Extract from The Lost Prince of the ANC: The Life and Times of Jabulani Nobleman ‘Mzala’ Nxumalo 1955 – 1991 by Mandla J Radebe based on the publication in July 1987 of Nxumalo’s article ‘Towards war and people’s uprising’ in the ANC publication Sechaba, in which he said that, under the existing circumstances, ‘armed rebellion’ was possible. For him, anything less is a conservative approach that fails to read the situation correctly
The West uses the ANC’s alliance with the South African Communist Party (SACP) as an excuse for non-intervention, but this excuse alone, says Mzala, shows bias. “This concern with the South African Communist Party is not genuine,” he wrote; “This is just an artificial excuse created to avoid the responsibility of the United States, as one of the main economic supporters of South Africa, to force them to abandon their inhumane policies and practices.”
He is consistent in his thesis that the interests of the United States are informed by narrow capitalist interests. Capitalism was another reality that Mzala had in mind when faced with the South African revolution.
“South Africans not only suffer from national oppression by the colonial system but are also exploited by capitalism as a system of production.”
Mzala also urged the movement not to abandon the Freedom Charter, especially clauses such as “All shall share the wealth of the country”. He said: “I don’t see the situation that can happen in South Africa that causes the ANC to reject this economic policy, because what will be the use of centuries of struggle and many sacrifices if in the end people cannot control the wealth of their own country. ?
“A revolution without a very democratic radical economic policy, detailing concrete measures to transform the country’s economic ills and end exploitation and mass starvation, the revolution does not correspond to a single letter of the word ‘revolution'”.
This intervention by Mzala, is a form of lobbying for the left perspective in the movement. Through this perspective, the interests of imperialism in South Africa become apparent. There is a conflict of opinion in the ANC, which is expressed in the same journal.
In the end, when he was gone, Mzala’s opinion was defeated. Almost three decades into democracy, the distribution of wealth in South Africa still reflects apartheid’s pattern of ownership. Therefore, Mzala asked, what is the use of struggle and sacrifice if the people cannot control the country’s wealth, it remains there.
Mzala is still unfinished. In the August 1987 issue of Community he continued to examine the US with the article “People’s Power or Power-sharing? United States Policy in South Africa”. In this article, he said: “The belief in the US state department is that the interests of the South African Communist Party are served by the inflexible attitude of the Pretoria regime towards negotiations with the ANC, and by the ANC’s focus on increasing military pressure on South Africa.”
For Mzala, this is a complete misunderstanding of the ANC and what unites its members. Thus, he insisted that the SACP could not reject negotiations on principle.
To illustrate this point, he returned to the SACP’s 1962 program: “The Party has not ruled out all prospects of a non-violent transition to a democratic revolution.” However, he is quick to emphasize the situation based on this principle: “[This] prospects will be enhanced by [the] the development of revolutionary and militant forces. The illusion that a white minority can rule forever over an unarmed majority will crumble before the reality of an armed and determined people. It is likely that a peaceful and negotiated transfer of power will be opened to the representatives of the oppressed majority of the people.
So, with these articles, Mzala is involved in the conflict in the negotiated settlement. Of course, by 1987, the genie was out of the bottle and it appeared that the “peaceful and negotiated transfer of power” as envisioned by the SACP was increasingly becoming a scenario.
A month before this article was published, in July 1987, a South African delegation from across the political spectrum met with the ANC in Dakar, Senegal. In this meeting, “the ANC for the first time publicly committed itself to a negotiated settlement to end the political conflict in South Africa”.
However, Mzala could not understand this process outside the prism of the people’s war, insisting that the position of the ANC was known and aligned with the SACP. He said: “To suggest that the ANC, in the current situation, places disarmed people on the altar of negotiations with a fascist regime is an insult to the ANC and questions the sincerity and sense of responsibility towards the leadership of South Africa. oppressed people.”
Mzala is not stupid. He did not debate only for himself; instead, he directed a perspective that he felt was in danger within the ANC.
In the article, he returns to his earlier point about the process of transferring power to the people. He said that the People’s Assembly “which can make a new Constitution for South Africa (after the draft has been carefully discussed by the masses in all walks of life) can only be what it has done with the highest authority and power. to do so, which has the sovereignty folk”.
Although he respects the negotiation process, he remains convinced that it is nothing more than a transfer of power from a racist minority to a democratic majority.
Mzala does not rely on an imperialist commitment to the transfer of power and therefore gives a lot of meaning to a narrow concept such as “about power”. They see this as an attempt by the US to make a deal that suits their interests.
For him, “about power” is the wrong approach to the country’s problems. “This is a concept that may seem ‘logical’ and ‘fair’ only to those who do not understand the history of our country, and the source of our national oppression.” For understanding, the struggle of South Africa followed the same path as the countries that were previously colonized on the continent.
Since the apartheid regime with its imperialist handlers will do anything in its power to destroy the revolution, Mzala does not underestimate the possibility of the regime creating a “third force”. Part of the trick, says Mzala, is for the US to “get the apartheid regime to declare its intention to negotiate, even before it can be prepared to negotiate a transfer of power, and if the ANC refuses to participate, get together puppet forces from [Bishop Abel] Muzorewa type, and continue and fix the neocolonial solution for South Africa”.
In this regard, he warned the liberation forces to be wary of the implications of the neocolonial solution: “Such a neocolonial solution is bound to collapse even before it stops, because the current rebellion and liberation war in South Africa is already there. It is not led by puppet forces; In addition, the people of South Africa are politically aware enough to know who the real leaders are, and they know what they want.
Indeed, several attempts along these lines were made, leading to low-intensity civil wars in what are now KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng. Mzala’s vision extends beyond the issue of minority rights, which will be a key issue in the negotiations. To this end, he invoked the clause of the Freedom Charter that “all national groups shall enjoy equal rights”.
Thus, he envisioned a South Africa in harmony with the principles of the Freedom Charter where “everyone shall enjoy equal rights, regardless of colour, race or creed”. He saw no reason for the white part of the population to fear anything in South Africa based on the Freedom Charter, which stipulates that “South Africa belongs to all who live there, black and white.”
Mandla J Radebe is associate professor of strategic communication and director of the Center for Data and Digital Communication at the University of Johannesburg.