By this time, also, Mandela was deeply invested in political activism against the then apartheid regime, much to the frustration of Evelyn who, not only felt neglected by her ever-absent political husband, but whose desire was to return back, with her husband, to their quiet home town, Umtata, Transkei, and live out an otherwise normal (apolitical) life, absent of the sort of ‘radicalism’ that the then disgruntled ANC had since adopted. Mandela, however, had other ideas. He explains in his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, a book he began writing in his prison cell in Robben Island, back in 1975 (the same year Charlize Theron was born – to give us perspective – and, perhaps more importantly, the infamous year that most Witnesses believed would mark the end of the world), the domestic situation he was confronted with:

‘My devotion to the ANC and the struggle was unremitting. This disturbed Evelyn. She had always assumed that politics was a youthful diversion, that I would someday return to the Transkei and practice there as a lawyer. Even as that possibility became remote, she never resigned herself to the fact that Johannesburg would be our home, or let go of the idea that we might move back to Umtata. She believed that once I was back in the Transkei, in the bosom of my family, acting as counselor to Sabata, I would no longer miss politics. She encouraged Daliwonga’s efforts to persuade me to come back to Umtata. We had many arguments about this, and I patiently explained to her that politics was not a distraction but my lifework, that it was an essential and fundamental part of my being. She could not accept this. A man and a woman who hold such different views of their respective roles in life cannot remain close.’[3]

Anyone who knows anything about Jehovah’s Witnesses will know that they shy away from political affairs. The basic idea behind this stance is that they believe that Jesus is God’s duly appointed king, who was invisibly enthroned as such back in 1914, that his kingdom (‘government’) is destined to rule over all the earth in the fullest sense in the (undisclosed) near future, to the exclusion of all worldly governments; in fact, at such time, said kingdom is prophetically said to (indiscriminately) annihilate all governments of the world.[4]

Additionally, one will often hear Witnesses say that they are ‘no part of the world’; this is a statement borrowed from Jesus, as indicating separateness from worldly affairs,[5] a world (our world) that Witnesses believe is directly under the (provisional) influence and rulership of Satan, who, together with his minions, the fallen angels, was unceremoniously ousted from heaven back in 1914 by the newly enthroned Jesus, and, subsequently, confined to the vicinity of the earth; which is why the world is said to be experiencing degenerative turmoil – the prophetic ‘woe’ – emphatic since 1914, which, as we all know, was the commencement of WWI. This unpleasant situation is said to be the case because the ‘terrestrialised’ devil knows he has a short period of time (‘the Last Days’)[6] with which to torment mankind, essentially as an act of vengeance for having been given the boot by the ‘kicknificent’ Jesus.[7]

Such being the case, Witnesses consider themselves subjects of God’s kingdom, the very same government that the earthly Christ evidently taught his disciples to pray for: ‘[Let] thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.’[8] Thus, at their baptism, Witnesses (‘true Christians’) essentially cast their spiritual vote for that celestial government of which Christ is president, and to his assistance, the 144 000 persons shortlisted from mankind to rule with Christ in heaven.[9] Thus, for a Witness to vote at the local elections, immerse himself in politics, sing the national anthem, or, even, salute the flag, inter alia, would be considered quasi-treasonous acts; in fact, for any Christian church to actively mingle in politics – such as is peculiar with, for example, the Catholic church – is deemed a form of ‘spiritual adultery’ (‘committing fornication with the kings of the world’) as far as Witnesses are concerned.[10]

Mandela was a man of action, not the sort inclined to resign himself to an unfair situation, a trait he believes he inherited from his chieftain father, Gadla Henry Mphakanyiswa, of whom Mandela said he ‘possessed a proud rebelliousness, a stubborn sense of fairness, that I recognise in myself.’[11] Not surprising, perhaps, is that Mandela’s Xhosa name, Rolihlala (literally: ‘pulling branches’), has the basic sense of ‘troublemaker,’ a term which, no doubt, resonated with those who vigorously sought to maintain the political status quo of his day, attributing to him heretical titles as ‘communist’ and ‘terrorist.’

Thus, there was yet another element about Watchtower’s ideology that didn’t jell well with Mandela:

‘Over the course of the next year [1954] Evelyn became involved with the Watch Tower organization, part of the church of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Whether this was due to some dissatisfaction with her life at the time, I do not know. The Jehovah’s Witnesses took the Bible as the sole rule of faith and believed in a coming Armageddon between good and evil. Evelyn zealously began distributing their publication The Watchtower, and began to proselytize me as well, urging me to convert my commitment to the struggle to a commitment to God. Although I found some aspects of the Watch Tower’s system to be interesting and worthwhile, I could not and did not share her devotion. There was an obsessional element to it that put me off. From what I could discern, her faith taught passivity and submissiveness in the face of oppression, something I could not accept.’[12] [Italics mine]

And there we have it! Mandela had a sense of justice that spurred him to take positive action – even the use of force, where it was felt necessary – whereas Witnesses often promote a ‘chilax’ disposition, often quoting the likes of Romans 12:19 which states: ‘Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath, for it is written: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Jehovah.”’

It must be admitted, however, that the underlying principle behind that counsel is worthwhile, for, if you read that scripture in context, it promotes the achievement of peace: return evil for evil to no one; if your enemy is hungry feed him; do not let yourselves be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering evil with the good. (That said, history suggests that Mandela and his compatriots did, in principle, attempt that route, to a persistent degree at that… however, to no avail, until drastic actions were felt necessary).

As already mentioned, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in political activism or political reformation; as far as they’re concerned, these are the things that their God, Jehovah, will resolve in his own due time by means of the kingdom. The priority for Jehovah’s Witnesses, therefore, is the preaching of the Word (‘the Gospel’), primarily the ‘Good News’ of the kingdom.[13] Thus, the aforementioned ‘passivity and submissiveness in the face of oppression’ didn’t agree with Mandela.

When denouncing politics, it’s worth noting that Witnesses will often quote Jeremiah 10:23, which states that ‘it does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his own step.’ Thus, for mankind to rule himself is seen as, essentially, presumptions and unfitting. Reference will often be made to all the various forms of government that mankind has explored over the years: monarchs, aristocracy, despotism, communism, even the much lauded democracy, which, as they say, have all failed. Instead, they will advocate ‘theocracy,’ expressed through God’s kingdom with its perfect ruler, Christ.

It should be noted that Witnesses denounce violence and warfare, attributes that are, arguably, not uncommon in politics and revolutions. As conscientious objectors to warfare, Witnesses are known to refuse ‘draftment’ into the army, this, very often, leading to their imprisonment. In apartheid South Africa, for example, not a few (white) Witnesses were sent to DB (‘Detention Barracks’) for refusing the call, notwithstanding religious objection.

That said, in the early 50s, exhausted by passivism, Mandela began entertaining the possibility of a guerrilla warfare; he discreetly asked ANC member, Walter Sisulu, who was on his way to Bucharest for some international shindig, to make a detour to the People’s Republic of China[14] in order to explore the possibility of that nation supplying the ANC with artillery for an anticipated armed struggle.[15] In any event, Umkhonto we Sizwe (‘Spear of the Nation’), the military wing of the ANC, eventually came into being and was active as early as 1961, this, in response to the Sharpeville Massacre that took place the preceding year, where policemen shot and killed 69 people, injuring 180. Regarding the formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe in consequence of the aforementioned, the fugitived Mandela shortly informed a group of journalists that ‘[i]f the government reaction is to crush by naked force our non-violent struggle, we will have to reconsider our tactics. In my mind we are closing a chapter on this question of a non-violent policy.’

Now, ironically, while denouncing violence and warfare, the kingdom that Witnesses pray for will be marked by such violence as it establishes its dominion over the world; we are told that ‘it will crush and put an end to all these other kingdoms’, and that it will be preceded by ‘a great tribulation such as not occurred before, nor will occur again.’[16] Thus, such will be Armageddon (‘God’s war against the nations’). Of course, the difference between God’s war and, say, the Umkhonto we Sizwe war, is that God’s war is said to be just.

True, historically, greed may be the foundation to many a wars; but, I think it’s fair to say, not always. The Boer War in South Africa, for example, came about because the Afrikaners (‘Boers’) were ‘gatvol’ of colonial domination by the English; they wanted their freedom and independence from English imperialism; so, naturally, they felt justified in taking up arms. Now, ironically, the same Afrikaners, or, at least, those that happened to achieve political power, began exercising the same kind of domination against black South Africans that they themselves had resented and fought passionately against during the two Boer wars. So, now, fast-forward, the black South Africans, through, inter alia, the ANC (‘Umkhonto we Sizwe’), were also ‘gatvol’ of apartheid, craving self-determination; having exhausted various forms of peaceful resistance against the apartheid regime, their discontent towards this particular oppression escalated to the point where they felt justified in whipping out the heavy artillery. Of course, as sentiments go, the current ANC government is not without its own brand of oppression. And so the wheel turns.

It’s almost funny, really, the sequence of events, and the apparent repetition of history. Why, perhaps there is substance to what the Bible says, eh. Nevertheless, mankind has developed a maxim to justify military action, that is, in the face of unrelenting oppression, namely, the jus ad bellum theory (‘right to go to war’). This theory usually requires the satisfaction of a number of check-boxes before an all-out war is launched: they’re peeving us, tick; we’ve tried talking to them, tick; we’ve attempted non-forceful measures (i.e. boycotting, protesting etc.), tick; nothing is working, tick. A’ight, bring out the machine guns. It’s about to get real up in this here play.

So, it seems to me, now, that what constitutes a ‘just war’ is very often a matter of perspective: the war on terrorism; God’s war against the [wicked] nations; jihad. It all depends on which narrative you give audience to, eh. Thus – if I may be so bold – it appears that God and men are not very different in their outlook; the distinguishing factor, if any, is the level of power and authority.

Truth be told, while Mandela’s decisions, political and otherwise, reveal the makings of an imperfect man, I nevertheless find myself sympathetic to his overarching plight, for I, like most conscientious people I think, am that way inclined; that is, if I can do something to remedy an injustice, I quite prefer to do something, to take some remedial positive action (within the bounds of law, of course), rather than sit on my laurels and wait for some all-powerful benevolent hero to decide to come to our rescue – as Witnesses put it, to ‘wait on Jehovah’ or ‘leave things in Jehovah’s hands’ to resolve matters at his own (undisclosed) time. Phrrrrr. (Yes, true, it might reveal a lack of patience on my part, but hey).

In the face of something nefarious, resigning oneself to doing nothing when one can do something is not only frustrating, but almost unnatural; it’s emasculating; it’s infuriating, especially when the oppression is unrelenting in nature, the reprehensible and egregious sort that could make the likes of Mother Therese go all Rambo.

Noble as these broad ideals might tend to be, the mechanism of their achievement may not have been without fault. Nevertheless, as one newspaper put it: ‘[The] fascination with Mandela stems from the sense that he is on a par with others whose human shortcomings were overshadowed by their contributions to humanity.’ One aspect of such ‘human shortcoming’ did not particularly assist Mandela’s marriage.

‘I tried to persuade her of the necessity of the struggle, while she attempted to persuade me of the value of religious faith. When I would tell her that I was serving the nation, she would reply that serving God was above serving the nation. We were finding no common ground…’[17]

This unrelenting struggle between Mandelyn trickled over to their children as each parent, respectively, tried to make them either politically conscious or spiritually conscious:

‘We also waged a battle for the minds and hearts of the children. She wanted them to be religious, and I thought they should be political. She would take them to church [Kingdom Hall] at every opportunity and read them Watch Tower literature. She even gave the boys Watchtower pamphlets to distribute in the township. I used to talk politics to the boys. Thembi was a member of the Pioneers, the juvenile section of the ANC, so he was already politically cognizant. I would explain to Makgatho in the simplest terms how the black man was persecuted by the white man.’[18]

Thus, a case of two passionate parents, uncompromising in their respective ideologies. As they say in soccer: when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. No one was backing down; no one was winning.

‘Evelyn and I had irreconcilable differences. I could not give up my life in the struggle, and she could not live with my devotion to something other than herself and the family. She was [nevertheless] a very good woman, charming, strong, and faithful, and a fine mother.’[19]

However, more than just the religio-political debate, Mandela’s commitment to the ANC gave birth to yet another form of distress, the sort that has plagued marriages since the inception of that institution: issues of infidelity.

Evelyn thought him unfaithful – true or not true. Word has it that during her station in Durban, in 1953, where she spent several months at King Edward VII Hospital upgrading her nursing certificate via enrolment in a midwifery course, Mandela’s sister and mother remained with the kids at the couple’s marital home in Johannesburg, during which time, the ‘Madiba magic’ is a said to have spilt over onto ‘foreign soil.’ The grapevine has it that Mandela started an affair with Ruth Mompati, his secretary at his fledgling law firm, Mandela and Tambo, est. 1952, who is said to have lodged in the marital home in the absence of Evelyn. The (alleged) ‘home wrecker,’ Mompati, was then (allegedly) duly ousted by the indignant Evelyn upon her return, who (allegedly) threatened to pour boiling water over her for invading her marital home.[20] [laughing] (Disclaimer: Don’t mess with Xhosa women, eh).

If that wasn’t enough, Mandela was dogged by yet another rumour – true or not true – that he had a mistress in the person of Lilian Ngoyi, widow and prominent ANC member, who was seven years his senior.[21] Blah blah blah blah blah…

These events – true or not true – troubled Evelyn and put a strain on their marriage. Mandela explains:

‘My schedule in those days was relentless. I would leave the house very early in the morning and return late at night. After a day at the office, I would usually have meetings of one kind or another. Evelyn could not understand my meetings in the evening, and when I returned home late suspected I was seeing other women. Time after time, I would explain what meeting I was at, why I was there, and what was discussed. But she was not convinced. In 1955, she gave me an ultimatum: I had to choose between her and the ANC.’[22]

Both parties where unyielding. Evelyn’s ultimatum, regrettably, did not favour her in the end. Their marriage had seen better days.

‘After we [ANC members] were arrested in December [5, 1956] and kept in prison for two weeks, I had one visit from Evelyn. But when I came out of prison, I found that she had moved out and taken the children. I returned to an empty, silent house. She had even removed the curtains, and for some reason I found this small detail shattering. Evelyn had moved in with her brother, who told me, “Perhaps it is for the best; maybe when things will have cooled down you will come back together.” It was reasonable advice, but it was not to be.’[23]

I can picture a distraught and slightly irked Mandela walking into his vacant house, dumbfounded, and be like: ‘Eish, she even took the curtains, bantu bagithi, ey.’ (Well, if you know anything about Xhosa women and their strong constitu— O wait, my mother’s Xhosa; let me shut up right about now). *whistling*

Anyhow, I suspect I know why the detail of the missing curtains gripped him so intimately. There’s a sense of finality about it. No woman who has any intention of returning home (anytime soon) would task herself with taking the curtains with her. What is more, missing curtains are a conspicuous feature to outsiders, a detail which – especially in the township – would not be lost to his neighbours. Yep, something’s wrong in that house.

With Evelyn’s departure, it’s worth noting that Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t subscribe to divorce – notwithstanding reports to the contrary – save, on the ground of infidelity (‘adultery’).[24] Separation – as opposed to divorce – is permitted, but only under exceptional circumstances (i.e. physical abuse, refusal to provide for one’s family etc.). The book ‘Secret to Family Happiness‘ (1996) outlines some of the basic biblical prerequisites as Witnesses understand them.