South Africa had already left Nelson Mandela behind This romantic theory might once have possessed some truth, but the reality is that it ceased to have any relevance years before Mandela's death. The idea that the old man still exerted some mystical power of moral restraint was wishful thinking, to the point that many South Africans actively resent the suggestion that their country of 50 million people was, in some strange sense, dependent on the heartbeat of one man. The world was understandably anxious to mould Mandela into his unique job description as the one human being who just about everyone could unreservedly admire. But that caused us to overlook some hard realities. The first was that South African politicians did plenty of bad things when Mandela was around - including when he was supposedly in charge. A notorious arms deal worth £4.4 billion has cast a shadow over the country's politics for the past 15 years, ensnaring one senior figure after another in a web of corruption. We do not like to remember the fact that this extravagant acquisition of a new fleet of warships, tanks and jet fighters - which would have been of questionable value to the new South Africa even if their purchase had been corruption-free - was approved by none other than President Mandela. There is not the faintest whisper that he did anything wrong or benefited in any way, but some of those around him clearly did. If Mandela failed to curb the venality of his comrades when he was actually president, nor could he in retirement. The proof comes in the behaviour of President Jacob Zuma. While Mandela lay on his deathbed in Johannesburg, a leaked official report laid bare the truth about Mr Zuma's use of public money on his personal home at Nkandla in KwaZulu-Natal province. The president had always claimed that £13 million from the taxpayer had been spent on nothing more than necessary "security upgrades" required by his job. It turned out that his definition of "security" included the public paying for his swimming pool, cattle kraal and chicken coop. As you would expect from a man who lived well into his 10th decade, Mandela had lost the ability to influence events long before his death. Now that he has left the scene, Mr Zuma will continue to rule - or misrule - in much the same way as he would have done if Mandela had managed to chalk up a few more birthdays. None of this, incidentally, reflects badly upon Mandela. On the contrary - one of his most laudable qualities was a rare willingness to acknowledge, or even insist upon, his own dispensability. In a continent where leaders cling to power for decades, Mandela chose to surrender the presidency after only one term of five years. One of his great missions was to build a South Africa of laws and institutions, not a frail place dependent on transient individuals. And there lies the greatest hope for the future: despite everything, South Africa has an enlightened constitution, a free media capable of exposing Mr Zuma's excesses, a vociferous opposition, and genuinely independent judges. The resilience of these institutions - which are, admittedly, being tested by Mr Zuma, and by the ANC's hegemony - is what sets Mandela's homeland apart from most of Africa. Mandela's real monument is a country that does not depend on him. And if his funeral has no lasting political importance, that will be exactly what he would have wanted.