Talking to the ancestors: national heritage, the Freedom Charter and nation-building in South Africa in 2005

Abstract

The Freedom Charter has a significant place in South African liberation history. This paper is a re-reading of the document in 21st century conditions and locates its ideas within contexts that have not previously been brought into debate. In particular, it argues that the Freedom Charter is part of national heritage, but of a special kind relating to its being part of a ‘democratic stream’. This is because of its mass democratic mode of creation and resultant product. It also interrogates the notion of ‘The People’ and what ‘The People’ think, bringing into focus unacknowledged knowledge, especially the questions of orality and communication with ancestors. The notion of ‘brotherhood’ as used in the Charter is examined as connoting more than a gender-related concept–a specific way of human beings relating to one another, akin to that of siblings, signifying cooperation rather than individual isolation or competitiveness. This and questions of gender are addressed in the context of nation-building.

This paper is a slightly revised version of the Harold Wolpe Memorial Lecture delivered in Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town, 1, 2 and 3 November 2005.

Acknowledgments

For some four years the author benefited from funding deriving from the Nordic Africa Institute and Sida (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency). Although this particular lecture was not part of that project, many of the ideas expressed here would not have surfaced had the author not had this opportunity for almost single-minded research work for these years. Earlier versions of this paper were read by Peter Hudson, Steven Friedman, Michael Neocosmos, Greg Cuthbertson and Nomboniso Gasa and the author benefited from dialogue with Helen Bradford and Laurence Piper. They are not responsible for this product, especially not Laurence Piper, who registered many disagreements. The author is also indebted to anonymous readers for suggested modifications.

Notes

This paper is a slightly revised version of the Harold Wolpe Memorial Lecture delivered in Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town, 1, 2 and 3 November 2005.

¹ Especially during the period of apartheid, the terms described to designate different ‘racial groups’ were heavily contested. Africans were variously known as kafirs (infidels), Natives, Bantu and Blacks. At one stage whites were known as Europeans and all who were not white were known as Non-Europeans. During the 1970s, the period of black power in the United States and the rise of black consciousness in South Africa, the term black came to be used to refer to all who were not white, that is Africans, Coloureds and Indians. The government countered by using the word Black instead of the previously prevalent usage Bantu to refer to Africans alone. The objective was to separate Africans from Coloureds and Indians in political activities by drawing a sharp line between those who were ‘Black’, meaning African, and those who were not. Those who used the word blacks to refer to all non-whites had the opposite political objective, of uniting all oppressed people. While I use the word black to refer to all previously oppressed people, i.e. ‘non-whites’, I reserve the word African for that section of the black population who were the most oppressed, the bearers of special disabilities such as pass laws, and the inhabitants of Bantustans – areas set aside in some cases as pseudo-independent areas such as the Transkei, Ciskei, Venda and Bophuthatswana. This is not to say that all of us are not, as indicated in the paper, Africans in the wider sense of the word, inhabiting the same continent and believing this is where we belong.

² In a speech in 1911 Pixley ka Isaka Seme foreshadowed the notion of the ANC offering an alternative national vision, a ‘native union’, to that of the Union of South Africa. See Seme (1972[1911]); Jordan (1988); Suttner (2004a).

³ I am indebted to Helen Bradford and Peter Hudson for emboldening me to take this step and give full credit to what is entailed.

⁴ The concern with indigenous knowledges and their downgrading in scholarship is an international phenomenon which is evident, for example, in the countries covered by Pottier et al. (2003).

⁵ My impression is that there is a great deal of ignorance among most South Africans in the social sciences of the contributions that have been made by scholars to the north, much of which is well in advance of the theoretical and practical achievements that have been notched up in this country. Instead of becoming acquainted with the work produced by associations such as the Council for Development and Social Research in Africa (CODESRIA), some academics believe the gossip that claims CODESRIA conferences are attended for participants to obtain a per diem payment.

⁶ In some countries such as Australia the word ‘multicultural’ has a controversial character and some do not use it. I am using it here merely to refer to the fact that there are many cultures and cultures within cultures and not intending it as anything more than a descriptive term.

⁷ Incidentally, my understanding is that this word, a derogatory term referring to foreign Africans, does not derive from South Africa. It was in fact used against South Africans in exile in certain states of the region. Neil Parsons (personal communication) claims that the word is of Tswana origin. Phil Bonner has told me, however, that he has seen the word in use in South Africa in the 1930s (personal communication). That does not, of course, explain its place of origin.

⁸ I am aware that the notion of ‘family’ is a problematic and contested notion, as I also indicate in relation to the liberation movement being sometimes depicted as the family. It is used here purely in order to contrast brotherhood with the notion of the isolated individual being the foundation of a nation.

⁹ The word derives from Xhosa and Zulu and refers broadly to a spirit of humanity and compassion for other human beings.

¹⁰ ‘Lobolo is a Zulu noun. It describes a man's obligation to pay cattle, horses, hoes, money or other property to the father of his intended bride or wife in consideration of their marriage. The payment, or a promise to pay, is one of the components of a tribal marriage’ (Simons, 1968: 87).

¹¹ I do not wish to be disrespectful to the dead, especially one who has been assassinated, but I am referring here to Brett Kebble. The character of the tributes paid to him by some ANC figures seemed somewhat surprising.

¹² These were gangsters (tsotsis) posing as ‘comrades’, claiming criminal activity to be revolutionary activity.