As we approach Mandela Day on 18 July, some reflection on the global celebration of his birthday and the encouragement of selfless acts to honour his legacy serves to cement what we already know – seldom has any public figure been so respected, by so many and for so long.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that he was the icon of our time, a man whose popularity and persona has transcended every political spectrum, cultural affiliation, ideological standpoint and racial demographic – in short, just about everybody loved the man. Brand Madiba is a powerful, visible and unifying symbol of the triumph of the human spirit, and chances are that this will only continue to grow for decades to come.

When we delve a bit deeper into Mandela the leader, however, some contradictions start to show themselves. Here was a man who was selflessly devoted to his nation, who gave away the best years of his life so that his country and its people could emerge from the scourge of apartheid with hope for a better future for all South Africans. Yet he could not make time for his own family even when he became a free man. He was married three times and his kids speak sadly of growing up devoid of any father figure.

The cold fact is that as a family man Mandela was largely a failure. This can, perhaps, be explained away by focusing on his dangerous and unpredictable life as an activist and freedom fighter, and later by his punishing schedule post-release as our first democratically elected President. But there are those who would argue that this is a choice, and Mandela chose his calling over his children.

Is this the paradox of leadership? Does committing yourself completely to a cause greater than yourself mean you also have to give up that which many would say is the most important thing of all? One would think that as the leader, the boss man, the President, one could create balance and insist on carving out time for family, as we have seen from other great statesmen and women in the past such as Barack Obama and his wife Michelle.

One of Mandela’s greatest strengths was the ability to build bridges, to get people from opposite ends of the spectrum to come together, to sit around the table and compromise for the greater good. One well-known example was his support for the 1995 World Cup-winning (and predominantly white and Afrikaans) rugby team, an act so magnanimous at the time that it even spurred a Hollywood movie.

However, this willingness to compromise and accommodate is also seen by many as one of his greatest failings. When we consider that our economy remains largely untransformed and far too many people in SA still live in poverty, it is no surprise that there is a growing chorus of voices who believe that Mandela sold out too easily to white interests and was too soft in seeking redress and retribution from the apartheid government. In his desire to create a Rainbow Nation, did he whitewash certain hard truths and necessary processes that may have made the foundation on which the new SA is built a lot more solid?

There are several other instances where this great man exposed his flaws and contradictions. He was forgiving of ruthless dictators like Muammar Gaddafi and courted the likes of Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat while happily accepting and encouraging aid from the ideologically polar opposite West. Was Madiba two-faced or is this duality simply a necessary evil, another example of the paradox of what it means to be a leader?

Catherine Wijnberg likes to say that “nobody is a full box of chocolates”. We all have strengths and weaknesses, clarity of vision and also blind spots. Were Madiba’s contradictions and failings simply proof that he, too, was human like the rest of us, or were they par for the course when one assumes the mantle of great responsibility as a leader?

Does leadership by its very nature cause these paradoxes, or does it simply expose what was already there? We know that there are many different approaches and styles when it comes to being a leader – servant, autocratic, transactional, democratic, situational and others – and common sense would dictate that leaders choose the style and approach that most fits their personality and worldview.

Mandela is well known for having been uncomfortable with being elevated to the level of sainthood or being viewed as someone who could do no wrong, which already classifies him as a very rare breed of statesman in a world where so many in his position are comfortable presenting themselves as infallible. This is part of the reason why his legacy remains so powerful today.

When we reflect on Mandela’s successes and failures, whether we agree or disagree with the choices that he made and the state of our nation today as a result, we can acknowledge that being a great leader does not mean being perfect or without flaws. It does not mean always making the right choices and being morally without reproach.

Great leaders are able focus on the prize, to transcend their own shortcomings and still get those they lead to work together to achieve a desired goal. In Madiba’s case this goal was a peaceful transition to democracy for a fractured and deeply divided society, and in this regard we can all acknowledge that he has earned every accolade.