New efforts at disruption
The farcical elections were over. Most of the old M.R.C.s had been returned to the dummy council, but were more than ever in a state of suspended animation. There had been a change of government and the new masters weren't even giving them an opportunity to play ball, even to save face. What they wanted was complete and abject servility from the "skepsels". Having achieved what they had clamoured for, even at the expense of the unity of the people, they were now in a position of uneasy eminence, receiving no support from the new Government and on the other side unwanted by the people. The All African Convention for its part was consolidating its gains. The demand for unity was growing more insistent-unity not only among Africans but of all oppressed. The Non-European Unity Movement was claiming the attention of the people. The Congress die-hards became alarmed. Once more they got busy with their attempts at disruption and once more Dr. Xuma was used as midwife to yet another abortive attempt at another "unity, "
Surrounding himself with journalists at what was called a Press Conference in Johannesburg, he delivered himself of the following:
"All men and women of goodwill of all races in South Africa must organise public opinion in order to attain common citizenship of all races."
Continuing, he said:
"I believe in co-operation . . . Wisdom should guide the Non-European people to co-operate to the fullest extent possible to attain their objective for the Vote for all. "
The Inkundla (14.4.48) reporting this, wrote:
"In less than 24 hours of Dr. Xuma's call for co-operation among the Non-European people for full franchise rights, a Working Committee consisting of African, Indian and Coloured leaders has been formed in Johannesburg to campaign for Votes for All. "
Within 24 hours! A truly remarkable speed. One cannot resist the impression of some stage manipulation. With this fanÂfare of a press conference the new venture was announced and christened the "First Transvaal-Orange Free State People's Assembly For Votes For All. "The convening of similar assemblies in Natal and the Cape was also visualised.
But the venture encountered opposition from the very beginning. While the Committee was making preparations for the first meeting of the Votes-For-All Assembly the outcry was so great that many of the alleged sponsors repudiated responsibility for it. Within the Congress fold it produced quite a storm in a tea-cup. Throughout the Transvaal there was an unroar over the appearance of yet another ad hoc body to confuse the people. At the Conference itself Dr. Xuma was conspicuous by his absence and it became necessary for the sponsors definitely to establish who had fathered the unwanted baby. In the Minutes of Conference the following interesting item is recorded in the report of the Working Committee:
"Before the ad hoc Committee was formed, a small deputation from the initiators of the Assembly met Dr. A. B. Xuma, President of the African National Congress. The aims of the Assembly were fully discussed and he was asked to become one of the first sponsors. Dr. Xuma pointed out that, as National President of his organisation, he was unable to sponsor a purely provincial assembly. He, however, agreed to make a National Call to the South African people to organise for the franchise, and to hold a Press Conference in Johannesburg where his call to action could be issued."
From the point of view of technique the stage management was excellent. But there was a hitch-the people intervened. The baby was still-born.
"All African National Congress"
Undaunted, the agents of the herrenvolk tried another tack. Soon afterwards the stage was set for yet another unity venture, this time confined to Africans "only."In their careering after any and every unity but the principled unity of the 10-Point Programme, of the Non-European Unity Movement, there is an almost fascinating variety and incongruity in the forms it assumes. There had been the unity pact with the Indian doctors, then the Votes For All Assembly which embraced all men and women of goodwill of all races, Indian, Coloured, African and European, etc. Now they proposed an exclusive unity for Africans. This was to be known as the All African National Congress. According to their own account, this broke down primarily because the All African Convention insisted on the acceptance of the principle of unity of all Non-European oppressed.
But that is not the whole story. The behaviour of the leaderÂship of the A.N.C. in this instance followed the old pattern so familiar to us in the pre-1943 period of internal disputes of Congress versus Convention. The setting is similar and the motivation is the same. The immediate past of Congress history, with all its twists and turns, its prevarications and its machinaÂtions, in short, its opportunism and betrayals, had exposed it and seriously discredited it in the eyes of the people. It had become abundantly clear that the old Congress die-hards had lost sight of the struggles of the people. They were pre-occupied with concern for the preservation of their own position of leaderÂship of an organisation that had long since fallen out of step with the demands of the time. Thus they instinctively saw in Convention a source of danger and a threat to their position. In all their actions they seemed to be obsessed with the idea of killing Convention and removing it from the arena of African politics. Here, unable to evolve any new method they fell back on the old one, by presenting themselves as champions of African unity.
This time there appeared to be a greater prospect of success. With the advent of the Malan Government and the evidence of still more sinister measures against the Non-Europeans, with the alarm of the people about Apartheid and the cry for unity on all sides, the conditions seemed highly propitious for dealing a knock-out blow at Convention. The collaborators sent out the call for unity, with the cry: The race is in danger! Let us close our ranks. Let us forget our past differences and proÂgrammes. And, as the "Inkundla"expressed it: "There can be no future for us as a people unless we stand together at any cost . . . Now is not the time to split hairs about bringing into being the All African National Congress. "
These epithets were not casually chosen. They were hitting at the very core of the matter. Knowing that a Convention would pose principles as a basis for unity, they were casting a shadow in advance by innuendos;principles were belittled as "hair splitting";unity had to be achieved "at any cost. "Anybody who dared to raise the question of basic policy and programme would be accused of "wrecking unity."Having thus prepared the ground, they presented the country with the brand new scheme. They proposed that Convention and Congress should be liquidated and a new body should rise from the ashes - the All African National Congress. It was to be the political party which every African would be expected to join. In other words it was to be the African National Congress under a new name. It was a subtle plan in keeping with the desperateness of their position. Under the pretext of abolishing both the federal body, the Convention, and the political party, the Congress, they were in effect proposing to liquidate the Convention and leave the field clear for the Congress to emerge triumphant as the sole organisation.
It was clear why the collaborators wanted to see the name of Convention disappear without a trace. The Convention was a thorn in their flesh. It was a constant accuser of their political crimes against the people, a constant reminder of their betrayals, of their collaboration with the oppressors. If only they could get the Convention out of the way, their past might be forgotten. And further than that, the M.R.C.s would be free to go on happily operating the dummy councils and enjoy the fruits of their serÂvices without the accusing finger being pointed at them.
December, 1948, Conferences
In view of the fact that these proposals for African unity had come from the Congress leadership, it might have been expected that the sessions of the annual Conference of the A.N.C. preceding the talks on unity between the African National ConÂgress and the All African Convention, would have been devoted seriously to the subject and to working out the terms they inÂtended to propose as the basis for the new organisation. But the irresponsible conduct of the leadership at this December conÂference brought their sincerity into question. By all accounts the leadership blocked any attempt at serious discussion and the Conference frittered away its opportunities. Dr. Molema, a leading member of the Congress Executive, was moved to comment on the Conference as follows:
"General Disorder was installed as Commander-in-chief and he ruled with a terrible authority, heartrending to the poor African looking for light and guidance."
These words were a crying indictment of the M.R.C.s, for it was they who had been responsible for the tragic fiasco and the confusion which prevailed. Pledged as they were to the policy of collaboration with the oppressor, the last thing they wanted was an open and frank discussion on a programme, since such a discussion would have exposed their political bankruptcy.
At the Joint Conference of the A.N.C. and the A.A.C., held on the 17th December, 1948, in Bloemfontein, the Convention spokesmen presented the proposals on the basis of which Convention considered that unity should be effected. They were:
(a) the acceptance of the 10-Point Programme, which implies full equality of all men irrespective of race, colour or creed, and direct representation in Parliament, Provincial Councils, etc.;
(b) the acceptance of the principle of Non-European unity - the unity of ALL oppressed against oppression;(c) non-collaboration with the oppressor;(d) maintenance of the federal structure of the All African Convention. In order that nothing should stand in the way of unity, and also to belie the accusation that the two bodies are divided by rivalry between the leaders, the Convention offered to guarantee to Congress a certain number of seats in the Executive. Congress members could in addition stand for any of the remaining seats. This meant virtually handing over the leadership to the African National Congress. There was only one proviso to all this, namely, that Congress should accept the principled basis of unity. On this basis Convention wanted to bring about unity there and then.
The chief spokesman for Congress, Professor Z. K. Matthews, M.R.C. in chief, did not reply to any of the vital points raised by the Convention spokesmen. Instead, he proposed (as we have already indicated) that existing political organisations should be disbanded and in their place a new organisation, on an individual basis, should be set up. While his organisation accepted unity in principle, he felt that it would take a long time before it was established. It became obvious that not even the foundations of a principled unity could be laid at this conference. The discussions were adjourned and it was agreed that the Executives of both organisations would meet early the following year.
Breakdown of discussion
On April 17, 1949, the Joint Executive meeting took place, from ten o'clock in the morning till three o'clock next mornÂing. Only two items were discussed: non-collaboration as a basis of unity and the form of organisation required to put this into effect. Negotiations broke down and the meeting ended in dismal failure. The first six hours were spent in a dispute on the acceptance of non-collaboration.
Speaking for Congress;Mr. J. B. Markssaid that "there were funÂdamental differences between the All African Convention and the African National Congress. ... It would be wrong to stigmatise as collaborators those who did not agree with non-collaboration at this stage The proposal for non-collaboration is opportunistic. The Convention delegate? use the term to suit themselves. They exclude from the meaning of the term, segregated schools."(Record of Joint meeting by General Secretary of A.A.C.)
Mr. Selope Thema, M.R.C. (for Congress) said that: "if the Convention delegates advocated a boycott of Government institutions then they should carry out their policy to its logical conclusions. We should not exclude educational institutions which are also segregated and inferior. . . . The M.R.C.s did not say that the Council should not be abolished but that Malan must come and tell them so himself. .... If we accepted Convention policy then we should have nothing to do with Europeans. If a lawyer who defends an African in European courts is earning a living and not collaborating, then M.R.C.s were also earning a living. . . . The Bunga had done many things. It had granted bursaries and planted trees. If he were to go to the people in Pietersburg and tell them to have nothing to do with the Bunga, they would think he was mad."(Ibid.) "Several other Congress speakers spoke more or less in the same strain."(Ibid.)
The Convention delegates answered these points and moved the following resolution:
"In view of the political crisis facing the African people to-day;in view of the urgent necessity to unite the people for the purpose of fighting oppression and for full democratic rights, this joint session of the All African Convention and the African National Congress Executive Committees meeting in Bloemfontein this 17th day of April, 1949, resolves that this unity be based on:
(1) A demand for full citizenship rights equal to those of the European.
(2) A rejection of inferior status as expressed in the segregated and inferior political institutions created for a so-called child-race and for the perpetuation of white domination, viz. the N.R.C., the Bunga, Location Advisory Boards and any other institution of a similar nature which may be created to substitute, supplement or strengthen the existing institutions.
(3) The acceptance of Non-collaboration, i.e. the rejection of the N.R.C., Bunga, Location Advisory Boards, the Natives Representation Act, etc."
When this resolution was finally put, it received no opposiÂtion. The explanation of the strange acceptance of the resolution by the Congress delegates, in view of their speeches against non-collaboration, became evident as the discussion on the next point unfolded. In leading the discussion on the structure of the proposed organisation, Mr. A. P. Mda (for Congress) said inter alia that :
"The most effective way of appealing to the Africans as people suffering Oppression was to appeal to them on the basis of colour. We could only meet oppression by organising on the basis of African Nationalism. This presupposes a unitary organisation. The advantages of such an organisation were that we would be able to mobilise the majority of the people in a language that they could understand. Secondly there could be no contraÂdictions within the body caused by groups which may place certain interÂpretations on certain principles. because of differences in political outlook There was a grave danger in admitting different groups in the same organisation, particularly when major decisions have to be made. . . . We must appeal to Africans as such to unite as Africans."(Ibid.)
Here we see not only a racialist but something more sinister. This Is dangerously like the methods of a fascist dictator. It is interesting that this line of argument was pushed most vehemently by the ardent "African Nationalists."It is not unrelated to their racialistic theories, in fact it Is the other side of the same coin. Here they advocate a monolithic party to represent a whole people and claiming to be their mouthpiece. According to them such a party would brook no differences of outlook or opinion. All groups which differed from them would be excluded "particularly when major decisions have to be made."Yet it would be regarded as speaking for a whole population. They would arrogate to themselves the right to decide what political outlook the people shall and shall not have.
The All African Convention delegates argued that in a national movement engaged in a national struggle for liberation, you cannot have a monolithic party to represent all;the mouthÂpiece of a people must represent all strata of society. In a national, movement there are bound to be many groups and parties of various shades;"you will find political organisations, civic, social and trade union bodies, etc. and all these must find their place in the national movement. Let us agree on minimum deÂmands, they said. What is necessary is to unite on the basis of a minimum programme and in this way attain a maximum unity.
After many hours of discussion Mr. L. K. Ntlabati (Congress), seconded by Mr. 0. R. Temba, moved the following resolution :
"That Unity be accepted on the basis of a unitary organisation, with federal features. "
When asked the nature of these "federal features"the movers replied that this should be left for the joint conference to decide, but that:
"roughly it meant that the conference would decide which organisations to accept on a federal basis and which not to accept. "(Ibid.)
Thereupon the Convention spokesmen moved an addendum to the resolution:
"That organisations accepting the policy of the new organisation will have a right to affiliate."
Congress refused to accept this addendum and it was on this point that negotiations broke down. Congress delegates felt that if Convention would not yield on this point, then they did not consider themselves bound by the previous resolution for non-collaboration.
The behaviour of the collaborators (the M.R.C.'s and their supporters) at this conference throws a light once more on their methods. Here we see the technique of political deception carried to a fine art. Their tactics should serve as an object lesson to all Non-Europeans. Placed in a tight: corner and faced with irrefutable arguments, they agree - and they do not agree. Pledged to a policy of collaboration with the oppressor while knowing that the people were demanding non-collaboration, they could not oppose it without exposing themselves. Therefore they pretended to accept it, but promptly proceeded, in the very next step, to ensure that the resolution would be nullified by the unitary structure of organisation which they proposed.
Now there is a vital link between policy and the form of organisation, that is to say, between policy and the means of carrying it out. Given the existing situation in South Africa, with the many organisations of the people, some existing in isolation and others already affiliated to the Convention, the federal structure is the only effective means of putting into practice the policy of non-collaboration. Convention was adamant on this point. To demand the formation of a new organisation in fact meant the breaking up of the existing ones;it meant disarming the people, disintegrating their forces and thus rendering them defenceless. For Congress to reject the federal form of organisation and insist on building a new, unitary party was tantamount to turning their back on the struggle. To insist on a single party was to exclude the vast majority of the masses from participating in the struggle-they who have so painsÂtakingly built up their various organisations for precisely this purpose. This would enable the collaborators to paralyse the struggle and tie up the people to the machinery of oppression.
Significant statements of M.R.C.
In case some doubting Thomas might think we have read too much into the statements of the Congress leadership, let us hear what their chief spokesman, Prof. Z. K. Matthews, has to say on the question of non-collaboration. It was on the occasion of his eloquent address delivered at the Conference of the S.A. Institute of Race Relations in January, 1949. This took place very soon after the December unity talks and before the joint meeting of the two executives. On this occasion he was at great pains to explain his attitude towards non-collaboration and what he understood it to mean.
His address, entitled: "An African policy for South Africa, "might well have been entitled: "Warning to Europeans, "for the greater part of his paper is devoted to warning the White man of the danger of non-co-operation between White and Black. With staggering ingenuity he actually contrives to equate the people's policy of non-collaboration with the oppressor with the 'apartheid' policy of the oppressor.
"It has been pointed out, "he said, "that there is a growing feeling among Africans that the policy to which they should lend their support in the future is that of non-co-operation. Certain sections among them look upon this as one of the most suitable answers to the European policy of apartheid, which is itself tantamount to a policy of non-co-operation. "
Note the cold, impersonal "objectivity "which, however, is not above resorting to a downright distortion. He goes on:
"But whether it is espoused by Europeans or by Africans the policy of non-co-operation is not compatible with the living together and interdependence of Black and White to which the two groups have become accustomed over so many generations. "
He is so hypnotised by the outlook of his confrères, the White liberals, that his very thinking and phraseology are indistinguishable from theirs. It is the liberals who shed tears over the passing away of "the living together and interdependence of Black and White,"to which they have "become accustomed over many generations."Yes, the disturbance of the pleasant, old "master-and-servant "relationship in which the slave knew his place. Again he says:
"Once the policy of non-co-operation becomes endemic on both sides of the colour-line, the resultant friction and antagonism will prove disastrous to the country as a whole and there will be no 'areas of liberty' for anyone."
One is driven to ask: On which side of the colour-line is he speakÂing? Who is threatened with disaster? And what disaster? It is difficult to believe that it is a Black man in South Africa who is speaking. The act of a Black man refusing to co-operate in workÂing the machinery of his own oppression is seen as "disastrous, causing friction and antagonism."The act of struggling to remove the chains of oppression is viewed as most disturbing to the idyllic conditions of servility. And incidentally, what are those "areas of liberty"which he fears to lose? At present the herrenvolk has the liberty to oppress the Non-European. But the Black man has not even the liberty to decide how he shall live and where he shall live, where he shall work or what kind of work he shall do. The only liberty he has is to die in poverty. Could it be that the Professor was thinking that the Black man still has the "liberty"to serve on the N.R.C., i.e. to tie the chains about his own feet?
Having thus voiced his fears about the "disaster"resulting from "non-co-operation, "he goes on:
"Neither European apartheid nor African apartheid can be regarded as practical solutions of the problem of race relations. "
This statement is a direct attack against the proposals of ConvenÂtion for a basis of principled unity, particularly "the acceptance of non-collaboration with the oppressor."Prof. Matthews exÂplicitly states:
"That is the true meaning which must be given to the resolutions of non-co-operation with the White man at the recent Conference of the A.A.C. and the A.N.C. "
His warnings and pleas for co-operation were all the more urgent in view of the fact that at a recent meeting of the N.R.C. called by Mr. Mears, the Secretary for Native Affairs, the M.R.C.s had just been told of the intention of the Government to disband them and replace the Council with a more effective machinery of segregation. Mears had said:
"It is its (the Government's) intention to encourage and develop the local Council and Bunga system throughout the Union with due regard, wherever possible, to ethnic and tribal affiliations."
Three days after Professor Matthews had delivered his speech, his lieutenant, Mr. R. Godlu, M.R.C., addressing a meeting at Langa, said:
"We want the N.R.C. retained. . . . We (the M.R.C.s) did not know about the boycott until after the adjournment in 1946. In fact we are opposed to the boycott. "
These, then, were the views of men who occupied important positions in the Congress leadership. These were the true opinions of a man who was the chief spokesman at the unity talks between the A.A.C. and the A.N.C. Executives. It is interesting that he (Matthews) expressed himself more explicitly before an audience of White liberals than either to the joint conference or to his own organisation. Is it any wonder that the negotiations at Easter broke down completely?
Zigzags Continue
It is hardly necessary to pursue further the inconsistencies and contradictions of Congress for the remainder of 1949. As we have seen, the more it changes, the more it is the same. Having taken up a false political position and being rooted in collaboration, the leadership found itself veering now in one direction and now in another. We may add simply that at the July Provincial Conference of the Cape African National Congress, they are reported to have adopted a resolution for non-collaboration and for the boycott of the by-election to the N.R.C. then pending. But after taking .this decision, at the very same conference they proÂceeded to elect Prof. Z. K. Matthews, M.R.C. in chief, as their president. What is more, with persistent inconsistency, their members took part in the elections and one of them was elected. But it did not occur to anybody to expel him.
December, 1949, finds them, at the annual conference of the African National Congress as a whole, reiterating their faith in non-collaboration, and promptly replacing as president-general a supporter of the M.R.C.s (Dr. Xuma) with a true-blue M.R.C. himself. Dr. J. S. Moroka. Thus we have the absurdity of an organisation electing to the presidency both of the Natal Congress, the Cape and the mother body itself, members of the N.R.C., while officially it is supposed to be committed to the policy of non-collaboration. The more they take up the progressive slogans and the more loudly they proclaim them, the more they shift in fact towards the path of reaction.
It is too early to judge what Congress is going to do under the new president. But the first three months of 1950 have not indicated any change. And indeed there can be no change, as long as the leadership remains substantially the same. If the ComÂmunist Party made use of the former president there is every evidence that they intend to do the same with the new president-general.