Athi Nyokana
On the face of what seems to be a good indicator of revolutionary consciousness when one celebrates the political life of the Founding President of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), Robert Sobukwe, perhaps it is necessary to clarify global and domestic defenders of the White Capitalist Establishment (WCE) and their puppets, on the political position of Robert Sobukwe, in so far as, it relates to the Freedom Charter.
For any anti-imperialist country to thrive, it is necessary for a solid ideological framework to be established, so as to decisively deal with imperialism in all its manifestations.
Despite the fights that have been waged against the WCE in the various epochs of South African history, we have not yet reached a stage where it can be conceded that the chief reason why our struggle against the enemy began, has been adequately resolved.
As we were prior to the formation of the African National Congress (ANC), we still remain a dispossessed people. Liberation for black people in South Africa has not been attained.
Perhaps that can be, in part, attributed to our failure as a people to resolve on a single ideological framework that forms the basis upon which a united front can be presented against our enemy, successfully.
But who are we?
Our identification against the oppressor needs to be narrowed down, so as to avoid confusion within our own ranks in the course of our struggle against the enemy. The consensus amongst progressive forces against the enemy is that those who are oppressed are black. But the confusion lies in whether our blackness is a matter of pigmentation, or whether it is a cognitive derivative that is an expression of our attitude against the oppressor.
Steve Biko beautifully guides us in his correct definition of who black people are: “Those who are by law or tradition, politically, economically, socially discriminated against as a group in South African society and identify themselves as a unit in the struggle in the realization of their aspiration”.
From this correct definition, it is clear that in the same manner that no one has automatic access to whiteness, there is no free access to blackness. If your black identification does not pass the test against the above definition, Steve Biko relegates you to being a “non-white”. Subsequently, it then becomes very easy to identify agents of the enemy by how they behave in relation to the above definition.
Once a position of who we are as an oppressed people becomes clear, the necessity of rejecting a baseless amalgamation between the oppressed and the oppressor logically follows. Our oppressor as blacks is white. To expect us to unite with whites to solve the problem of white racism is an insult to our intelligence and must be rejected.
Steve Biko borrows from the Hegelian theory of dialectic materialism to reject this baseless amalgamation proposed by the enemy and its agents: “Since the thesis is white racism there can only be one valid antithesis i.e. a solid black unity to counter balance the scale.”
The antithesis is black unity against white racism; wherein, it logically follows that the synthesis is a non-racial set up where both blacks and whites treat each other as equals.
In the current set-up in South Africa, the enemy presents itself as both the problem and solution to a problem, that it created by itself. We are told to unite with whites and that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it”. To legitimize this standpoint, the enemy presents the Freedom Charter as this moral document that all should abide by to lead us towards a prosperous non-racial South Africa. That is, we must accept the synthesis before the antithesis because the position of the antithesis is racist. Some have gone as far as to internalize the Freedom Charter as “the bible” in our struggle against the oppressor.
The myth that a position that rejects the Freedom Charter is racist must be dispelled. Steve Biko correctly argues that, “White power presents its self as a totality not only provoking us but also controlling our response to the provocation.” It therefore comes as no surprise that white people like Lionel Bernstein, Ethel Drus, Ruth First, Alan Lipman and Beata Lipman were at the centre of drafting a sellout document like The Freedom Charter.
What business did they have in meddling in the affairs of blacks? Presenting themselves as the antithesis to the thesis: white racism. The Freedom Charter is the springboard whites use to justify kicking us and telling us how to react to the kick.
When the Founding Fathers of the ANC, John Dube, Pixley ka Isaka Seme, Sol Plaatjie and Josiah Gumede correctly disallowed white participation inside the ANC, it cannot be that they were racist. Similarly, when Africanists in the ANC, like Robert Sobukwe rejected the Freedom Charter, they were not racist.
It was a correct position in line with the spirit of the formation of the ANC. In any event, blacks can’t be racist. We are a dispossessed people. We do not have the power to subjugate. Stokely Carmichael correctly puts it that, “Racism is not a question of attitude, it’s a question of power”. From where do blacks source the power to be racist when it is whites who own and control the means of production?
Which brings us to the question of black Marxists. Where does that leave them when their ideological father Karl Marx, calls on the workers of the world to unite? Surely Marx could have not been referring to blacks when he said this. To any reasonable mind, by virtue of what one has already explained, unity between blacks and whites is not possible.
The Land has not been returned. But Steve Biko adequately deals with these Class Theorists when he says “Poor whites, who are economically nearest to the blacks, demonstrate the distance between themselves and the blacks by an exaggerated reactionary attitude towards blacks. Hence the greatest anti-black feeling is to be found amongst the very poor whites whom the Class Theory calls upon to be with black workers in the struggle for emancipation.”
The irony in the South African case, is that, those who were at the centre of drafting The Freedom Charter are the very same Class Theorists who are dismissed by Biko as agents of the white system.
Biko rightfully points out that “There is for instance no worker in the classical sense among whites in South Africa, for even the most down-trodden white worker still has a lot to lose if the system is changed”. In this regard, not even the most popular Class Theorists in South Africa should dilute the black struggle for emancipation by advocating for a baseless unity amongst blacks and whites, especially, when it is these very Class Theorists who celebrate the life of Robert Sobukwe, who died rejecting this baseless unity.
What concerns Class Theorists with Robert Sobukwe when they openly support that which the white system killed him for: rejecting The Freedom Charter.
Battle lines between the oppressed and the oppressor must be drawn. Egg walking around The Land Question in South Africa is no longer sustainable. The level of unemployment amongst black youth is increasing. The gap between the haves and have-nots is widening. Our economy is being monopolized by whites who have consistently refused to return the land they stole.
Blacks cannot be told to be patient when poverty is urgent. Our struggle for emancipation is immediate and should happen within the confines of Pan Africanism and Black Consciousness, only. Anything else, is ideologically too close to the enemy, and thus, blurs the battle lines between the oppressed and the oppressor, blacks and whites.
As a member of the ANC, Robert Sobukwe’s rejection of The Freedom Charter was the most correct revolutionary position. It was consistent with the ideological position of his forebears, such as, the founding President of the ANC Youth League, Anton Lembede.
Perhaps, it is time for a National Imbizo amongst Progressive blacks to formulate a replacement of The Freedom Charter. A case for its abandonment clearly exists. Izwe Lethu!
* Athi Nyokana is a Global Activist at the University of Pretoria.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.