rhetorical analysis of nelson mandela speech

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Nelson Mandela — Nelson Mandela’s Speeches: A Rhetorical Analysis

Nelson Mandela's Speeches: a Rhetorical Analysis

• Categories: Nelson Mandela Polite Speech

About this sample

Words: 767 |

Published: Feb 7, 2024

Words: 767 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Overview of the speech, analysis of the speech, rhetorical devices used in the speech, tone of the speech, historical context of the speech, key themes in the speech, impact of the speech.

• Mandela, N. (1964). I am Prepared to Die. Retrieved from https://www.nelsonmandela.org/omalley/cis/omalley/OMalleyWeb/03_Speeches/03_Interviews_and_testimony/64/646_20_04_1964_I_am_prepared_to_die.htm
• Mandela, N. (1994). Long Walk to Freedom. Little, Brown and Company.
• Kotzé, H. (2014). The Rhetoric of Mandela’s Rivonia Trial Speech. Journal of Literary Studies, 30(2), 97-107.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 773 words

5 pages / 2348 words

2 pages / 844 words

1 pages / 408 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Nelson Mandela

The phrase "A man can be destroyed but not defeated" embodies the resilience and strength that human beings possess in the face of adversity. This essay delves into the profound meaning behind this adage, examining its [...]

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it." This quote by Nelson Mandela is a testament to his undying bravery and selflessness, which made him a true hero. Born on July 18, 1918, in Mvezo, Transkei, South [...]

John Carlin's book "Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Made a Nation" is an insightful analysis of the role of sports in uniting a divided nation. The book provides a detailed account of how Nelson Mandela used [...]

Nelson Mandela leadership style has left an indelible mark on the world, shaping not only the course of history but also our understanding of effective leadership. Mandela's journey from prisoner to president, his unwavering [...]

Nelson Mandela was and still is one of the most famous people in the world. Nelson’s childhood was a very good childhood. Nelson Mandela was born into a royal family in an African tribe. He was adopted by Jongintaba Dalindyebo, [...]

Freedom is an abstract concept often measured by the liberty one mentally feels. Throughout history, freedom has been assessed by one’s ability to live as they please with little restriction or opposition. During the Nelson [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Apartheid has no future- A Rhetorical Analysis of Nelson Mandela’s Speech - 11 February 1990 by Andy Brough

On February 11 1990, after being freed from Victor Verster Prison following 27 years of incarceration as a political prisoner, Nelson Mandela delivered his first public address (Mandela, 1990). What follows is a rhetorical analysis of this speech, with particular reference to the relationship between the communication, negotiation, and conflict resolution concepts used in the speech and the outcomes of those concepts.

Communication Concepts

In examining the communication concepts in the speech, this section provides an analysis of the speaker, the audience, the language of the speech, as well specific rhetorical devices that Mandela used.

The Speaker

Nelson Mandela immediately established credibility with an opening that captured the audience’s attention. Any great speaker appreciates the importance of the first few moments of a speech (Morgan, 2003). By opening with the refrain, “Amandla! Amandla! i-Afrika, mayibuye!” Mandela not only positioned himself as a fellow African, but he also used the language of his supporters. This is not just about appealing to an audience by using the vernacular, but also the language of the “struggle” with the words, “Power! Power! Africa it is ours!” Mandela proceeded to greet his friends, comrades, fellow South Africans and the world.

Mandela showed great understanding of, what Aristotle referred to as, ethos or, the character of the speaker. Character, in the classical Greek comes from an individual's reputation and behavior (Crowley and Hawhee, 2003). At various stages during the speech, Mandela referred to himself not only as a “humble servant” but also as a “loyal and disciplined member of the African National Congress” (A.N.C.). He also went to great lengths to explain that no individual leader would be able to take on the enormous task of leadership in South Africa. He reminded his followers and listeners that, based on the views that leaders presented as possible options for the future, the structures within the organization needed to decide on the way forward.

In concluding his speech, Mandela made reference to the trial of 1964 and to the words that he used during that trial where he spoke about the fact that he had fought against white domination and black domination and that he cherished the idea of a democratic and free society. He ended his speech (probably one of the most significant in the history of South Africa) with an ironic statement that he did not have words of eloquence to offer. It appears as if Mandela was less impressed with making the right statements and more impressed by the fact that it was his ethos, his character, combined with his ability to deliver on the promises, that really mattered. He went on to build this ethos by stating to his supporters that his remaining days were in the hands of his followers. Mandela comes across as knowledgeable and fair whilst conveying the authority that people would have expected from a man of his reputation who had been silenced for so long.

The Main Thesis and Purpose of the Speech

Having watched the speech when it was first delivered, and then relooked at recordings of the speech almost 20 years later, it is clear that Mandela used a slow and deliberate pace that was appropriate for his measured and authoritative delivery. The main idea or thesis of the speech was twofold; (a) to thank those who supported him during his incarceration and (b) to appeal for a more concerted effort in the dismantling and “complete eradication of apartheid.” Mandela is clearly trying to persuade his broader global audience that the actions of the A.N.C. were legitimate. To achieve this aim, Mandela used a combination of rhetorical techniques both in his introduction and throughout the speech in an attempt to appeal to his audience.  

The Audience

Mandela extended his gratitude not only to the people of Cape Town but, conscious of the broader audience listening and watching via radio and television, to the nation of South Africa, and to “those in every corner of the globe who have campaigned tirelessly” for his release. In acknowledgement of the tremendous significance of the occasion of his release, Mandela then took time to acknowledge a range of sub-audiences.

The Form and Structure of the Speech

The speech is very simple in its design with a form that complements the content. The form is essentially one of a sweeping introduction, acknowledging a wide range of stakeholders. Mandela then made it clear that he would only make a preliminary statement and would speak in more detail after consultation. Having made that transition, Mandela moved into the main point of his speech that apartheid has no future. He used specific supporting evidence to reinforce that point and highlighted the plight of the homeless and state of the economy as two examples of the effects of apartheid.  He then went on to make reference to the process of political normalization and called for greater support. In conclusion he revisited comments he made during his 1964 trial.

Rhetorical Devices

Mandela addressed his sub-audiences by using a rhetorical device called anaphora - the repetition of the same word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses or verse (Banks, n.d.). This technique is used much in the same way as the great speakers such as Martin Luther King in his famous “ I have a dream” speech (Luther, 1961) Mandela positioned his greeting by using the term “I salute” on at least seven different occasions, and acknowledged, amongst others, the African National Congress, Oliver Tambo, the South African Communist Party, the United Democratic front, the Black Sash, and even the National Union of South African Students. He ended his greeting and salutations by expressing his appreciation to his beloved wife and family with a very poignant statement, “I am convinced that your pain and suffering was far greater than my own.”

 It is worth noting that Mandela made a specific point of addressing “white compatriots” directly as he called on them to join him and his party in shaping a new South Africa. He even described the freedom movement as “the political home” for them. When analyzing the recording of the speech, is it evident that the audience in Cape Town, as is traditional in many African political rallies, made use of “call and response” interplay. This is an element of communication made famous by Dr Martin Luther King and shows that the speaker is not only aware of the audience, but also welcomes, and interacts with the audiences’ verbal feedback, affirmation and encouragement.

Mandela used other verbal strategies such as figures of speech (schemes and tropes) including the metaphor (he refers to the dark days of history, to the youth as young lions who have energized the struggle, and to the sight of freedom looming on the horizon). He also used terms that the communist league would have been familiar with including “struggle”, “liberty”, mass mobilization”, “working-class”, “structures” and “democratic practice.”

Mandela also made effective use of both pathos and logos (Aristotle, ). Pathos refers to the emotional impact a speech. Mandela used specific phrases that are packed with emotional connotations that would not be lost on his audience, “Difficult circumstances”, “unrelenting persecution”, “holding the flag of liberty high”, “the pride of our movement”, and “great heroes.”  In some sense, it is as if this speech can be divided into two halves, where the first part of the speech is much more geared towards building pathos and the second half uses the logos techniques.

Logos refers to the logic of an argument. In the second half of the speech, Mandela outlined the objectives, strategies and tactics of the A.N.C. in normalizing the political process. In this section, his speech was more concrete, containing some suggestion of the way forward including: (a) An ending of the state of emergency, (b) the release of all political prisoners, (c) negotiations on the dismantling of apartheid, (d) maintaining sanctions, and (e) the institution of universal suffrage. This brings us to an examination of the conflict resolution and negotiation concepts used in the speech.

Conflict Resolution and Negotiation Concepts

In analyzing this speech, it becomes apparent that the focus was on covering key conflict resolution and negotiation concepts. In this section, these concepts will be identified and outlined within the context of the speech itself.

Conflict Resolution Concepts

Both March and Simon (1958) and Cyert and March (1963) recognized that conflict was a naturally occurring organizational phenomenon with both positive and negative consequences. Conflict resolution involves a willingness to see both parties point of view specifically when the goals of one party are in direct contrast/conflict with the goals of the other (Spoelstra & Pienaar, 1999). Negative conflict resolution behaviour, where the primary strategy is one of overpowering the other party, is viewed as zero-sum or distributive. Postive conflict resolution is more integrative and works from the basis of common ground (Lewicki, Weiss, & Lewin, 1992; Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2007).

A competence model of conflict management approaches conflict from the basis of three key dimensions, (a) effective communication, (b) relational appropriateness, and (c) situational appropriateness (Gross & Guerro, 2000). Mandela’s speech demonstrates an integration of all three dimensions. Effective communication has already been covered in the earlier sections of the paper. Relational appropriateness is characterized by behavior that is pro-social, tactful and constructive. Mandela demonstrates a very competent appreciation of the need for this appropriate Xmas in the way that he engages with all parties. He describes the background to the armed struggle and outlines the factors that necessitated the actions that the A.N.C. took. A dysfunctional conflict is characterized by any interaction between individuals or groups that would hinder the achievement of goals (Spoelstra & Pienaar, 1991). Mandela adopts an approach that is in direct contradiction to dysfunctional conflict resolution, and in so doing, builds his argument on the basis of reciprocal interdependence. As a consequence of years of the A.N.C. being marginalized and restricted, Mandela is also conscious of the fact that he leads a party that has increased group cohesiveness. Whilst he might have been tempted to capitalize on this marginalization, he appears unwilling to escalate conflict through open counter statements of aggression or character assassination. Mandela also takes time in the speech to explain that the formation of the military wing of the A.N.C was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid.  There is therefore broad evidence for situational appropriateness in the way that Mandela approaches to conflict resolution. In assessing his style of communication, Mandela demonstrates an ability to carry on a conversation in a non-aggressive way and to adapt to the needs of his audience or in a given situation. Having examined some of the broad based conflict- resolution concepts contained in the speech, let's turn our attention more specifically now to that related ideas around negotiation contains in Mandela's address.

Negotiation Concepts

Negotiation involves the identifying and diagnosing at least four broad negotiation concepts, (a) the players, (b) the context, (c) the targets, and (d) the scope or broader impact of the negotiation  (Thompson & Leonardelli, 2004).

Players and their perceptions.   

Mandela showed a broad understanding of the major players involved in the negotiation context. His speech was incredibly inclusive and made reference to a range of stakeholders including, his fellow comrades as well as white South Africans, the working class of the country, the endless heroes of youth, religious communities, traditional leaders, and the  “mothers, wives and sisters of nation.” 

He acknowledged President Mr. F.W. De Klerk specifically and the role that he had played in normalizing the political situation. In doing this, Mandela seemed to demonstrate an astute understanding of the HOISOP negotiation strategy- (Hard on the issue, soft on the person) (Fisher & Ury, 1991). Mandela emphasized that whilst he regarded De Klerk as a man of integrity, he (Mandela) used this international platform to put pressure on De Klerk to carry out his commitments with what some might perceive as a veiled threat when he noted the “ dangers of a public figure not honoring his undertakings.”

Another important negotiation concept is that of the negotiating parameters or mandate ( Kennedy, 1997). Mandela was clear that certain conditions needed to be fulfilled before negotiation could actually begin. This brings us to the notion of context.

When diagnosing a negotiation context or exigency, it is critical to examine the overarching environmental factors including (a) the balance of power in a negotiation, (b) whether the negotiation works from a positional base or an interest base and (c) any constraints that may be impacting on either party (cultural, religious or decision making processes) (Lewicki, Barry, Saunders & Minton, 2004).

For more than 40 years the National government held the balance of power, actually banning the A.N.C. and the South African Communist Party. During this time, the A.N.C. adopted an approach of armed resistance. Both parties had taken a largely positional base with neither side being willing to make any form of concession. He shows an appreciation that certain constituents or players might find it difficult to understand the reasons for the on going “struggle”. The word “struggle” is used at least eight times throughout the speech and refers to the ongoing conflict against apartheid between the African National Congress and the white minority Nationalist government.

As far as negotiation itself is concerned, Mandela went to great pains to explain that he had never entered into negotiations about the future of the country with the National party. This is an important statement. He also made the point that negotiation could only take place when the context was right and the players and the substance of the negotiation had been agreed. Part of understanding negotiation context also involves a deep appreciation for any potentially toxic issues which either need to be dealt with in the context of negotiation or deferred to a later date. In acknowledging all of the players involved in the negotiation, Mandela is also clear in outlining the targets or goals for his constituency.

When considering targets in the negotiation it is important to prioritize the overall goals that both parties are driving towards. It is also helpful to be able to identify if any of these goals are shared and if so to what extent they may provide synergy or goodwill in the negotiation process. By identifying both the issues and priorities for each party as well as a clear mandates, the way is cleared for each party to identify a

BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) (Fisher & Ury, 1991). The  stronger a party’s BATNA, the more alternatives or leverage they bring to the negotiation. Mandela outlined the fact that negotiations on the dismantling of apartheid would have to address the overwhelming demands for a democratic nonracial and unitary South Africa. For this to take place there would need to be an end to the white monopoly on political power. Quite clearly at this stage of the process, there is no viable alternative other than a bloody civil war. The targets also involve   critical timing parameters on the negotiation. Mandela made the point that A.N.C. had waited too long for freedom and could no longer wait. He added that “now is the time to intensify the struggle on all fronts.” In so doing Mandela revealed that unless their demands were met, the A.N.C. did have the option of a clear and determined walk-away position. This speech, and the conflict resolution and negotiation concepts is sought to address had far reaching consequences and impact for the country, for Africa and for the world. This brings us the to the question of negotiation scope.

The scope of a negotiation examines the scope broader impact of agreement. This speech set the tone for fundamental restructuring of the political and economic systems of South Africa and set out to demonstrate how by ensuring that  the inequalities of apartheid were addressed, South African our society could be thoroughly democratized. The speech therefore had a far- reaching scope with a potentially massive impact on the National Party, the A.N.C. and its allies and all of South Africa. Mandela made this point clearly in the end of his speech, somehow sensing the mood on the fringes of the crowd and appealing to his immediate audience not to do anything that would make others say that his organization could not control their own people.

Zarefsky (2008) showed that any insightful rhetorical analysis should relate the particular rhetorical work to some consideration beyond itself. This leads us to the final section of the paper where we will examine the cause and effect ink between the communication concepts outlined and the outcomes of Mandela’s address.

Evidence of Cause-Effect Relationship between Concepts and Outcomes in Communication.

In this paper, I have attempted to show a causal relationship between the way that Mandela’s speech was planned, structured, articulated, and delivered and the eventual outcome of the speech as a communication tool. Rhetorical praxis makes use of what is know as a deliberative arguments   about what can, should, or must be

done in certain rhetorical situations, based on persuasion about the future possible effects of such actions. In reinforcing this cause and effect link, I wish to make reference to the STAR technique of rhetorical analysis. STAR refers to whether the rhetoric/speech contains an argument that demonstrates (a) sufficiency, (b) typicality, (c) accuracy of evidence, and (d) relevance (Ramage, Bean & Johnson, 2007).

Sufficiency

Mandela made strong claims these were backed up by his own character, his understanding of his audience, his awareness of the political and global significance of the moment of his release. The examples that he gave were clear, concise and well thought through. This is not the speech of a man simply looking to sway the emotions of his followers and incite them to blind loyalty.  Mandela adopted a collaborative, conciliatory tone that set the platform for possible future dialogue.

Mandela expressed typicality in his speech, In other words the examples that he uses, the concepts that he shared and the strategy that he laid out are all communicated in a simple, logical way. The examples that he used, in putting forward his argument that apartheid had not future, were representative of the issues of the day. His use of a solid opening, body and closing, the rhetorical devices and the supporting evidence all made the speech easy for his audience to comprehend.

Accuracy of Evidence

Mandela was careful to appeal to the emotions of his audience given the euphoria around his release, but at the same time he was very measured in his message. He reduces his argument to a few key points and avoided using inflammatory or inciteful language that could have sparked a mass hysteria. He used measured tones and a very logical thought process with accurate evidence thus ensuring that his argument was well presented and though through. The fact that he quotes verbatim from his trial 27 years prior to this moment also reinforces the accuracy of the evidence he provides and offers a strategic thrust to his argument.

  Relevance is concerned with ensuring that any rhetorical communication is persuasive in the presentation of its argument. Mandela demonstrated tremendous appreciation of the audience’s expectations. He also revealed that he was not going to say too much without further consultation.

All of these factors weigh heavily in determining his success in delivering his message and ensuring a duplication of ideas.

Andy Brough is a leadership, communications and organisational development consultant and presentations skills coach. He can be contacted at andyb[at]andrewbrough[dot]com  

Banks, W. P. (n.d.)  A short handbook on rhetorical analysis.  Retrieved September 30, 2009 from http://english.ecu.edu/~wpbanks/rhetoric/ra5_commonplaces.html .

Crowley, S., & Hawhee, D. (2003).  Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students . NY: Longman.

Cyert, R. & March, J. G. (1963).  A behavioral theory of the firm.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ:   Prentice Hall.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes . London: Random.

Gross, M. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An application of the competence model to Rahim’s organizational conflict styles.  The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11  (3), 200-226.

Kennedy, G. (1997).  Everything is negotiable . London: Random

Lewicki, R., Barry. B., & Saunders, D. M. (2007).  Negotiation: Readings, exercises and cases.  NY: McGraw Hill.

Lewicki, R., Weiss, S. E., & Lewin, D. E. (1992). Models of conflict, negotiation and third party intervention: A review and synthesis . Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13 , 209-252.

Mandela,  N. (1990). Apartheid has no future.  Vital Speeches of the Day,  56  (10), 295-297.

March, J., & Simon, H. A. (1958).  Organizations,  Wiley, New York.

Morgan, N. (2003). Opening options: How to grab your audience’s attention.  Harvard Communication Letter, July,  1-4. 

Ramage, J.D., Bean, J.C., & Johnson, J. (2007).  Writing arguments: A rhetoric with readings  (7 th  ed). NY: Longman.

Spoelstra, H. I. J., & Pienaar, W. D. (1991).  Negotiation theories, strategies & skills.  Cape Town, SA: Juta.

Thompson, G., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2004). Why negotiation is the most popular business school course.  Ivey Business Journal Online, July-August , 1-8.

Zarefdky, D. (2008). Knowledge claims in rhetorical criticism.   Journal of Communication 58, 629-640.

If you're interested in this, or any of our other offerings, please send your details below and we will be in touch to discuss your requirements.

• < Previous

Home > COMMUNICATIONS > COMMUNICATIONS_STRATEGIC > STRATEGIC_FAC > 26

Department of Strategic, Legal, and Management Communications Faculty Publications

A rhetorical analysis of nelson mandela_s two key speeches.docx.

Chukwuka Onwumechili , Howard University Follow Stella-Monica Mponda Joanna Jenkins

Document Type

Publication date.

November 2015

One of the greatest leaders of our time – Nelson Mandela – died December 5, 2013 bringing an end to a remarkable life from prison to presidency. While scholars have studied Mandela’s speeches (Williams, 2008; Zagacki, 2003; and Sheckels, 2001), few have sought to understand his complexities through a rhetorical analysis of his speech and its resonation for a particular audience – Black South Africans. Analysis of Mandela’s speeches have until now focused on a much wider audience. In this paper, we focus attention on what his speech may have meant for his people – Black South Africans – who he represented in the fight for freedom that led to his imprisonment in 1964. We carefully selected two of his most important speeches and provide a rhetorical analysis of each and in the process we sought to understand who he was. The two speeches are considered the most important in Mandela’s life but they also represent, perhaps, the most important speeches for Black South Africans in the long history of struggle. The first is the An Ideal for Which I am Prepared to Die speech presented by Mandela on April 20, 1964. It is the defining speech of the apartheid era when Mandela spoke at the trial, which would keep him in prison for a significant length of his life. The second, his Inauguration as President speech on May 10, 1994 when he spoke as leader of his country where he and Black South Africans became, for the first time, equal citizens in a democratic republic.

Recommended Citation

Onwumechili, Chukwuka; Mponda, Stella-Monica; and Jenkins, Joanna, "A Rhetorical Analysis of Nelson Mandela_s Two Key Speeches.docx" (2015). Department of Strategic, Legal, and Management Communications Faculty Publications . 26. https://dh.howard.edu/strategic_fac/26

Since September 26, 2016

Included in

Arts and Humanities Commons , Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons

• Collections
• Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

Author Corner

Request forms.

• MSRC Permission to Publish Form and Fee Schedule for Photographs and Other Printed Materials
• Submit MSRC Permission to Publish Forms Here

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Mandelian Rhetoric: An Analysis of Nelson Mandela' s Political Speeches

2015, Linguistics and Literature Studies

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• All Categories

Nelson Mandela

Rhetorical Analysis: Nelson Mandela’s Inagural Speech

On May 10, 1994, Nelson Mandela was elected South Africa’s first black President, in that country’s first truly democratic election. Before his presidency, Mandela was an anti-apartheid activist and as a direct result ended up spending twenty-seven years in prison. He became a symbol of freedom and equality, while the apartheid government condemned him. After his release in February, 1990, he helped lead the transition into a multi-racial democracy for South Africa. The purpose of this communication is to look at Mandela’s effectiveness in his inaugural speech, which occurred May 10th, 1994 in Pretoria, through both the written speech as well as his presentation of that speech .

Mandela uses primarily the channels of ethos (character) and pathos (emotion). Through careful examination of both Mandela’s written work (his speech) and his actual presentation of that speech, I believe that Mandela’s written speech is a very effective piece of communication and thus argument. On the other hand, the way that Mandela presents and argues it, although effective, has its flaws.

Mandela’s written speech is eloquently written, in flowing sentences with dramatic and convincing language. His writing is uses many analogies. These are effective because it brings almost a third dimension to his speech. For example, “each one of us is as intimately attached to the soil of this beautiful country as are the famous jacaranda trees of Pretoria and the mimosa trees of the bushveld.” Here he uses not only an analogy, but also relates it intimately towards the people of South Africa. Not only here, but through his writing he relates well to the people of South Africa (his audience) well. He speaks directly to them in fact, identifying himself as one of them.

This can be seen through Mandela referring to himself as “I” and to his audience not just in the informal, “you,” to break down a barrier, but in the very personal, “we,” thus including himself, and making himself a part of. This draws him closer to his audience through making his audience feel closer to him. Everything is an Argument talks about this, in Chapter 3, Arguments Based on Character, “Speaking to readers directly, using I or you, for instance, also enables you to come closer to them when that strategy is appropriate.” Through the use of analogies and his relation to the audience Mandela does two things; one establishes his credibility with his audience by becoming one with them, and two inspires them by touching their heart.

Another rhetorical device that Mandela uses which makes his writing effective is anaphora. Defined by americanrhetoric.com, this device is, “repetition that occurs when the first word or set of words in one sentence, clause, or phrase is/are repeated at or very near the beginning of successive sentences, clauses, or phrases; repetition of the initial word(s) over successive phrases or clauses.” One example of this device being used in by Mandela in this speech is, “Let there be justice for all. Let there be peace for all. Let there be work, bread, water and salt for all. Let each know that for each the body, the mind and the soul have been freed to fulfill themselves.” Here is another example of this device being used, “Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world.” In both examples this is effective because on top of the strong ideas and sentiment being proposed, due to the repetition, it is being almost branded into the audiences head.

I have watched Mandela present this speech several times , watching for what I believe are his strengths and weaknesses in making this a more effective argument. When Mandela speaks, there is hardly any inflection in his voice. However, simultaneously the tone of his voice does command respect from his audience. While Mandela speaks, he also uses no hand gesture, or gesture of any other form at all, nor makes any sustained eye contact at all. He holds his speech notes in his hand, and that is all, referring from notes and looking briefly at his audience, pausing and then looking back at his notes. One might say that this detracts from the effectiveness of his speech, in this reviewer’s opinion, I do not necessarily know if that is truth. I am not sure whether or not Mandela’s performance adds much to the written work, I think it is the fact that the speech is written so well that makes this speech such a top-notch argument and piece of communication; however I do not think that anything that Mandela does or does not do takes away.

While watching Mandela present his speech something that this reviewer also paid attention to was how his audience received Mandela which speaks loudly to the effectiveness. The audience seems excited to receive not only Mandela’s speech, but also Mandela the man. This means that Mandela’s argument has been persuasive; he has sold himself! Overall, I believe that Mandela’s speech is an effective argument and has written and presented an effective piece of communication. He has done this through these methods: using rhetorical devices, using pathos and ethos to get in touch with his audience, knowing his audience and thus knowing how to relate to and with them.

Works Cited

University of Pennsylvania – African Studies Center < https://www.africa.upenn.edu:443/Articles_Gen/Inaugural_Speech_17984.html >

YouTube – Nelson Mandela’s Inaugural Speech

AmericanRhetoric: Rhetorical Devices in Sound < https://www.americanrhetoric.com/rhetoricaldevicesinsound.htm >

Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia. Nelson Mandela < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela >

Lunsford, Andrea and John J. Ruszkiewicz. Everything’s An Argument. Boston: Bedford, 2007.

The two books, Lord of the Flies written by William Golding and George Orwell’s Animal Farm, despite the vastly different themes and storylines they both share fairly similar meanings. Orwell’s […]

Claude McKay’s “The Harlem Dancer” is a poem immersed in the rich cultural aesthetic of a cultural renaissance that is unable to conceal its somber song of oppression, even in […]

Truth, knowledge, and the pursuit of happiness are all just words and phrases that signify nothing unless you transmit them power. When people utter these words and phrases it causes […]

Introduction The topic of Obama’s media coverage has sparked numerous debates in several media houses in America. Many of these arguments have taken a comparative study between the previous regimes, […]

In The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, the male figures make a big influence on Jane and help her sanity degrade into insanity. Throughout the story, Gilman includes Janes […]

Is it possible to make classic characters live their own life and seek for answers to existential questions? Is it possible to make absurd be credible? Of course, it is […]

The course Herman Melville charts in his novella, Billy Budd, Sailor, is long and convoluted, perhaps surpassing even that of Captain Ahab and his crazed pursuit of the white whale. […]

Although the claim has been made that the writing of Genesis was influenced by the Babylonian Creation Epic, Enuma Elish, the character and function of Deity in Genesis 1-2 differs […]

The audience witness a total transformation of Lady Macbeth from a powerful, scheming woman to a sad and lonely wretch. By the end of this tragedy she has nothing to […]

On May 10, 1994, Nelson Mandela was elected South Africa’s first black President, in that country’s first truly democratic election. Before his presidency, Mandela was an anti-apartheid activist and as […]

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Rishi Sunak’s government would ban the very boycotts that helped to end apartheid

A bill now in the Lords is intended to protect Israel from any criticism. It goes further than Thatcher ever did when she tried to stop us protesting to free Nelson Mandela

H istoric change was brought about in my home country thanks in no small part to the anti-apartheid protests and campaigns around the world. By boycotting sports, and goods such as wine and oranges, the world put pressure on South Africa that led to the end of the brutal apartheid regime. Now, the UK government is trying to force through an authoritarian piece of legislation that would outlaw similar boycotts – actions that are a vital form of democratic protest. That is, unless my fellow peers stand with me in opposing this bill in the House of Lords.

The economic activity of public bodies (overseas matters) bill , better known as the “ anti-boycott bill ”, is attempting to pick up where Margaret Thatcher’s government left off : banning public bodies from boycotting goods and businesses they believe are conducting problematic activity overseas. The bill is explicit in its focus on Israel, but history shows us that it would also have far-reaching and dangerous consequences for free speech and for human rights too.

More than 60 years ago, the boycott movement launched in London; it soon became the anti-apartheid movement, which I joined and helped to lead throughout the 1970s and 80s. Its aim was to withdraw consumer economic support for goods produced under South Africa’s racist regime, and I was proud to coordinate the kind of anti-racist activities that this government sees as so dangerous now. Among our campaigns were the stickering of apartheid-produced goods in supermarkets, the organisation of student boycotts of Barclays banks, and securing the isolation of apartheid sporting teams from events and venues. Throughout our decades of campaigning, boycotts remained at the heart of the anti-apartheid movement in Britain.

This bill is an uncomfortable attempt to rewrite the history of the fall of South African apartheid. The government’s minister in the Lords claimed last month that it was the concerted efforts of the governments of the world that were to be thanked for their role in forcing a historic change – a gross untruth. The anti-apartheid movement had, throughout the 1980s, few friends in government. Margaret Thatcher had plainly stated her opposition to boycotts and sanctions of any kind and infamously labelled Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress as “ terrorists ”.

The allies we did have were in the public bodies that this bill targets. Student unions, local authorities and others voted with their wallets when their voices were ignored. Reflecting the democratic demands of the people they served or represented, this activity helped to undermine the credibility of the regime that the UK government had sought to protect. By 1985, more than 120 local councils were involved, many declaring themselves “apartheid-free zones”, as too did the majority of universities and colleges. By the time the British government legislated against such “political activity” by local authorities, with its Local Government Act of 1988, it was too late – the apartheid regime was already, thankfully, on its way out.

My experience taught me that the opinions of any current government are not a firm basis for legislating, permanently, against the democratic rights of its opponents. History, too, teaches us that the British people’s international solidarities often exceed those of our political leaders. While slavery remained legal across the Atlantic, British millworkers in Manchester implemented their own boycott of slave-produced cotton . A century prior, the British boycotted slave-produced West Indian sugar en masse while the slave trade continued to operate, legally, throughout the British Empire. From the coordinated efforts of anti-Nazi boycotts throughout the 1930s to the Bristol bus boycott of 1963, such boycotts have often come before the central government recognises an injustice. They are all too often proved right by history, while regularly running in opposition to British government policy of the time.

In many ways, the provisions of this government’s bill go far beyond what was attempted by the Thatcher government. It would ban public authority employees from even stating on behalf of their authorities that they would support a boycott movement were it legal for them to do so, showing a frightening disregard for free speech. It would also give government an almost unlimited ability to demand privileged data and information on decisions made by public authorities.

The bill seeks not only to unequivocally protect Israel from any criticism, but does so at a particularly dangerous time for all who live in the region. It also conflates Israel with Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights, treating these occupied territories as though they were legitimate extensions of Israel and protecting the illegal settlements within them.

If, say, a local council excluded a West Bank settlement-based software company from a project’s tendering process on ethical grounds, then that council and its officers could face huge fines under this bill. The government appears to have forgotten that we have, in this country, a number of obligations under international law in relation to occupied territories – the Geneva conventions being just one. This bill flies in the face of them; in fact, it flies in the face of the government’s own advice on dealing with illegal settlements, and could possibly force public bodies to engage in illegal activity if they are made to engage economically with illegal settlement projects. It is a shortsighted, cowardly and pernicious act when a government undermines its own standing on international affairs for the sake of silencing critics domestically.

In 2006, the current foreign secretary – at the time opposition leader – David Cameron expressed his regret that the Conservative government had allied itself with such a brutally unjust regime in South Africa. This “regret” now appears widespread in the Conservative party, not least since the passing of the great man Mandela. But with this bill, the government is robbing the British people, and indeed itself, of the ability to be proved wrong by history.

There are many in this country, and many of my colleagues in the House of Lords, who will disagree on the merits or demerits of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement itself, and on the policies of the Israeli government. I hope that all would agree with me, however, in saying that outlawing such campaigns, on the basis of current British government policy, is an absurd way to proceed. The merits of any boycott campaign should inevitably be decided by history – not by Michael Gove’s department for levelling up, housing, and communities.

Lord Hain is a former UK Middle East minister and Northern Ireland secretary of state

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here .

• South Africa
• Nelson Mandela

Most viewed