Trajectories after liberation in South Africa: Mission accomplished or vision betrayed?

Ineke van Kessel, Afrika Studiecentrum

How do former activists reflect on the achievements of their struggle? It is now a generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War; a generation after the release of Nelson Mandela and the end of apartheid; a generation after the demise of the one-party state in most of Africa. In most cases, the outcome is not quite in line with the vision that inspired the people who helped to make it happen. How do people make sense of the processes that unfolded after they won their initial victory?

In my research, I revisit the people and places that featured in my Ph. D. on the United Democratic Front, a broad umbrella movement of hundreds of anti-apartheid resistance organisations that operated in South Africa during the 1980s. [1] Interviews for the Ph. D. were conducted in 1990-91, both with the national leadership of the UDF in Johannesburg and with local activists in three case studies: the Western Cape, Sekhukhuneland (then part of the Lebowa Bantustan, now a rural part of Limpopo Province) and Kagiso and Munsieville, twin African townships west of Johannesburg. The interviews for the follow-up project were conducted in the same locations between 2006-2010.

The United Democratic Front, formed in South Africa in 1983 to coordinate protest against a new constitution that co-opted Coloureds and Indians but excluded Africans from political representation, was the most inclusive social movement in South African history. The UDF served as an umbrella forum for hundreds of organisations, including student movements, youth, women, churches, trade unions as well as community based organisations. These organisations pursued their own agenda, ranging from free text books in schools to liberation theology or campaigns for lower rents and safer streets, but affiliation to the UDF infused these issues with a broader meaning. While tackling bread-and-butter matters, millions of South Africans felt themselves part of the liberation movement against apartheid. The UDF’s vision of a just society was not limited to ‘one man, one vote’ and legal equality. It aspired for a non-racial, egalitarian society in which participation and communalism would be the key values, rather than the political pluralism and free market principles of liberal democracy.

The UDF leadership emphasized that the Front was not a substitute for the banned liberation movements. It would keep the fort until the banned African National Congress would again resume its rightful position. The ANC leadership in exile had given its blessing to the formation of the UDF as a broad front to coordinate the anti-apartheid struggle inside South Africa, while the ANC would continue its underground activities as well as the armed struggle. However, in the course of the 1980s, the UDF developed its own distinct political culture: the core goals were shared by all affiliates, but modes of expression and political action varied considerably between affiliates as well as between different geographical regions.

After the unbanning of the African National Congress in 1990, the UDF disbanded in the following year. UDF activists joined the scramble for positions, first within the ANC, and subsequently in the government of post-apartheid South Africa, at the national, provincial and local level. While the primary goal – the abolition of apartheid – has been accomplished, post-apartheid South Africa is a far cry from the erstwhile ideal of a non-racial egalitarian society. The 1996 constitution has been praised worldwide as a state-of-the-art model of liberal democracy, but it is quite remote from the egalitarian grassroots democracy envisaged in the 1980s. Inequality has increased post-1994, in spite of considerable accomplishments in sectors such as infrastructure, housing, water, electricity and social welfare.

Did the leaders of the UDF and the ANC betray the goals of the liberation struggle when they joined the comfortable life of the middle class and the business elite? Or did South Africa realistically have no other options available amidst the triumphant neo-liberalism of a rapidly globalizing world? My research explores the legacies of the UDF: how do former activists make sense of present-day South African society? There is a burgeoning academic and popular literature on this subject, ranging from political economy perspectives to cultural studies. The case for ‘betrayal’ is argued by Patrick Bond, John Saul and many others.[2]Other authors (John and Jean Comaroff, Steven Robins) take a different perspective and focus on the upsurge of identity politics in post-apartheid South Africa.[3]

In my own research however, I have opted to focus on the perspectives and interpretations as formulated by former UDF activists. If there is talk of ‘betrayal’, people mostly refer to former fellow activists who have embarked on successful careers without taking their ex-comrades on board. Those who feel left behind tend to blame their immediate peers, not so much the ANC government. Most no longer aspire to an egalitarian society, but hope that one day, they also will join the circles of the rich and famous. With non-racialism on the wane, South Africa’s current legitimizing ideology is a more exclusive brand of black African nationalism, which makes non-Africans (whites, coloureds and Indians) feel uncomfortable.

The research has thus far resulted in various papers, articles and book chapters, with the ultimate goal of writing a book on South Africa’s trajectories after liberation.

[1]Ineke van Kessel, ‘Beyond our Wildest Dreams’: the United Democratic Front and the Transformation of South Africa. Charlottesville and Londen: University of Virginia Press, 2000.