By Maphale Moloi
In the wake of the recent ANC centenary celebrations, many have commented on the party’s role in post-apartheid South Africa. Some have said that the ANC is living in the past and is no longer relevant to the youth and/or the plight of the average South African. Let’s step back for a moment and understand what it is that this ruling party actually did.
One must have caught an abridged version of the ANC’s past in one of many documentaries, books or high school history lessons about the party. Not only was it a movement against oppression and segregation of the masses (in terms of absolute numbers), it also managed to forge alliances with neighbouring movements for change on the continent. Oh, and it spearheaded peaceful (and some not so peaceful) protests and raised global awareness about the plight of the black South African.
Now this isn’t a pro-ANC post, but if they weren’t the ones to liberate us then who else would have taken the reins in 1994? Firstly, 1994 may not have happened. We could have found ourselves staring at the grim reality of a disorganised civil war, drawn most likely along the racial and ethnic lines that had been entrenched by the apartheid government. Zulus vs. Sothos, Pedis vs. Vendas, Afrikaners vs. everyone. It would’ve been the equivalent of a 1990s Hollywood bar fight.
After this bloody exchange, someone would have been the winner. Perhaps the MK would have come into power and overthrown the intellectuals of the ANC who believed that we could have come to a peaceful solution. Maybe, in a dramatic turn of events, the IFP would have been the victors in Pretoria. What would they have done differently? Would they have continued to operate the way the country was run, merely reversing the signs from “Whites only” to “Madarkie Fella” (Blacks only)? Would they have chosen to ignore the economic disparity between rich and poor and run the tax system as they pleased? Would we have one “Supreme Leader” as in the case with North Korea with one eternal president, and run the succession of our country like a family business? Would the Union of South Africa be disbanded, leaving many mini-sovereign states (including the Republic of the Cape) to govern themselves the way they pleased? Or in an even more unforeseen turn of events, would the “swart gevaar” of the day be neutralised to allow the status quo to continue as it was?
The options seem endless.
The one thing about colonial rule in Africa that made it difficult to accept was that the majority of the population found themselves at the mercy of a few, similarly to the way the Dutch and French settlers found themselves at the mercy of the English colonialists. In most nations it’s the majority that oppress the minority. In more extreme cases, they try to exterminate them. But genocide would not have been the answer either. Imagine thousands of angry black people baying for the blood of their former oppressors in the “liberated” South Africa. The idea is chilling, but this is what many South Africans feared.
In 1990 we held our breath to see what would happen. Would we have genocide? Would the blacks kill one another? Would the military come into play? Instead we had a unity government, which puts the rights of the people into this little book called the Constitution and holds that as the “Supreme Leader” of the country. We comforted those who were victims of apartheid in the TRC and began building stable fiscal and monetary policy according to sound economic theory.
I’m by no means ignoring the fact that services are still lacking. Corruption still happens and some leaders may not be qualified to hold the posts that they do. The point I’m trying to make is how many of us, as children and teens have ever thought, “I wish I had Mathew’s parents”? As children of this nation who were raised by the sweat and blood of many of our forefathers and their fathers, what right do we have to question how we’re being raised? And in an environment as enabling as ours, where we can talk back to “dad” and even run against “dad” in an election, why do we find it so difficult to accept that “dad” may not always know what he’s doing? Sure, we wish we had what other countries have – underground railway systems, inner city taxes and “no poor people” – but this is our disposition, and, in liberation, as with family, you can’t choose who sets you free.
Maphale Moloi does not find himself funny. Other people may laugh at him but he doesn’t find that funny either. He pursued a degree far from home and, logically, the corporate jungle too with the intent to “play the game” and “climb the ladder” at the same time. While trying to make sense of Powerpoint, he realised that he cannot think in bullet points and now writes about topics that he makes up or that seem not to bother others as much as they bother him. He currently works at a company that won’t let him mention its name, where he tries to reintroduce full sentences back into the world. He’s open to being followed only from 140 characters away.
@Buhle: Once again, I agree that the ANC contributed.
I also understand that you are proud of the ANC for what they did. And yes, Whites wore black maskari as part of their plot to assassinate blacks which they succeeded in doing” is just plain bad.
On the other hand, I do detect (probably because you feel you owe a debt of gratitude) a bit of a “WE were all good, and THEY were all bad” train of thought. Maybe I am wrong, and that is not what you’re thinking – because in my experience it is never quite as simple as that. The one side is never ALL good, and the other side is never ALL bad, but rather there is some mix of good and bad on both sides (conceded that you will feel that there was more of the “good” on the ANC side!).
Two issues:
One: “The ANC never enouraged us to kill innocent children,men and women though 99+ were supporting Apartheid.” Does not agree with killing people in churches and bars (including, surely, at least some innocent bystanders?). The 99+ also does not agree with the “white” vote in the referendum? So, I have to put a small question mark behind your objectivity.
Two: “Beat them in Angola…” Was that not more the Russians, Cubans and SWAPO? And “The ANC won the battle both internally and Internationally…” based on a major mood swing in the world against oppression (especially Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, UK), and utilising the Cold War.
“We came back forgiving them first.” Well done to the leaders!
@ Buhle:You shouldn’t say things like “99+ were supporting apartheid”.
It’s just not factual.
You also say “We appreciate Afrikaans…..We never handed them over to Mozambique…”
you generalise way too much my fellow South African.
The ANC never encouraged the killing of innocent civilians, but the PAC did, and the PAC were considered in the rest of Africa to be the REAL opposition. So Mandela neutralised them by turning PAC heroes into ANC heroes, which was a disaster for the ANC ethics, but won politically.
And 70 percent of whites would hardly have voted in a referendum to end apartheid if what Buhle says is true.
A referendum that Bishop Tutu encouraged all white Anglicans from not participating in – had they listened to him, imagine the disaster, since the majority of English speaking whites are Anglican.
And a boycott call by Tutu which is conspicously ommitted from his biography “Rabblerouser for Peace” where it is not even mentioned.
I enjoy the non-doctrinaire pragmatism of your ‘full sentences’ Thanks for this blog.
I think that greater pragmatism is a needful thing all round and especially amongst our electorate. I look forward to the day when we will vote with full critical mindfulness, in order to keep government and local authorities on their toes in our real best interests, rather than according to blocs of affiliation verses other blocs of affiliation.
As a member of the egg and spoon race I will vote for people who make decent rules for the egg and spoon race, are good referees in the game, and who make sure that the track is level, all participants have an equal chance of getting off the starting block at the same time, the eggs and spoons are not tampered with, and the spirit of the game is amicable.
I was intrigued to hear the senior Methodist minister at the ANC centenary service preach on Ezekiel’s vision of the ‘valley of dry bones’ and compare the present ANC to that valley, in serious need of new life, new spirit.
Anthrogirl
Can you quote the books, dates and periods when indigenous Africans committed genocide against the Khoi and the San. Your arrogant take on South African history as told by guilty murderers trying to shift their sins to someone else will not take you anywhere. Admittedly there was tribal strife and internecine wars just as Europe had to deal with the same. England had to deal with a civil war in the 16th century and does that mean they were dumb? The settlers even introduced a law of extermination of the Khoi and the San – that they must be shot on sight. They did this hoping that they were on their way to establishing another Australia only to meet amaXhosa who derailed their plans for more than a century until a false prophet, Nongqause assisted George Grey and his men in committing a genocide against amaXhosa. Go and do research and read and stay away from wikipedia
Una
You can do basic arithmetic can you not?
The Native Americans are a small minority in America and Canada.
The Maoris are are small minority (15 percent) in New Zealand.
The Native Aborigines are only a few hundred thousand people in Australia.
The Khoisan descendents, the Cape Coloureds, are a majority in only one part of Africa – the Western Cape. Blacks wiped them out in the rest of Africa, but luckily the whites got to the Cape first.
Blacks are a majority in the rest of South Africa.
So HOW could there have been a genocide by whites in South Africa?
Lyndall
Are you asking these questions in order to refute the obvious? Go and do one important thing, go and read, even if you are not happy with what you will come across it will be good if you inform yourself and accept what happened in this lovely country of ours. What you are saying is similar to what some Hutus are saying about the Rwanda genocide – they suddenly now have amnesia or try to belittle what happened. That is the dark side of a guilt ridden soul – to either pretend such gross human rights never existed or belittle what happened. Just go and buy the documentary on “a country imagined” presented by the Jonathan Clegg if you are lazy to consult unpretentious history books, it is stated there that the law of extermination was introduced by the settlers and that meant the Khoi and the San must be shot on sight.
It is also a known fact that the British never defeated amaXhosa there was a stalemate in the 1850s which meant that they had to negotiate with the “savages” the future of that part of the country hence their resort to thuggery, making use of Nogqause to commit genocide against amaXhosa. I am not referring to some battles that the British won. I am referring to the 9 Frontier wars that ended up in a stalemate. Including the 5 wars that were fought subsequently to the genocide which included the Tembus, Gcalekas and amaMpondomise I am not advocating any racial or ethnic division but truth must be told. “Tell no lies and claim no easy victories.”
Lyndall
Where do you get this concocted history that whites arrives first in South Africa and saved the Khoi and the San from indigenous Africans? Go and read Lyndall you are shooting blanks its not funny now