I Am Prepared to Die

The purpose of Mandela’s speech is not to claim innocence in the face of the sabotage charges, as he admits to his prominent involvement in Umkhonto. Rather, the purpose is to use the court proceeding as a prominent venue in which to reframe the narrative. Mandela argues that his actions are justified in the context of the freedom struggle against apartheid. Therefore, throughout the speech, Mandela uses persuasive rhetorical techniques, relying on political arguments, examples of historic protests and court cases, statistics indicating the scope of inequality, and details from his own life and upbringing. Although the speech connects many key dates and events, it notably follows a non-linear narrative progression, as Mandela calls on these events when they are needed to substantiate his points.

The apartheid government had immense power in manipulating public perception. The National Party (the ruling party) had complete control over the state media and could censor any information it did not agree with. On any given day, it was common to see parts of the newspaper blacked out if it did not agree with what the National Party wanted to communicate. Furthermore, many political opponents were banned, which directly prohibited the media from reporting their words. Figures who were banned were also not allowed to attend any gatherings or meetings and were completely isolated from public life.

With the controversial court case resulting in life imprisonment, Mandela understands that this could be a final opportunity to have his voice heard. He therefore uses the widely publicized trial as a platform from which to address his fellow South Africans and people from across the world.

Mandela’s Justification of Political Violence, in light of the unrelenting and increasing Racism and Oppression Under Apartheid, can be seen as part of his larger defense of Democracy and the Sanctity of Life.  

As he is charged with sabotage, Mandela ensures that he speaks on the topic of violence. Though Umkhonto’s acts of sabotage have been designed to minimize the risk of injury or loss of life, state media can report such actions and their motives in a way that suits their narrative. Mandela has to state, from the very beginning, that he is not “under the influence of foreigners or communists” (3). This is to counteract the state’s own narrative of communist involvement. Thereafter, Mandela aims to establish the point that “violence by the African people had become inevitable” (9). This is due to the countless attempts at negotiation and peaceful protest that had failed.

Mandela highlights the contrast between Umkhonto’s comparatively humane political violence and the far more destructive violence of the state. Although the police killing of 69 peaceful protestors at Sharpeville was a massive international news controversy, the apartheid government did not change its ways, and killings at protests in fact became more frequent. Mandela poses a rhetorical question to make clear that he had no choice but to act: “How many more Sharpevilles would there be in the history of our country?” (44).   

Mandela not only addresses the violence against Black people by the minority white government, but also provides important facts about Racism and Oppression Under Apartheid. The apartheid government was a white supremacist institution that relied on oppression in all areas of life to maintain white dominance in a majority-Black country. Mandela asserts that “[t]he complaint of Africans, however, is not only that they are poor and the whites are rich, but that the laws which are made by the whites are designed to preserve this situation” (89). This legally enforced inequality is seen in the educational system, where African children are shut out and white children are pulled ahead through state funding. Under apartheid, African workers are not afforded the opportunities to attain higher education, and they do not have the right to unionize for higher wages. This results in high rates of poverty despite the country’s immense production and resources.  

Africans are further restricted by Pass Laws, which rob them of their dignity and agency. With Pass Laws, police have the right to harass and interrogate any citizen, at any time of the day. Mandela states, “I doubt whether there is a single African male in South Africa who has not at some stage had a brush with the police over his pass” (97). In this manner, the Pass Laws become a way for the state to exert constant fear and control. 

For Mandela, the freedom struggle against apartheid is a fight for Democracy and the Sanctity of Life. This is apparent in the choice of sabotage over other forms of violence, as preserving human life remains most important, even in fighting for his own freedom. Strategic violence becomes important to avoid senseless death. We can also see the theme of life and death in his own sentencing. The apartheid government made many crimes punishable by death, a strategy that Mandela notes failed to curb the rate of crime: “[h]ousebreakings and robberies are increasing, despite the fact that the death sentence can now be imposed for such offences” (98). Crimes of desperation occur because of the inequalities that Mandela outlines. The government’s answer is to increase violence and killing, but, as Mandela notes, “[d]eath sentences cannot cure the festering sore” (98). Mandela’s argument is that Democracy and the Sanctity of Life go hand in hand. Democracy will do what repression and intimidation have failed to do: bring peace to a violent society.

In the final paragraph, Mandela asserts that he has dedicated his life to the freedom struggle, and he wishes to see the birth of a harmonious and democratic South Africa. In closing, he calls this “an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve” (103). He clarifies, however, that if it is necessary, “I am prepared to die” (103). Even though he prioritizes life over everything else, he is willing to sacrifice his own life for the benefit of others.