Comparative Context: The Harmful Regimes of Apartheid South Africa and Escobar-Era Colombia
Both Nelson Mandela and Pablo Escobar emerged in societies deeply scarred by systemic injustice and governmental failure, though the structures of harm differed greatly in South Africa and Colombia. Under apartheid, South Africa legally enforced racial segregation and entrenched white minority rule, relegating the Black majority to a life of poverty, political disenfranchisement, and daily indignities. Black South Africans were denied basic human rights, stripped of land, and confined to homelands that were economically barren, all while facing violent repression for demanding civil liberties. The system crippled social mobility, with institutionalized racism denying access to quality education, fair wages, and meaningful employment. Politically, any opposition was crushed through mass detentions, assassinations, and states of emergency, while the country's isolation grew as the international community condemned apartheid.
Meanwhile, in Colombia during Escobar’s ascendancy, the central government was severely weakened by corruption, inequality, and rampant violence fueled by the rise of drug cartels. The rule of law was routinely subverted as cartels—most notably Escobar’s Medellín Cartel—bribed or intimidated politicians, police, and judges. Citizens suffered endemic insecurity from bombings, narco-terrorism, assassinations, and kidnappings (directed both against officials and ordinary people). Poverty and governmental neglect left large swathes of the urban and rural poor without access to housing, infrastructure, or essential social services, especially in Medellín and outlying regions. Thus, in both regimes, ordinary people experienced profound social and economic harm at the hands of political or criminal elites that perpetuated or deepened national inequality.
Popular Perceptions: Why Escobar and Mandela Were Viewed as Heroes by Their People
Both Mandela and Escobar acquired reputations as “good people” among many of their compatriots, though through different mechanisms. Mandela's heroic status among Black South Africans arose from his steadfast resistance to apartheid, his willingness to endure 27 years of imprisonment, and his championing of equality, justice, and reconciliation upon his release. His leadership empowered decades of resistance, giving hope and strategic vision to the struggle for liberation.
Escobar was widely seen as a benefactor by Colombia’s poor—especially in Medellín—because he used a portion of his enormous wealth to provide amenities denied them by the state. He funded “Medellín Sin Tugurios,” a massive housing initiative building thousands of homes for destitute families, and further invested in schools, hospitals, parks, and sports facilities. He also sponsored neighborhood soccer teams and paid for community infrastructure, earning the nickname “Robin Hood of Colombia” among beneficiaries who had little government support. These philanthropic actions filled an acute social vacuum and fostered profound local loyalty, despite his well-publicized criminality and violence. Mandela and Escobar thus filled the role of protector and provider, compensating for social and political systems that failed to serve large segments of their populations.
The Use of Violence: Mandela and Escobar’s Divergent Paths
Mandela and Escobar both turned to violence as tools to achieve their goals, though the nature and justification for that violence differed fundamentally. For Mandela, violence was a reluctant, strategic response after peaceful protest routes were exhausted and the apartheid regime responded to nonviolent protests with lethal force (as in the Sharpeville massacre). Mandela and the ANC formed Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), aiming for sabotage against infrastructure—intending to avoid loss of human life—as a means to pressure the government to negotiate. For Mandela, violence was always subordinate to the goal of freedom and racial equality; he explicitly stated he abhorred violence morally, but found it a necessary tactic given the prevailing conditions.
In contrast, Escobar wielded violence unscrupulously, deploying targeted assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, and narco-terrorism to advance his control, eliminate rivals, intimidate officials, and resist extradition. He was responsible for thousands of murders, including police, politicians, journalists, and innocent civilians caught in bomb attacks. Unlike the ANC’s sabotage campaign, Escobar’s violence was intrinsic to his mode of power and self-preservation as a criminal lord. Whereas Mandela's recourse to violence was later eclipsed by his leadership in negotiation and reconciliation, Escobar’s regime remained embroiled in unrelenting bloodshed.
The Extent of Good Done: Escobar’s Philanthropy Versus Mandela’s Structural Reform
The social good attributed to Escobar was substantial in scope for Medellín’s marginalized, despite the illicit source of the funds. He provided housing for roughly 12,700 people through major construction projects, built hospitals, schools, parks, and sports fields, and financed local community initiatives where government presence was minimal or absent. These public works improved the living standards of thousands, helping cement Escobar’s popularity and legitimacy within the city’s poorest neighborhoods. However, this largesse did not address the underlying drivers of Colombian inequality and was frequently a means to secure local loyalty and protection rather than genuine reform. Moreover, the violence and chaos his cartel unleashed often negated these short-term gains at the societal level.
Mandela’s presidency produced structural, far-reaching improvements that laid the foundation for long-term social transformation. He ended the legalized system of apartheid, ushered in South Africa’s first truly democratic government, advanced a new constitution enshrining human rights and equality, and championed social grants, expanded educational access, and invested in housing and health for previously excluded Black communities. Crucially, Mandela’s administration established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, promoting healing and accountability rather than cyclical vengeance. His reforms, unlike Escobar’s projects, initiated pathways to durable equality and peaceful coexistence for the whole nation, not just isolated communities.
The Ends: Mandela’s Successful Reconciliation and Escobar’s Demise in Prison
The culmination of both men’s life stories reveals a stark contrast in legacy. Mandela, after being unjustly imprisoned for 27 years, was freed due to relentless internal and international pressure and went on to lead South Africa through a peaceful transition, reconciliation, and real societal improvement. His release marked the start of a new era characterized by unprecedented political inclusion and social progress.
Escobar, however, never achieved any meaningful national transformation and failed to reform the corrupt or violent hierarchies of Colombia. Though he temporarily surrendered—and built himself a luxurious, self-styled prison—he continued his criminal enterprise behind bars, eventually escaping, only to be killed in a police operation. He never left incarceration to effect positive social change, and his death ushered in the rapid decline of his cartel and influence.
Escobar and Trump: Father-Figure Leaders and the Harm They Caused
Both Escobar and Donald Trump have been described as father-figure leaders for significant segments of their societies. For Escobar, that image was grounded in his philanthropy and hands-on distribution of resources to communities abandoned by the state, cultivating loyalty and even veneration among beneficiaries. However, this paternalism was inseparable from the violence, intimidation, and national trauma he inflicted, directly leading to the deaths of thousands and the undermining of Colombia’s social and political fabric.
Trump’s father-figure status is tied to political rhetoric that presents him as a defender and strongman for his base, but his governance has been marked by decisions (such as divisive rhetoric, trade wars, and harsh immigration policies) that many argue have actively harmed American citizens and immigrants. His approach tends to blame external actors—other countries, international organizations, or immigrants—for American challenges, rather than addressing persistent domestic inequalities or the unfair structures within the United States itself. This internationalization of blame detracts from much-needed national reform.
Escobar’s Internal National Focus Versus Trump’s Outward Blame
A crucial distinction lies in the locus of blame and reform efforts. Escobar’s struggle and violence, while damaging, were almost entirely focused within Colombia, directly confronting the government and manipulating national affairs. His “war” drew in politicians, police, and the judiciary, embroiling the country in a devastating internal conflict, but one that was rooted in Colombian social, political, and economic conditions. Escobar sought to reform—or more accurately seize control of—the existing order by working from the inside out, using Colombian institutions, society, and resources (however destructively) as his arena.
In contrast, Trump’s method has been to shift blame for America’s problems away from domestic causes towards foreign actors, thus externalizing responsibility and overlooking entrenched internal inequalities. In doing so, he avoids true structural reform and instead risks further isolating the United States globally, contributing to greater instability and a failure to address the actual social and economic needs of Americans.
Responsible Reform: Why Escobar’s Internal Focus is Preferable to Deflection
While Escobar’s methods were undeniably brutal and fundamentally criminal, the comparison to Trump’s approach underscores the danger of incessant external blame. Escobar’s flawed—and ultimately tragic—path was at least rooted in the realities and transformations of his own country, attempting (however abysmally) to alter the Colombian system from within, whether by corruption, violence, or populist gifting. Sustainable and equitable national reform requires an inward focus that grapples with a nation’s real inequalities and injustices, not a reliance on scapegoating or international antagonism. Trump’s pattern of avoiding internal reckoning in favor of finger-pointing is highly irresponsible, as it neglects mass domestic discontent and deepens global rifts rather than fostering unity or progress.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, both Nelson Mandela and Pablo Escobar were seen as crucial figures—often even benevolent ones—in their countries by the segments of the populations they impacted. Both used violence in pursuit of their aims, but only Mandela channeled his struggle into the peaceful, inclusive transformation of a nation, guiding South Africa from oppression towards reconciliation and substantive equality. Escobar’s violence, while domestically concentrated and temporarily generous to the poor, left Colombia battered and did not realize any true social reform; his ultimate fate—death after failed imprisonment—reflects the impossibility of achieving national good through criminal means. By contrast, leaders who blame others for national woes, rather than addressing their own societies' shortcomings—like Trump—evade and exacerbate the root problems, harming citizens at home and abroad. The enduring lesson is that genuine reform, however difficult, demands an honest, internal appraisal and the pursuit of inclusive justice—not only for national healing but for global responsibility.
