As I write this, Nelson Mandela is still with us. He may even still be living at the end of this year. But this is his fourth time in hospital in six months, and the prognosis for 94-year-old men with persistent lung infections is not good. How will South Africa do without him?
Wrong question. In practice, South Africa has been doing without him for more than a decade - but psychologically, it is just now getting to grips with the reality that he will soon be gone entirely.
For all its many faults and failures, post-apartheid South Africa is a miracle that few expected to happen. Although Mandela retired from the presidency in 1999, 14 years later he is still seen as the man who made the magic work, and somehow the guarantor that it will go on working.
In the past two weeks, however, the tone of the discussion has begun to change. On hearing that Nelson Mandela had been admitted to hospital yet again, Andrew Mlangeni, one of his dearest friends and once a fellow-prisoner on Robben Island, said simply: "It's time to let him go. The family must release him, so that God may have his own way with him ... Once the family releases him, the people of South Africa will follow."
That one comment opened the floodgates, for it had a strong resonance in traditional African culture, which holds that a very sick person cannot die until his family "releases" him.
They have to give him "permission" to die by reassuring him that his loved ones will be fine when he's gone. So South Africans must now accept that they can get along without Nelson Mandela, and then he will be free to go.
It's not that everybody believes in this tradition, but it frames the conversation in a more positive way. People can argue about whether South Africa is doing as well as it should, but they can agree that Mandela got it safely through the most dangerous phase of the transition, and that they can continue the job of building a just and democratic society without him.
Except for President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, of course. Mugabe has always deeply resented the fact that Nelson Mandela is revered as the father of his nation while he is seen as a vicious tyrant who has ruined his country. So he seized the opportunity of a recent interview on South African television to accuse Mandela of having failed in his duty to South Africa's black majority by being too soft on the whites.
"Mandela has gone a bit too far in doing good to the non-black communities, really in some cases at the expense of blacks," the dictator said. "That's being too saintly, too good, too much of a saint."
Nonsense. What Nelson Mandela and his white negotiating partner, F.W. De Klerk, were trying to avoid in the early 1990s was a South African civil war that would have killed millions and lasted for a long time. The 20 per cent white minority were heavily armed, and had nowhere else to go. Their families, for the most part, had been in South Africa for at least a century.
So a settlement that gave South Africa a peaceful (and hopefully prosperous) democratic future had to be one in which the whites had a future. So you either make the kind of deal that Mandela and De Klerk made, in which nobody loses too much, or you submit to a future that would make the current civil war in Syria look like a tea party.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, talking about Mandela's death, said last week: "The best memorial to Nelson Mandela would be a democracy that was really up and running, a democracy in which every single person in South Africa knew that they mattered."
That is still some distance away, but Mandela has laid the foundations. He was the right man for the job - a saint who also understood realpolitik.
Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
Dialogue: Contributions are welcome and should be 600-800 words. Send your submission to email@example.com. Text may be edited and used in digital formats as well as on paper.