I’ve been reading Padraig O’Malley’s Shades of Difference. It uses the life of Mac Maharaj, who according to Nelson Mandela, “ran the ANC’s underground in South Africa,” as a lens through which to discuss the anti-apartheid struggle. O’Malley introduces each chapter to set the historic or political context of that section of the narrative, and then Maharaj recounts a few years of his own autobiography. It’s clear, well written, and I’ve been so grateful for the insights that a story of that struggle can lend to Zimbabwe during ours.

I’m currently in the early 1980’s. Mac has served his 12 year sentence on Robben Island, after his conviction in the Little Rivonia Trial. And he’s escaped South Africa to rejoin the struggle outside the country. Meanwhile, the ANC’s progress has been slow. Frustrated by the pace of reform, and forced ever-deeper underground by the apartheid regime’s policies, the ANC is increasingly attracted to the strategy of armed struggle – despite its failures. In his introduction to Chapter 10, O’Malley credits the United Democratic Front (UDF)’s civil disobedience campaign with greater effectiveness than the armed struggle organised by Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) (Spear of the Nation). This despite the fact that it was 11 years from the formation of UDF to South Africa’s first democratic election.

Here are some excerpts:

The opposition to the tricameral parliament led to the creation in 1983 of the anti-apartheid United Democratic Front (UDF), a broad, non-racial grouping of about 650 affiliates with a total membership of more than 2.5 million who collectively put the emphasis on mass mobilisation and protest politics.

Meanwhile, the ANC had become addicted to the idea of armed struggle. The more it failed, the more the ANC pinned its hopes on guerrilla warfare and armed insurrection. The ANC’s armed struggle failed by almost every yardstick.

The post-1963 generation grew comfortable in exile. With no secure base from which to launch attacks on South Africa or to infiltrate operatives, getting MK cadres into the country was a disheartening process. There was no existing political underground in South Africa with which the exiled ANC could easily communicate. One estimate put the number of formal structures inside the country at fifty, the number of members at two hundred – hardly the makings of an adequate network.

As we start a new year – and thinking about Bev’s blog yesterday about the MDC’s need to rethink its strategy – I’ve been reflecting on O’Malley’s comments on the ANC in the 1980s – and what lessons we can learn for our situation today. If we replace the ANC with the MDC, South Africa with Zimbabwe and armed struggle with elections and negotiations, the paragraphs above sound eerily similar to what we are experiencing today.

The more elections and negotiations fail, the more the MDC wants to try them. The MDC’s structures are weak, and constantly under assault from the ruling party. Not exactly a recipe for success.

But discussing things with some colleagues yesterday, we realised – the objective of the MDC isn’t to oust the regime. The objective of the MDC, as a political party, is to win elections, get elected to power democratically, and to govern the country with the majority it has won. So, then, why are we surprised that they focus on elections and negotiations. I may think that’s a naively narrow strategy – since when is that small dicktator gonna share power equally just because we’ve politely requested that he play nice? – but it’s the strategy they’ve chosen. It’s even more naïve of me to expect otherwise from them.

Rather, thinking of Maharaj and O’Malley again, it’s time to take Natasha’s advice. Instead of looking for the MDC to restrategise, let’s look at how civil society can restrategise. The MDC wants to lead Zimbabwe’s democratic transition. But it’s not willing to lead the campaign to make the country ungovernable, so that the regime has no choice but to transition. If South Africa is anything to go by, it’s time for Zimbabwe’s UDF.

This entry was posted on January 6th, 2009 at 11:08 am by Amanda Atwood and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.