ANC Centenary put history in the spotlight

ANC Centenary celebrations have placed the history of the liberation struggle fairly and squarely in the spotlight. In his somewhat lacklustre statement on the 8th of January, President Jacob Zuma noted that, “It is not only a celebration for the African National Congress and its members. It is a joyous celebration for all the people of South Africa who, with the support of the continent and the world, destroyed colonial oppression and apartheid, and are building in its ruins a free, democratic and non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous South Africa together.” While the party’s historical allies share this vision, others disagree, feeling that their contribution has been marginalised, ignored or “air-brushed” out of history. Is this a fair criticism?

The SACP in its lengthy message to the ANC’s Centenary Celebration aligned itself firmly with its alliance partner noting that, “As the Communist Party in South Africa, now in our own 90th year of unbroken struggle, we take special pride in the fact that for over 80 years, communists have served in the ranks of the ANC. Shoulder to shoulder with other patriotic revolutionaries, communists have helped to build and sustain the ANC.”

COSATU President Sidumo Dlamini’s article on the ANC Centenary similarly lays claim to a long association with the ANC noting that, “We have been with the ANC through thick and thin, shaping the workers’ struggles and the liberation struggle into a single continuum.” And, in a similar vein, “Our relationship with the ANC is so integral and organic that the victories of the ANC are our victories too; the ANC’s heroes are our heroes too, attacks against the ANC have always meant an attack on us too!”

The PAC’s unhappiness with its “forgotten role” in the struggle is becoming increasingly strident. On the 50th anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre, the PAC objected strongly when ANCYL leader Julius Malema said the Sharpeville march had been organised by the ANC, but had been “hijacked” by the PAC. He claimed that the memory of Sharpeville belonged to the ANC alone, and urging that young people should learn the correct history of the country. In December 2011, following a ceremony to honour 134 political prisoners who were executed between 1961 and 1989, the PAC accused the ANC and the media of ignoring the fact that the majority of political prisoners – 100 - hanged by the apartheid government were members of the PAC. Early in January, Sam Ditshego, a member of the Pan Africanist Research Institute lambasted Pallo Jordan for failing to mention the role of the PAC and POQO (the forerunner of APLA) in an article ANC: On a century of movement, published in the Mail and Guardian.

Andile Mngxitama said that the centenary celebrations would show how the ANC marginalised rival groups: “They are going to play on the idea they were the sole liberator of our country. They’re not going to acknowledge Black Consciousness, the Pan Africanist Congress, the independent voices of students. This is the last shot they have at maintaining hegemony over society.”

While many South African leaders were invited to attend the Centenary Celebration in Mangaung, several chose not to do so.

Aba Thembu King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo boycotted the celebrations. According to his spokesperson, Phumla Matshaya, the king was not happy about the ANC’s co-ordination of the celebration and particularly with the “distortion of history” concerning the origins of the ANC. “On our discussions on this matter, the king indicated he was concerned about the unprincipled tricks employed by ANC cadres who distorted the formation of the ANC.” For instance, the ANC was formed by his late father King Sabata Dalindyebo and many others close to him. But they have received no mention in the ANC records for this celebration. The king is offended by that,” said Matshaya. Matshaya said the history of ANC could not be divorced from the history of the Tembuland nation. “But the ANC has done so, and has failed on numerous occasions to acknowledge this nation’s contribution.”

The IFP National Council issued a terse statement noting the “continued denial of recognition by the current leadership of the ANC of the significant contribution by the IFP to the liberation history of the ANC” and confirming that it would not be participating in the ANC’s Centenary Celebrations.

Azapo leader Jake Dikobo opted not to attend the Centenary Celebration saying, ‘‘Zuma could not find room in his Freedom Day speech to pay tribute to others who took part in the liberation struggle. If the ANC cannot do this on national days, we expect no different when they celebrate their centenary.’’ This position was supported by Strike Thokoane, Azapo secretary general, who added that “At some point the torch was carried by the Black Conscious Movement. They must recognise the many unsung heroes of BCM, PAC and ordinary people who hid and assisted us in the struggle.”

ACDP President Kenneth Meshoe declined to join the celebrations for altogether different reasons, citing the party’s belief in ancestor worship and making offerings to “dead spirits”. Meshoe was subsequently accused by Reverend Dr Vukile Mehana, ANC Chaplain General,  of “practising religious intolerance”, to which he responded saying, “I celebrate and congratulate the African National Congress on its 100 year anniversary. I wholeheartedly support celebrating this special event which marks the remembrance of the liberation of the people of South Africa. However, I cannot participate in anything that involves invoking the spirits of the ancestors, as will be done at the vigil on Friday 6 January 2012 at Mangaung.”

Afriforum responded to the Centenary Celebration by holding a wreath-laying ceremony to honour the victims of ANC terror attacks on the same day. Ernst Roets, Afriforum Deputy CEO said that this ceremony was intended to “prevent the victims of the ANC’s terror being forgotten amidst the propagandist way in which the ANC concealed the dark side of its past during the celebrations”. Noting that the event had been heavily criticised as “racist” and “segregationist” and that many people had asked, “Why Nasie not Hector?”, Roets responded that, “This question deserves to be treated with the necessary gravity. Hector Pietersen was shot and killed on 16 June, 1976 during the well-known Soweto-protests. He was twelve. Nasie van Eck was killed on 15 December, 1985 in an ANC landmine attack. He was two. Both are tragic tales with many similarities which, in my opinion, need to be mourned equally. What then are the differences between Nasie and Hector? One difference is that the whole of South Africa and many parts of the world know who Hector Pietersen was, while most of the readers of this article will have never even have heard of Nasie van Eck up until now. Another is that wreath-laying ceremonies are annually held for Hector Pietersen, while the organisers of a similar ceremony of rememberence for Nasie van Eck are accused of racism. A difference is that wreath-laying ceremonies in honour of Hector Pietersen, almost without exception, are covered by the national broadcaster, while Nasie van Eck’s wreath-laying was wiped from the broadcaster’s diary. Further differences include the monuments built for Hector Pietersen, that his name is mentioned by the president in his State of the Nation address, the day of his death was declared a national holiday and children and students in schools and universities are taught who Hector Pietersen was, while Nasie van Eck’s monument is a framed A4 photo on his dad’s wall, that the president has no interest in him, that those who remember his death are insulted and that 15 December goes by unnoticed every year.”

Not only political parties objected. Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu also took the ANC to task for neglecting the influence of church leaders during the struggle saying, ““The trouble is that the ANC on the whole reckons that the freedom we enjoy is due to them. Everyone else is just a sideline.”

Dissatisfaction extended to neighbouring countries too. While Zuma thanked the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark for their support during the struggle years; acknowledged the support of Zambia, Angola, Tanzania, Botswana, Uganda, Swaziland, Lesotho, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Algeria, Guinea, Ethiopia, Benin, and Nigeria; and noted the contribution of the Organisation of African unity, the United Nations and the Anti-Apartheid Movement, he made no mention of Namibia or the South West Africa People’s Party (Swapo). Political analyst Phanuel Kaapama, commenting in an article posted on the Namibian website ventured that the omission may have been because Namibia was “part of the problem” at the time of the struggle, but added that the omission was nevertheless unfortunate because Namibia was a victim of the same apartheid policy that bedevilled South African politics. “There is an amnesia of Namibia in the South African anti-apartheid and post-apartheid historiography,” commended Kaapama. “This is very unfortunate in the sense that Namibia is supposed to share a very special relationship with South Africa.”

An article by David Smith, “The exclusivity of freedom”  says that the ANC denies that it is hijacking South Africa’s struggle history, quoting ANC national spokesperson Jackson Mthembu who says that, “We played a prominent part, no question about it, but that doesn’t mean there were no Bikos”, and concluding that, “When you celebrate 100 years of the ANC, it’s 100 years of the struggle in this country. You cannot include those who were not part of the ANC - it doesn’t make sense. If we celebrated leaders who were not ANC, we would then be blamed for taking over the PAC. We expect the PAC to celebrate its leaders and we will be there. They can’t blame another organisation because they don’t have the capacity.” 

What is at stake here is not whether one party’s narrative makes mention of the contribution of others or not. It’s exciting that the ANC celebrations are sparking this debate; it’s good that the dominant narrative is being contested in the public domain – we are fortunate that we do not live in a country where law-makers make decisions about what we may remember and how we may speak about the past; it’s great that people are speaking out, that these debates can take place through the national media, comment functions on various websites and other forums. The debates bring home the centrality of the archive, the resources on which ongoing memory, and truth processes rely; the resources required to argue for or against a particular version of the past. More than ever, it is essential to strengthen and make accessible an archive that extends beyond the formal record of government to include the records of political parties, civil society movements, non-governmental organisations and personal papers that will facilitate the telling of the story of our complex, divided, multi-layered and difficult past. 

Leave a comment