The Freedom Struggle in South Africa
by Franz J. T. Lee
Introduction
The
following two articles have been published in the August and September issues
of the London monthly magazine, „Africa and the World”, as a contribution to
the present urgent discussion on the possibilities and requirements of a united
liberation struggle in Southern Africa.
The
discussion centres around four topics:
(a) Unity within each territory.
(b) A strategy between the freedom-fighting
movements and the independent African states.
(c) A plan for actual transition to majority
rule.
(d) A theoretical and practical plan for
societies envisaged after liberation.
As far
as possible I tried to give an objective-real and subjective-intended analysis
of the liberatory movements, in line with she latency-tendency of the present
development. I tried to base my arguments and criticism on the experience of
the various movements which have marched and are still marching across the
South African revolutionary platform, and have used as much as possible
documents, books and pamphlets of the Unity Movement, but the various opinions
and views which I have expressed do not necessarily coincide with the official
standpoint of the Unity Movement at this stage.
In
general, the tendency today is toward unity, but the present cannot be
artificially demarcated from the immediate past which determines it, and thus I
have attempted to give a historical background of the development of the
liberation movement from ca. 1900 till today. In my second article I tried to
review the struggle: Imperialism vs Verwoerd Fascism, and the struggle of these
two against the oppressed masses, further, the national and international role
of the liberals, that unity must be based on principles (for obvious reasons I
did not state which principles, but from the contents of both articles it
becomes clear which I meant), also, the negative role of the Organisation for
African Unity (OAU), and finally, that the Unity Movement has always stood, and
stands for a principled united strategic struggle.
It
remains to be remarked that it is of immediate importance for all those
organisations actually engaged in the armed struggle or which have the same
objectives and principles, to unite with each other and formulate a common progressive
strategy.
The
liberation struggles in the Republic of South Africa, South West Africa,
Basutoland, Swaziland, Bechuanaland, in Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese
Guinea, in Rhodesia and the Congo, all, must be seen and treated as different
fronts of one and the same freedom struggle.
Franz J. T. Lee
Frankfort
on the Main
1st
January, 1966.
Franz
Lee is a South African now studying in West Germany. His youth was spent in the
Transkei reserve among african peasant workers. He attended a mission primary
school and worked for white farms and in factories to finance his education. He
is now on a German special scholar-ship to Tübingen University. He is
representative in Europe of APDUSA.
It is
pertinent to remember that the Boers and the British were rivals in the
military conquest and economic exploitation of southern Africa. They
represented two different economies, which in various respects had
diametrically opposite interests: feudalist and capitalist respectively. With
the discovery of gold and diamonds during the second half of the 19th century,
industrialism developed by leaps and bounds. Within half-a-century South Africa
passed through a phase which took nearly three centuries in Europe.
Gold
and Diamonds
In The
Contemporary Review, J. A. Hobson wrote: “Gold and diamonds, two commodities of
small intrinsic utility and of highly-concentrated market value „keep“ South
Africa. The diamond mines of Kimberley, rapidly developing from 1869 towards a
now fixed output of about £ 4,000,000 per annum, and the gold mines of the
Witwatersrand, discovered only 13 years ago and already yielding at the rate of
about £ 20,000,000 per annum, occupy a place of supreme economic importance in
a country feebly developed in agriculture and in other industries, and sparsely
peopled with some threequarters of a million white inhabitants.“
Within
a short period of time, diamond mining crystallised into a well-organised
absolute monopoly – De Beers Company. Soon, with the help of rich international
financiers, this monopoly controlled the whole gold mining industry too. By
1891, the newly formed Chamber of Mines was most active and fastened its
supremacy upon the industrial development in South Africa.
Nosipho
Majeke, in her book „The Role of the Missionaries in Conquest“, introduces the
next phase in South Africa as follows: „The military defeat of the Africans was
followed by their political enslavement, thus completing the purpose for which
the people had been conquered and their land confiscated. We have said that the
establishment of British supremacy meant the establishment of the new economic
system, of capitalism. The discovery of gold and diamonds had opened up vast
possibilities of development in commerce and industry. This demanded an
ever-increasing supply of cheap black labour for the mines, the farms and
the towns.” (My emphasis!).
„In
other words, African labour was to be exploited in order to build up the South
African State, but the black man was not to be allowed to share in the fruits
of the civilisation he was building.” (A Society of Young Africa Publication,
Cape Town, p. 131).
Towards
the turn of the century, British imperialism dropped all pretence of respecting
the Boers and Africans; capitalist development developed a unified economy. The
two Boer Wars followed. The English won, but in their long-sighted alertness
immediately realised that the bearded descendants of the Voortrekkers would be
supervisors over the millions of potential black workers, which are to be
channelled out of the reserves, and guardians of British invest-ments and
interests in South Africa. Thus they rehabilitated them.
With
the Act of Union, 1910, the Boers acquired political equality with the British,
as co-rulers in this El Dorado. They set about stripping the black masses of
every vestige of political liberty. To ensure that the Boers supported the
British, the constituencies were weighted in their favour.
But
British imperialism took the precaution of counter-balancing this political
power, far in excess of Boer economic Power, by granting the Africans in the
Cape Province a limited vote. The whole economy hung upon the mining industry -
controlled by the Chamber of Mines - and the employment of cheap black labour.
Industrialism
Then
the first world war intervened. A small section of the Boers revolted, but they
were crushed. The majority of the rich farmers already realised what it means
to belong to an economy attached to world capitalism. They invested their
surplus capital in industrial concerns. This interlocking of Boer and British
capital found its political expression in the marriage of Dutch feudalism and
British imperialism: the coalition government of Smuts and Hertzog.
A
secret society, the Broederbond, came into existence; its main supporters were
led by Dr. D. F. Malan, who did not join this coalition, and were devoted to
bringing into existence a Boer Republic „for a thousand years“, ruled by the
elect - the „chosen people“.
Now let
us briefly analyse South African society at this time. On the one hand we have
the White Bloc. In it a small section has concentrated State power into its
hands; also its concomitants: the law courts, the police and the military. It
bolsters up the myth of a master race, a Herrenvolk, a Caliban, who has to
supervise and direct the inferior black race, the descendants of Cham, the
human filth from Pandora’s box. This is the first line of demarcation: the
white superior race versus the coloured inferior race.
Divisions
The
ruling class has subdivisions in itself. Between white worker and white
employer there is a class division, obscured by the racial division. There is a
three-corned conflict between the Boer farmer, the industrialist and the
all-powerful mine magnate.
Finally,
there is the artificial division between the „Voortrekker, Calvinist,
Afrikaander“ and the „smoothtongued, liberal-minded English gentleman.“ The
belief that if a new party gains power in South Africa, then the situation will
change, can only be accepted „with a grain of salt“. No matter which Herrenvolk
party gets into power, the fundamental status quo of racial oppression and
economic exploitation remains unchanged.
The
white worker has a very peculiar position in the South African multiracial
society. Historically he should be on the side of the oppressed but, like his
counterpart in ancient Rome, he scorns manual labour as being beneath his
dignity and prefers to live from the crumbs falling from his master’s table and
on the profits gained by the sweated labour of the millions of toiling African
masses who carry the whole economy on their backs.
Isaac
B. Tabata, in his book „The Awakening of a People“, explains this as follows:
„The white worker rejects anything less than the whitecollar job, which he
guards as his exclusive prerogative by the divine right of his birth and for
which he receives a wage out of all proportion to its value. ...The white
worker lives on the back of the voteless, oppressed black masses. That is why
the white worker . . . supports the plans of the Herrenvolk. That is why he is
willing to join the White Bloc.“ (An All African Convention Publication,
Johannesburg, 1950, p. 3).
Between
the various sections of the White Bloc there existed some emotionalism - but
this was only important when seen as a social phenomenon - an excrescence of a
broader pathological racial emotionalism between white and black.
This
factor seals the two blocs from each other and at the same time camouflages the
real class struggle. It has become a monster, a Frankenstein, a Dracula,
destined to consume the whole society unless some radical
socio-politico-economic change comes about in South Africa very soon.
Tabata
stresses: „The real cleavage is one of class, not one of colour. …But in the
conditions pertaining in South Africa, the clearest class divisions have been
obscured. ...The result has been that the (African) workers have found it
difficult to know who are their allies and who are their real enemies.“ (ibid,
p. 5) .
However,
due to a nearly successful policy of divide and rule and this racial
emotionalism, the non-whites themselves have become permeated. They use this
venomous nectar from the Herrenvolk cup amongst themselves, causing disunity,
dissension and chaos, nationally and internationally.
Same
Disabilities
All the
non-whites suffer fundamentally the same disabilities - they have no political
rights, no real citizenship, no progressive education, no land. Yet strangely
enough, until very late in the 1950s, they regarded themselves as separate
entities. In reality, they were just serving their masters in different
capacities, starved in different degrees, and died at different rates.
Each
group, whether Xhosu, Zulu, Fingo or Sotho, found something by which to regard
itself superior to the other. Each organisation, whether ANC, ICU or PAC, etc.,
found some basis on which to lead a specific group of the oppressed to freedom.
Still
late in the 1950s we have an African National Congress, a South African Indian
Congress, a White Congress of Democrats, a South African Coloured People’s
Congress, etc. Organisations like a „Unity Movement“, or a „National Liberation
Front“, or an „All-African Convention“, could only develop among the most
conscious, revolutionary sections of the oppressed, and naturally, at a slow
but sure tempo. It is noteworthy that exactly the oppressed have guarded these
artificial divisions with an almost religious zeal for decades. Today only, the
oppressed begin to realise that they belong to a „Commonwealth of Poverty“.
Changes
Let us
return to the historical development. Between 1900 and 1935 the whole mode of
living of the Africans had changed radically. Money-economy replaced barter.
Labour on the farms, in the towns and mines replaced cattle-tending and tilling
of communal soil.
Human
relations changed. The tribal relationships and organisation were destroyed.
The fist organisations of the Africans - in the struggle for political liberty
- were formed at the turn of the century.
In the
northern provinces organisations like „Imbunda ya Manyama“ or „Ingqungquthela
ye Zizwe“ were formed. These were not organisations in the modern sense. Each
was centred around a particular outstanding personality who attracted
attention. They were of a federal nature, federating various tribes. Tribal
antagonisms again split these organisations apart.
In 1912
the first African National Congress (ANC) was founded as a protest against the
formation of the Union, and the robbing of further land. Tabata relates: „It
was the first important organisation to be built on the model of European
organisations, with an individual basis of membership. It was, moreover, to
unite all Africans in the four provinces of the Union. . . . But, though in
form the Congress had broken with the past, this did not mean that it had
completely shed the tribalist outlook. It could not be otherwise, for an
organisation is the product of its time. Nevertheless, the ANC was a
progressive step.“ (ibid. p. 9).
In 1919
the Africans formed the Industrial and Commercial Workers’ Union (ICU). It was
intended to be a trade union. But the Africans had no experience in trade
unionism. In the final analysis, the ICU was neither a trade union nor a
political organisation. But it organised a successful strike, involving 8,000
Cape Town dock workers. This event gave the Africans courage.
For the
first time they realised the effectiveness of the Herrenvolk slogan, ex unitate
vires! By 1926 the ICU had a membership of over 100,000. But due to rivalry,
opportunism, careerism, racialism and bureaucracy, both organisations of the
people disintegrated in the next decade.
By
1935, at the time of the Hertzog-Smuts coalition, only the hopeful names of
these organisations still rang in the ears of the oppressed. By now Boer and
English capital were so intertwined that the British did not need the African
vote in the Cape Province as a safeguard any more - due to the three infamous
„Hertzog Bills“ the Africans lost practically all political rights and most of
the remaining land on which they still lived.
500
Delegates
These
laws stirred the oppressed nation. The various scattered organisations sent
delegates to Bloemfontein to hold a conference: 500 delegates discussed the
situation and formed the All-African Convention. Never before, and never
hereafter, was the oppressed so united as at this time. Tabata explains this as
follows: „The All-African Convention (AAC) has been dynamically bound up with
this process of awakening. Its ideas, its policy and programme are an
expression of new ideas and a new outlook foreshadowing the nature of the
struggles to come. We are at the threshold of a great movement . . . it marks
the beginning of a new epoch where for the first time our struggle is guided by
a set of principles . . . where our approach to every problem is guided. . . .
Victory, is not just around the corner. It will be a long and protracted
struggle“. (ibid. p. 159).
This
United Front came as a great shock to the White Government. It made use of
every propaganda device at its command to smash the threat to their Utopia.
Before
we analyse how this United Front was cracked, and how the liberatory movement
among the oppressed has been split into two diametrically opposite tendencies,
led by the Unity-Movement on the one hand and the NEW ANC on the other hand
until the end of the 1950s, let us first scrutinise the role of the liberals in
South Africa and the formation of the Communist Party of South Africa.
In his
booklet „Combat Liberalism“, Mao Tse-tung wrote in September, 1937: „But
liberalism forsakes ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace,
thus giving rise to a decadent, philistine working style and causing the
political degeneration of certain units and individuals in the Party and the
revolutionary organisations. ... As to the origin of liberalism, ideological, political
and organisational, it is the selfishness of the petty bourgeoisie which puts
personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second.
...Liberalism is an expression of opportunism and in fundamental conflict with
Marxism.“ (Foreign Languages Press, Peking, 1960, pp. 1 and 4f).
Pyramid
Very
accurately liberalism in South Africa has also been described in these
sentences. It may help to visualise the political structure as a pyramid. The
masses constitute the broad base, above them are the intellectuals, and above
that again the liberals, while the government leaders constitute the top.
a) The
Relationship of the Liberals and the African Leaders
Ever
since the military conquest of South Africa, the liberals have played a
decisive role in subjugating the African masses. Majeke describes this as
follows: „Briefly stated, liberalism with its ideas of liberty and equality,
supplied the ideological weapons with which the English middle-class in the
17th century and the French middleclass in the 18th century, threw off the
shackles of feudalism and established capitalism. This freedom and equality ...
turned out to be valid only for the man of property . . . not for the worker.
Likewise the ‘emancipation’ of the colonial slave, together with christianising
him, had nothing to do with his liberation, but on the contrary, his
enslavement.“ (The Role of the Missionaries in Conquest, p. 4).
This is
the womb of the so-called „liberals“ and „humanitarians“ in South Africa. The
liberals, in fact agents of British imperialism, were warmheartedly embraced as
friends and champions of liberty in the struggle for liberty. Historically, the
explanation is very simple: the Dutch represented a backward, outdated and
reactionary system of society; the English, in comparison to Dutch feudalism,
represented the forces of progress. Small wonder that the halfconscious African
leaders became confused by their sweet-tongued slogans of „liberty, fraternity
and equality.“ The African did not understand that the liberal acted not out of
goodwill towards the „noble savage“, but due to pure objective circumstances.
Intermediaries
The
liberals had to become the spokesmen of the Africans - the intermediaries
between the nonwhite masses and the ruling class.
Thus
when the Africans took their first political steps, they looked for guidance
from the liberals and to petition the good-hearted White Queen - Victoria - to
tranquillise their grievances. They did not realise that they were asking for
more opium and strychnine in their Socratic cup. They thus failed to place the
liberal where he belongs - in the ranks of the ruling class. He „oils the
machinery of oppression“.
b) The
Relationship of the Liberals and the Rest of the Ruling Class
Today,
still, the liberals are conscious of their role in society. Sometimes they
protest loudly against the apartheid government, nationally and
internationally, but they never go so far as to endanger the interests of the
ruling class as a whole. Their economic gains determine their political
outlook. They are agreed with the rest of the Herrenvolk on one point: the
exploitation of the toiling black masses, as the producers of their wealth.
The
interests of the two camps in South Africa are irreconcilable; there is no
golden middle way. Thus, in spite of all their good deeds, suffering and
personal losses, the liberals are sacrificing themselves on the altar of
imperialism - the remaining pioneers reap the fruits of this self-interest.
c) The
Relationship of the African Intellectuals to the African Masses
The
social position of the non-white intellectual has been very precarious for a
long time. Due to education, some gained privileges. With a pettybourgeois
mentality, they cling to these illusionary benefits. Further, the intellectuals
depend on government employment, worsening their position. These factors have a
profound influence on the behaviour and mode of thinking of the non-white
intellectual. But they can never play an independent role - they are wedged in
between the oppressed and the ruling classes. They must either attach
themselves to the one camp or the other.
d) The
Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA)
Established
on July 29, 1921, the CPSA can be said to have been the first Marxist-Leninist
Party on the African Continent. It was chiefly based on the International
Socialist League, and then already worked in close co-operation with the ANC
and the liberal bourgeoisie. Tabata states its tactics as follows: „It has long
been the CP line either to control or to kill an organisation. It cannot
tolerate a movement or organisation which is not dominated by itself.“ (The
Awakening of a People, p. 127).
In its
revolutionary organ, Liberation, the NLF of South Africa has criticised the
CPSA in the following manner: „Its strategy has been to try to upset the
security of the State to such an extent as to bring about mass reprisals
resulting in international intervention - in the form of UNO. In other words,
it has almost deliberately cut itself off from the masses and is advocating
petty terrorism which is objectively not directly linked with a mass movement.“
Objective
Process
Now, it
is not in my interest, or that of the South African oppressed nation, to take
past in sophistry where antagonistic organisations are concerned, or to attack
various individual leaders. I am purely concerned with the objective
revolutionary process and the role of the various organisations in this
tendency, whether negative or positive, to the deepest aspirations of the
oppressed masses.
And when
I criticise objectively and constructively an organisation, then it is only as
a serious warning, lest a catastrophe may follow. In 1936 and thereafter such a
catastrophe did take place.
The
non-whites who joined the CPSA in the 1920s and 1930s filled in the membership
forms without having the slightest idea of what scientific, revolutionary
socialism or communism really is. The conscious element in the party - the
intellectual leadership - was drawn from the white petty-bourgeois intellectual
liberal section of society. They formulated the politics of the Party.
How
susceptible this section was to ruling class ideas we need not tarry at. In
practice, in every political crisis, the CPSA has failed. Thus in 1936 and
thereafter, due to government counter-action, whole organisations, among them
the NEW ANC and the CPSA, broke away from the United Front. They joined and
supported dummy institutions and took the road of „collaboration“ and
opportunism, with the government and international imperialism. Thus came the
first crack in the United Front, which had inspired the high hopes of an
oppressed nation, after 300 years of tyranny and subjugation.
Two
Trends
From
now onwards we have two tendencies in the liberatory non-white movement: (a)
The one on the path of orthodox Marxism, thus scientific revolutionary
socialism, and (b) the other on the road of „Western bourgeois-democracy,
neo-colonialism, and all its manifold concomitants.“
The
first trend resulted in the AAC developing a 10-point programme, whose minimum
demands are a complete real bourgeois democracy, and a policy of
„non-collaboration with neocolonialist or imperialist organisations having the
political boycott as its weapon.
New
organisations under the banner of the AAC came into existence for all sections
of the oppressed population – the Unity Movement (UM), Society of Young Africa
(SOYA), Cape Peninsula Students’ Union (CPSU), African People’s Democratic
Union of Southern Africa (APDUSA) - from the latter the National Liberation
Front of South Africa (NLF) branched - and other peasant and civic bodies.
In
1943, at the Unity-Movement Conference, where 150 organisations were
represented, the ANC and the Indian Congress were also invited to join. For
several years the Executive of the UM has reserved seats for the ANC to unite.
A special conference was held by the UM on July 8, 1944, for the Indian
Congress to unite - but all in vain.
From
now onwards these organisations have preferred to seek their allies among the
liberal national and international bourgeoisie. Today still, their membership
among the peasants and workers is negligible - in spite of Sharpeville and
other great uprisings.
A
scientific social and ideological analysis of reality they never had, and thus
due to the dialectical oscillation of theory and practice, they have damaged
the liberatory movement for more than furthering it.
This is
seen in toto, and does not forbid us to value the bravery and self-sacrifice of
thousands of Pan-Africanist Congress, ANC or CPSA leaders and members today
rotting and languishing in the Herrenvolk gaols. But our present leaders should
learn from experience and avoid such catastrophic results in the very near
future.
„Freedom
Charter“
In
1905, at Kliptown, Johannesburg, the Congress Alliance was formed and they
adopted a „Freedom Charter“ as their programme - in fact, this is a very bad
form of plagiarism and watering-down of the „ 10-point Programme“. The maximum
demands of it are nothing else than a „Western bourgeois-democracy“ and we know
that this term has lost all meaning and effectiveness today. The „free world“
has also lost all interest in establishing a bourgeois-democracy in an
exrevolutionary colonial country - due to the danger of more Cubas, Vietnams
and Dominicas.
In
1959, the Pan-Africanist Congress of South Africa (PAC) branched off from this
Alliance. In a memorandum published on February 12, 1964, we gather the
following information about this tendency: „(The members of this organisation)
accept the basis of African Nationalism and Pan-Africanism. . . . Politically
we aim at ‘government of the Africans, by the Africans, for the Africans’. . .
. Internationally we pursue a Policy of Positive neutrality, allying ourselves
neither to East or West, to neither of the existing blocs . . . (we are
committed) to . . . the establishment of a nonracial Africanist Socialist
Democracy.“ All this sounds very good - but one should just avoid speaking
about the „Class Struggle“, then you have full support in the „racial
struggle“.
Unity
Movement
Thus,
in conclusion, the only movement which has given the class struggle in South
Africa primary importance is the Unity Movement led by Isaac B. Tabata.
Supporters of this tendency have grown by leaps and bounds. Examples are
published in the following numbers of the Paris Revolutionary Socialist Weekly
World Outlook, Vol. 2, No. 37 (October 30, 1964), and Vol. 2, No. 40 (November,
20):
„The
last six months have seen the All-African Convention grow by leaps and bounds.
In addition to the village committees all over the Transkei, it has now won
over the MAKULUSPAN, numerically the biggest organisation in all South Africa.
„We
have been penetrating also into the towns, where for the first time African,
Coloured and Indian workers and intellectuals are joining as individuals the
new organisation the APDUSA, which has captured the imagination of the
oppressed. . . .
„(The)
policy of the older leaders was the source of the incapacity of the ANC to
extend itself into a real national organisation dynamically connected with the
masses of the oppressed, whose aspirations they claim to express. To this day
they have no roots amongst the peasants anywhere in the country, though the
peasantry comprise by far the greatest majority of the oppressed in South Africa.
. . .
„The
explanation for the policy of the ANC clearly lies to its attachment to the
liberal bourgeoisie. ... It is this reliance on the goodwill of the
representatives of imperialism that dictated their repeated declarations that
theirs was a non-violent struggle - even as late as the Sharpeville days of
1960. In fact it was precisely on this issue of such attachments that the youth
in the African National Congress broke away in 1959 to form the Pan Africanist
Congress. Their stated reason for the breakaway was that the ANC was too much
under the control of the whites. . . .
„Throughout
the country - in the villages, the factories, the farms, the mines and the
kitchens of South Africa - the oppressed and exploited workers and peasants
have rallied to the clarion call of APDUSA. . . . One of the delegates from the
Northern Transvaal reported as follows: (a) That Fita Khomo identified itself
completely with APDUSA; (b) that 5,000 membership cards were required by the
Central Executive of Fita Khomo to rally and enroll their followers into
APDUSA. . . . Now the fascist regime has decided to send an army to Pondoland
in the Transkei in order, they hope, to clean up the area of APDUSA, which has
been growing into a force.“
Thus in
spite of „bantustans,“ „separate development“, etc., the nationalist petit
bourgeois fascist government, which has been in power ever since 1948, cannot
hold the historical development back. The 4,000,000 peasants in the reserves,
the 3,500,000 peasants working on the Boer farms, and the 4,000,000 working and
living in the towns, are striving to fulfil their historic objective, no power
on earth can hold them back in their march to freedom.
The
peasantry has still a peasant mentality, the town workers, especially the
Coloured labourers, have already a proletarian outlook - but APDUSA is striving
hard to unite this agrarian and proletarian revolution, developing it
dialectically to a higher plane - a permanent socialist revolution.
The
oppressed nation is waiting for a spark - a well-organised way out. Due to past
experiences they will not embark on useless adventures, like another pass
campaign or isolated Pondoland revolt. The oppressed nation has not really
challenged the Herrenvolk government seriously as yet. The past wave of sabotage
was just calculated as an embarrassment to the Verwoerd government - none of
these acts were initiated by the socialist forces in South Africa.
Of
course, victory depends much on the external balance of forces also.
International imperialism can no longer maintain a colonial revolution within
the boundaries and control of bourgeois democracy. Popular revolutions by their
inner dialectical logic have the tendency today to become socialist
revolutions. The peoples of the „Third World“ want socialism; they strive for
democracy. And as we know democracy without socialism, or vice versa, are
simply vacuum-empty phrases.
Further,
comrades in the highly capitalised countries can play a vital role in
furthering the socialist revolution in South Africa; contrariwise, comrades in
South Africa or exile South African freedom fighters can play an invaluable
role in advancing the revolutionary movement in the imperialist countries, by
pursuing their own struggle at home, and keeping in contact with revolutionary
socialists everywhere.
Finally,
something about the realities of South African politics:
(a) The
peasantry in South Africa has a long, almost unbroken (and not only since 1948)
tradition of heroic struggle against the Herrenvolk. They have always resorted
to „violence“ and were brutally oppressed. The Pan-Africanist and African
National Congresses line, mutatis mutandis, is that only after Sharpeville
„violence“ was necessary. How anachronistic and anti-historic!
(b) The
influence of the abovementioned organisations (PAC and ANC) on the peasantry
has always been minimal. Until today the AAC , NEUM and APDUSA have been the
closest to the peasantry.
(c) The
South African revolution will be carried forward on the broad back of the
peasantry - 4,000,000 living in the reserves, and 3,500,000 working on the rich
Boer farms. Not, of course, forgetting the close alliance with the 4,000,000
workers in the towns.
(d)
This same peasantry, which for decades have been steeled in the struggle for
freedom, will not run second to their counterparts in China, Cuba, Vietnam,
etc.
(e)
Finally, the attitude towards the peasantry, at the heart of which is the
policy on the Land Question, is a major difference between the ANC/ PAC/ CPSA
and the Unity Movement.
All
these explanations and criticism must be seen in the objective revolutionary
process in South Africa, and not as an attack against individual organisations.
FRANZ J. T. LEE,
Representative
in Europe of APDUSA.
Frankfurt am Main 1.
Is A United Liberation Movement Possible ?
Franz John Tennyson Lee
The
excellent article of Mr. Douglas G. Rogers in the August issue of Africa and
the World - “Southern Africa Needs a Plan for Liberation“ has encouraged us to
publish these objective-real facts, in order to give the world public a better
understanding of the realities in Southern Africa.
Being
members of the Unity Movement of South Africa, we shall chiefly concentrate on
the development in this area, in the hope that the freedom fighters in the
other colonial areas of Southern Africa will make their constructive and
critical contributions.
What
Purpose?
Already
in his „Letter to Nelson Mandela“, on June 11, 1948, Isaac B. Tabata stated the
following on „The Problem of the Organisational Unity“ in Southern Africa:
„. . .
Let me state from the outset that I do not support the idea of organising the
people for the sake of organisation. People can be organised for good or evil
... it is absolutely necessary for every individual to ask himself the
question: what purpose does this or that organisation serve? . . . What is of
paramount importance is the Programme and principles of the organisations. To
put it another way: it is not the subjective good-will of the leaders that
matters, but the objective function of the organisation, what effect it has on
society. In other words, the question to ask is: whose interests does the
organisation serve objectively?“
This is
the only correct approach to the discussion of a united front for the purpose
of liberation of the oppressed masses in Southern Africa, by the present
existing organisations!
Further,
such a united front must have principles. Tabata wrote: „Principles are the
backbone of any movement. To put it another way: any organisation which is not
founded on the rock of principles is a prey to every wind that blows. It was
the failure to recognise this important fact that was primarily responsible for
the fall of so many of our organisations in the past. We have had large
organisations which were at first hailed with enthusiasm. But they have
vanished away, leaving no trace behind.“ (ibid.)
Now a
review of the general situation in South Africa. Verwoerdian fascism today
still, has its roots deep in feudalism. It cannot grasp the complications of
the development of the present world monopoly system. Thus it collides with
internal finance capital. This is the battle in South Africa which receives so
much publicity today.
Imperialism
dreams that Africa „till this side of eternity“ will remain in the orbit of
capitalism, provided that same stooges, Matanzimas and Tshombes will be given a
share in the management of their countries.
Thus
today these imperialist countries (with the exception of Portugal) have the
apercu of granting political independence to their „childcolonies“, controlling
them with heavy investments and „economic aid“.
Further,
it is in the interest of international trade (finance capital) to develop
backward African, Asian or Latin American States to a profitable degree of
economic advancement. Such steps go against the grain of the Verwoerdians.
Thus
Verwoerd struck back with Sharpeville with a ferocity that left the imperialist
world aghast. He outmanoeuvred the liberals in South Africa and outlawed the
Congress Movement. He banned, banished, house-arrested, gaoled, hanged and
murdered the liberals and the blacks. He broke the rules of the game. He turned
members of his own class against him.
Retreat
Defeated
at home, the liberals sought the aid of the international financiers. In their
retreat they covered themselves in a mantle of laurels. They are represented as
champions of liberty in South Africa. Thus they seem to have the sympathy of
the world behind them today. In the African States they are even welcomed with
glory, as „martyrs“ in the cause of freedom.
In this
way they are laying the basis of another conspiracy on an international scale
against the real liberatory movement in Southern Africa. They are canvassing
for the support of the political independent States in Africa without revealing
their true colours and aims.
They
very carefully hide the tremendous struggle of the peasantry in Verwoerd’s
reserves. They do not explain why a permanent state of emergency has been
existing there ever since 1960.
In
Gaol or Hiding
Thousands
of peasants are kept in gaol - and the world knows nothing about them. Many are
banished to scrub and arid areas without food like, e.g., Frenchdale, where
Peasants have been starving for 17 years.
Thousands
have been hiding in the forests and mountains of Pondoland for five years,
where they are starving and dying. Thousands have fled to the British
Protectorates (which are supposed to be free today) where, when they belong to
the Unity Movement, liberal organisations, like „Defence and Aid“, refuse to
help them in any possible way. These policies abroad are the logical
continuation of their policies in South Africa.
With
the aid of the world imperialist press they have succeeded in presenting to the
outside world only their disciples (black and white) as leaders of the real
nationalist movement in South Africa. We need not mention these - as our
article is not directed against individuals but against the objective functions
of the liberals and the Congress movement.
Thus
the „Committee of Nine“, an organisation of the Organisation of African Unity
(OAU) has refused to recognise the numerically biggest organisation in South
Africa - the Unity Movement.
Thus in
December, 1963, a delegation of the All African Convention (AAC) and the Unity
Movement (UM) - Isaac B. Tabata, the leader, Jane Gool, the chairman of the
Working Committee of the UM, and N. Honono, the president of the AAC - appeared
before the Committee of Nine in Dar-es-Salaam. They represented a memorandum,
outlining the complex situation in South Africa, stating the programme and
policy of the Unity Movement. On this basis they made a request for such
assistance as would reinforce the struggle against neocolonialism and for real
freedom in Southern Africa.
After a
month they received a letter from the permanent secretary of the Liberation
Committee, informing them that the Committee had decided to withhold
recognition and assistance to the Unity Movement.
A big
pile of organisational evidence - the constitution of the UM, minutes of
numerous conferences, pamphlets, leaflets and books - was sent, to convince the
Committee, but all in vain. The Chairman, Mr. Jaja Wachuku, replied: „Your
organisations and their activities do not fall within the purview of mandate of
the Committee of Nine. This Committee is for decolonisation.“ The meaning of
this statement was not explained.
The
delegation attended the next session of the Committee held from June 3 to 10,
1964. They were refused a hearing, In a new memorandum to the Committee in 1965
the delegation stated : „In South Africa, when people speak of ‘The Movement’,
they are referring to those organisations which are federated under the All
African Convention and the Unity Movement. The fact remains that these
organisations constitute the main stream of the liberatory struggle in the
country.“
Long
before there was a Committee of Nine or even an Organisation of African Unity
to demand unity among the groups in each country fighting for freedom, the
leadership in South Africa had already established the machinery for such
unity.
Unity
was the very essence of the new political outlook born during the second world
war out of the worldwide ferment among the oppressed peoples to throw off the
yoke of imperialism. The leadership in South Africa saw the unity of the
oppressed in their own country as the first step towards a sustained struggle
for the overthrow of Herrenvolkism and imperialism, not only in South Africa
but the continent of Africa.
Ironical
It is
ironical, then, that the very organisation which based itself on unity and
which for 20 years has been in the forefront of a principled struggle, is
precisely the organisation that is rejected by the Organisation of African
Unity. It is equally ironical that those organisations in South Africa which
broke away from unity are the ones that receive recognition and financial
assistance from it.
It
seems that the Unity Movement, which is pledged to a struggle not only to get
rid of political tutelage but also the economic stranglehold of imperialism in
its country, cannot receive assistance from the Committee of Nine. It further
seems that such a struggle does not fall in the realm of „decolonisation“.
In
Angola something similar has happened. Certain African States do not allow the
unrecognised organisations to transport their army, arms and ammunition to the
field of battle, across their territories. Tragically we have the comical
situation where an organisation has to plead with the Committee of Nine for
permission to fight for liberation against its imperialist oppressor.
In
Swaziland, the main party, the Ngwane National Liberatory Congress Party
(NNLCP), was refused recognition and assistance by the Committee of Nine. This
is the organisation which led the famous „strike“ that brought the British army
all the way from Kenya and Aden to suppress the population. The Swaziland
Democratic Party, built by the White Liberal Party of South Africa and
Oppenheimer, are becoming more and more favoured by the Committee of Nine
instead.
OAU
Advice
When
the delegate of the NNLCP appeared before the Committee of Nine last December
to ask for assistance, Mr. Jaja Wachuku told him: „If you want assistance from
the Committee, your Party must contest the coming elections“. Thus Mr. Wachuku
succeeded in half an hour in achieving what the British Tory Government could
not bring about in months of negotiation.
The
opportunistic behaviour of the leaders of the NNLCP, following the advice of
the Committee of Nine, brought havoc and confusion to the Swazis. The Committee
did not give the Party a penny to run its campaign in June. The money arrived
on June 10 and the elections were on June 23 - thus it was impossible for the
Party to convince the population of the rightness of its volte-face.
Instead,
the Committee has given assistance in time to an insignificant party, led by
Mr. Nquku, who collaborated with the Swaziland Democratic Party. This is really
a spectacle to see that the money voted by the African States for liberation is
advanced for the interests of imperialism, as represented by the Oppenheimer
sponsored group.
The
Verwoerd-backed Party won all the seats in the elections. Thus Verwoerd has
practically taken over Swaziland, and the back door to the liberatory fighters
in South Africa is closed.
The
struggle of the Unity Movement is NOT merely „a struggle to remove Verwoerd as
a first step towards freedom“. Quite truly, the immediate objective is the
national struggle, one man, one vote - which we cannot stop now. It is the
conquest of political power. But here we do not stop! Thus, in conclusion, it
is a matter of deep concern to the peoples of Southern Africa (and Africa) to
know what exactly are the policy and programme of the Committee of Nine, and
how it proposes to set about the task of „decolonisation“.
Either
we have to revise this Committee, or establish a new one. We have to formulate
a clear and positive strategy to counter the imperialist schemes. Else we
become unconscious agents of imperialism. At present we have made an
application to the Excellencies and the Heads of African States, and the
Council of Foreign Ministers, to reconsider our case, and make it possible to
grant our organisations the financial assistance necessary for the oppressed
people of South Africa to carry on the struggle for liberation.
Only
when we are recognised can we sit at the „Round Table“ to discuss about a
„United Front“ or a plan for the liberation of Southern Africa. This we can do
in the Committee of Nine OR at a conference of ALL the liberatory organisations
in Southern Africa.