the World Health Organisation.” An empty chair has been set aside for the Burmese opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

It’s a damned impressive group, and frankly, they could probably govern any given country better than the government currently in place. Their agenda is benign to benevolent, as Mr. Mandela explained “The Elders can become a fiercely independent and robust force for good, tackling conflicts and intractable issues, especially those that are not popular.” They will “speak freely and boldly, working both publicly and behind the scenes, working wherever our help is needed. This group derives its strength not from military, political or economic power, but from the independence and integrity of those who are here.”

Quite so, and therein lies the problem. This journal holds no brief for democracy beyond the fact that it gives moral authority to those who govern in a rather exact and understandable manner. In the case of the Elders, just who decides who gets a place at the table? Why is Archibishop Tutu there and not Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq or His Holiness the Pope? Ms. Bruntland is an admirable person, but why is she considered for membership and not Lech Walesa of Poland?

The concern here is not that these people shouldn’t act to make the world a better place if they can – quite the contrary. However, why must they create an organization (and an unelected one at that) to undertake those actions that they could certainly do without the label “Elder? With an organization comes bureaucracy and institutional politics, which are often part of the problem. The members of this group already have the attention they need to bring the media to look at global problems, and forming a group can’t enhance that, only diminish it. Sorry, Madiba, as much as this journal admires (and frankly is in awe of) you, it’s a bad idea. Happy Birthday, all the same.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home