Mandela vs. Trump: A Hypothetical Debate on the European Accessibility Act

Introduction

In this imagined debate between Nelson Mandela and Donald Trump, the topic of the European Accessibility Act (EEA), which seeks to make businesses and public spaces more accessible to people with disabilities, takes centre stage. Mandela’s arguments for inclusivity and justice stand in contrast to Trump’s emphasis on economic freedom and minimal regulation. Of course; both have been presidents of highly challenging times in history which cannot be compared. However thediscussion provides accessibility and business leaders with an look at how accessibility impacts the economy and raises questions on prioritisation the needs of competition now vs building a better more stable company for a long-lasting future and legacy.

What’s my reason for this?

Exploration and interest. I wanted to understand different perspectives of people across our history on accessibility and what’s happening today. What better than a debate? Understanding different perspectives regardless of if I agree or disagree is an important part of empathising and learning how to create the change and vision of better and inclusive world.

The content is an experimental piece explored through the use of generative AI. It is all fictional, apart from this section I have not edited anything and I cannot comment nor validate the statistics or points presented. However, I hope the discussion offers something thought-provoking, as it did for me.

‘If we truly believe in free markets, then we must recognise that a market that excludes millions of people isn’t truly free.’ — Fictional Nelson Mandela

Opening Statements

Mandela: “Thank you. Today we are here to discuss a matter that transcends the narrow focus of profits and loss. It is about the fundamental dignity of all human beings and our responsibility, as societies and business leaders, to create an environment that allows every person to participate fully.

The European Accessibility Act is not merely a set of rules. It is a statement of values. It declares that every individual — regardless of physical or mental ability — deserves the right to access public spaces, digital services, and employment opportunities. This is not charity; this is justice.

For businesses, accessibility is a long-term investment in human capital, in untapped markets, and in the strength of our economies. We cannot build prosperous economies by excluding millions of people who want to contribute but are denied the opportunity. In South Africa, I led a nation out of oppression and toward inclusivity. It wasn’t easy, but in doing so, we created a more stable, just, and prosperous society. Our economic reforms, underpinned by inclusive policies, played a crucial role in stabilising our economy. After apartheid, South Africa saw an average GDP growth rate of about 3% in the early 2000s, with sectors like financial services experiencing double-digit growth. Expanding economic opportunities to the previously excluded proved to be a sound strategy for both justice and economic growth. The EEA offers Europe a similar opportunity.”

Trump: “Thank you, Nelson, and thank you to everyone here. Let’s be clear: accessibility is important, absolutely. But the European Accessibility Act — this is government overreach. And what happens when you pile on too many regulations? Businesses suffer. Especially the small businesses. They’re the backbone of our economy, and we cannot afford to cripple them with rules that are going to cost them money and stifle innovation.

I’ve built an empire — I know what it takes to run a successful business. It’s not done by burdening companies with too many regulations. You let them innovate, you let them figure out their own solutions. The private sector knows how to solve problems better than any government.

Look, I support accessibility, but not by force. Businesses should be encouraged, not coerced. We need to focus on economic growth, jobs, and entrepreneurship. Let’s keep Europe competitive by giving businesses the freedom to innovate on their own terms, not through government mandates. Look at America, where we grew the economy by cutting regulations — during my presidency, GDP grew by an average of 2.5% annually, unemployment dropped to historic lows of 3.5%, and business investment surged, all thanks to reducing the regulatory burden.”

Debate on Economic and Business Impact

Mandela: “Donald, while your points about economic growth are notable, we must remember that businesses thrive when they embrace adaptation and inclusivity. The European Accessibility Act isn’t a burden; it’s an economic opportunity. By making businesses accessible, you’re tapping into a market of over 135 million Europeans with disabilities. It’s an untapped consumer base that businesses are currently overlooking. The EEA opens doors not just for consumers, but for potential employees, innovators, and contributors to the economy who, when included, will help drive productivity and growth.

Look at South Africa, where inclusivity became a core part of our post-apartheid economic strategy. By expanding access to markets and employment for previously excluded groups, we saw economic gains, greater social cohesion, and enhanced consumer spending. Accessibility drives innovation because it forces businesses to think about how they can meet the needs of a diverse range of customers.”

Trump: “I understand the moral case you’re making, Nelson, but let’s be realistic — when you impose these kinds of regulations, you’re putting unnecessary costs on businesses. Especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The big corporations might be able to absorb the costs of compliance, but what about the family-owned stores? The small businesses that are already dealing with tight margins? You’re talking about retrofitting buildings, upgrading digital infrastructure, and complying with complex legal standards. That’s not cheap. For some, it’s not even feasible.

And let’s not forget what happens when businesses are forced into these expenses — they pass those costs on to consumers, and that’s going to lead to higher prices for everyone. I’m all for accessibility, but we need to get there through incentives, not mandates. Offer tax breaks for businesses that voluntarily upgrade, provide grants, and let the market naturally adjust.”

Mandela: “Donald, the cost of exclusion is far greater than the cost of inclusion. By not making their businesses accessible, companies are not just avoiding compliance — they are turning away millions of potential customers. The fact is, those family-owned businesses you mentioned could benefit the most from accessibility. When their doors are open to all, including people with disabilities, they will see increased foot traffic, higher sales, and better customer loyalty.

Moreover, we have examples across Europe, where businesses that embraced inclusivity and accessibility saw a marked improvement in their reputation and customer base. Yes, there are initial costs, but accessibility pays off in the long term. Just like any investment in growth — be it digital transformation or expansion into new markets — making your business accessible sets you up for success. It’s about creating a more resilient economy, not just a quick fix.”

Trump: “I’m glad you’re thinking long-term, Nelson, but let’s be honest — businesses live in the present. When you’re trying to keep the lights on, you don’t have the luxury of waiting for a long-term payoff. You have bills to pay, employees to support, and products to sell. That’s why I’m advocating for a lighter regulatory touch. The market can adjust on its own. Let businesses find innovative, cost-effective ways to become accessible without forcing them into bankruptcy. Look at Silicon Valley — tech companies are already building accessible solutions without government mandates.

If we pile on regulations, we risk losing competitiveness. Businesses should be free to operate, innovate, and serve their customers in ways that work for them. And when businesses succeed, everyone benefits — people with disabilities included.”

Mandela: “Donald, I agree that incentivising businesses is important, but relying on incentives alone has its limitations. While innovation is crucial, we cannot assume that every business will voluntarily prioritize accessibility without a clear framework in place. The reality is that incentives may work for some, but they often leave vulnerable groups dependent on whether a company feels it’s worth the effort or not. Accessibility is not a luxury or something that should only be adopted if it’s convenient — it’s a right.

Think about it this way: basic safety regulations exist for a reason. We don’t ask companies to ‘innovate’ around fire safety or food standards — we set minimum expectations to protect people. Accessibility should be viewed in the same light. By creating a strong, yet flexible framework through the EEA, we’re not stifling innovation, we’re establishing equality of opportunity — a foundation that allows businesses to grow while serving all members of society. The market can still innovate on top of this, but the fundamental right to access should not be left to chance.”

Trump: “Nelson, I get where you’re coming from, but you have to be careful when you start comparing accessibility regulations to basic safety standards. Safety rules are about preventing immediate harm, and no one argues against that. But accessibility is different — it’s about opportunity, not imminent danger. I’m not saying it’s not important, but we can’t treat them the same way.

Let me explain: when you create a rigid framework like the EEA, you run the risk of turning a good intention into red tape. Businesses — especially small ones — could get bogged down by bureaucracy. Instead of driving growth and innovation, they’ll be focused on compliance. That’s not what we want. Sure, some companies might not act without incentives, but the market is efficient. If there’s a demand for accessibility — and there clearly is — businesses will naturally respond because it makes good business sense.

Look, I’m all for leveling the playing field, but over-regulating could do more harm than good. You want to make sure inclusivity becomes part of the culture? Let businesses see the benefits of doing so, not just the mandates. Companies that innovate will thrive, and that’s what keeps economies competitive. Too many rules, and you’ll stifle the very creativity and growth that we’re trying to encourage.”

Conclusion: A Choice for Business Leaders

The debate between Mandela and Trump presents business leaders with a critical choice. Nelson Mandela advocates for a future built on inclusivity, where accessibility becomes a driver of growth and innovation, and the moral duty to create a fairer society is a central part of economic success. Donald Trump, meanwhile, argues that economic freedom and minimal regulation are the keys to innovation and competitiveness, cautioning against overburdening businesses with government mandates.

Both perspectives offer insights, but it’s clear that the future of business in Europe will be shaped by how companies respond to the European Accessibility Act and its implications for growth, customer engagement, and long-term sustainability.