Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.  If you broadcast our audio commentaries please consider a recurring donation to Black Agenda Report.

Reconciliation is Not Decolonization

  • Sharebar
    Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

    by BAR columnist Jemima Pierre

    Nelson Mandela certainly led an inspirational life, but the “liberation” of South Africa has been the continent’s most spectacular failure. Mandela and his party “reneged on their own Freedom Charter which promised that land, the national mineral wealth, the banking systems, as well as all other industry and trade be nationalized and used to the benefit of South Africa’s majority.”

     

    Reconciliation is Not Decolonization

    by BAR columnist Jemima Pierre

    True decolonization for Africa demanded no less than the full uprooting of the bifurcated colonial structure: decoupling whiteness and power.”

    It doesn’t take away from Nelson Mandela’s radical work with his African National Congress (ANC) comrades to say that the “new” South Africa under “Black rule” epitomizes the most spectacular failure of Africa’s decolonization project. The formal end of racial apartheid in South Africa was to be the culmination of African triumph over white European rule. In South Africa Blacks were inheriting the biggest economy on the African continent, an economy built through their stolen land, resources, and labor power. But as of 2008, the poorest 50% received only 7.8% of total income and while 83% of white South Africans and only 11% of Blacks were among the top 20% of income receivers. Things have gotten worse since the global financial crisis as there has been increased suffering among the Black population, the supposed victors at the end of racial apartheid.

    So what happened? And what can the South African experience teach us about the failure of African decolonization more generally?

    In the new South Africa the maintenance of white power was explicit, even as it was hidden beneath the veneer of Black political empowerment. The details of the transition to Black political control in South Africa have been discussed by a number of journalists, academics, and politicians. But some of these details – most importantly, the economic ones – bear repeating. In a recent interview, South African scholar Patrick Bond reminded us that some key compromises made by the leaders of the African National Congress at the moment of negotiations with the racist regime locked the new Black-run nation in a destructive relationship with former rulers and beholden to global white capital.

    Consider just some of these compromises: the acceptance, by the ANC leadership, of an IMF loan which depended on the standard structural adjustment conditions that plagued African and other third world nations of the time; laws that solidified whites’ property rights, effectively allowing them to keep stolen land; the maintenance of the undemocratic structure of the central bank; and the agreement by ANC leaders to absorb and repay apartheid era debt incurred by the racist government, to the tune of $25 billion! In agreeing to these compromises, the ANC leaders sold out their people. In particular, they reneged on their own Freedom Charter which promised that land, the national mineral wealth, the banking systems, as well as all other industry and trade be nationalized and used to the benefit of South Africa’s majority. As Glen Ford recently reminded us, with the “sunset clause” agreement, ANC’s Black leadership allowed the economy to proceed as before, with whites keeping their jobs in the “bloated bureaucracy” that had served as welfare system for, especially, the Boer whites. Thus, the ANC’s leadership chose “a change in regime, but not a change in the relationships of economic power.”

    European economic supremacy and structural racial privilege were the true victors in the decolonization experiment in Africa.”

    It is easy to consider the failure of the ANC and Black rule more generally, as unique to South Africa. But, just as racial apartheid and economic exploitation was the default structure of the colonial state throughout the continent, so too was the failure of decolonization. True decolonization for Africa demanded no less than the full uprooting of the bifurcated colonial structure: decoupling whiteness and power. But that never happened – anywhere on the continent. Example after example demonstrate that most leaders of African decolonization, eager to avoid the violence that real transformation of power would have brought, negotiated deals that provided blackface cover for the maintenance of the white colonial power structure, with its control of the best lands, mines, manufacturing plants, and financial institutions. South Africa is only the most prominent and disappointing example.

    As historian C. L. R. James said of Kwame Nkrumah’s Ghana during its negotiations with its former colonial master: “the British government gave nothing, handed over nothing, fought to the last second to retain everything that it could, and when it was forced to retired, left the Gold Coast tied up in knots which Ghana will have to spend a long time untying.” The truth of the matter is that the European colonial powers had more to gain by ceding some political control in order to maintain the structure of economic domination.

    In effect, European economic supremacy and structural racial privilege were the true victors in the decolonization experiment in Africa. It is this context that is important to remember as we watch the western elite fawn over Mandela’s “reconciliation” and “forgiveness.” As Amai Jukwa and Garikai Chengu recently pointed out, “what appears to be love for Mandela is actually self-love, a subconscious act of white self-preservation.”

    Black African self-preservation and renewal is another matter.

    While we mourn Mandela’s passing we would do well to remember that decolonization has not occurred – and that a new radical and uncompromising movement is needed to end the enduring racial and economic apartheid in Africa and the Black World.

    Jemima Pierre can be reached at BAR1804@gmail.com

    Share this

    There is AN ACT II

    Despite the corruption that has plagued its members, ANC has been the thread that held majority of its members together!

    The total collapse of this thread(ANC), which has been vigorously sought by the powerful "economic apartheid", is going to bring about tribalism in which each South African tribe is going to look out for its own economic survival in the regime. Africans may end up fighting Africans while the resourses are harvested. In case they have not done so already, those wealthy black African elites may decide to protect the wealth they have accumulated by acting as security guards for powerful economic aparthied regime! This is what has happened in many so called "independent" African countries  where the Africans leaders who fought together to get rid of the colonial yoke eventually turned against each other. Some went as far as engaging in  the jailing and/or assassination of their own African former colleagues! 

    This trick has been played over and over again!

    True, true but understandable

    The most truthful and essential point of Pierre's article is that: <Example after example demonstrate that most leaders of African decolonization, eager to avoid the violence that real transformation of power would have brought, negotiated deals that provided blackface cover for the maintenance of the white colonial power structure, with its control of the best lands, mines, manufacturing plants, and financial institutions.>

    But one should not minimize what the trade-off favoring 'peace with slow, painful suffering' can mean to colonized people.  The readiness to resist with dignity, as Cuba for example has done, exacts a price many oppressed majorities are not willing (or ready) to pay. Looking at the landscape of resistance in the African continent should give us pause to consider that the South African struggle, hardly being over with the dismantling of racial apartheid, perhaps needs to go through its own phases of revolution within the context of its uniqueness as a society.   There is a post-Mandela phase the South African majority will show us, and it may hopefully be in the direction of dismantling the other pillar of apartheid to establish economic sovereignty.

    What's the word? Surrenderburg

    Cuba v. SA isn't the best analogy. A better one is Venezuela v. SA, as they are both powerhouses of resources that the capitalist world needs. SA minerals mean more to the capitalist world than Venezuela's oil does. Would world capital have wrecked the mining equivalent of Saudi Arabia by fighting a triumphant South African working class in the early 90s or would they have treated it more like Chavez's Venezuela, with the SA working class reaping the gains of an extractive economy? Surely, with the ANC, COSATU and the NUM of the 1980s and early 90s, the SA working class was more primed for a successful struggle than Venezuela when it elected Chavez. Surely, a better deal could have been reached for the working class majority than having Cyril Ramaphosa morph into Vernon Jordan. The simple truth is that the leaders sold out or lost the will to fight any longer or feared ending up like Chris Hani. Don't tell me they couldn't bear to see any more bloodshed because they've borne up quite well by living with enormous inequality and poverty and the massacre of 34 striking miners in Marikana, something the ANC and COSATU have yet to condemn. Most of the miners were shot in the back, most likely killed on the direct order of Lonmin mine's big shareholder, Ramaphosa. These former revolutionaries are people, they aren't saints or superheroes, and they are sometimes case studies in corruption and treachery. The superhero is a class-conscious working class. 

    THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE RAW DEAL

    Way back in the 1990s, the leaders of the ANC were repeatedly warned about the dangers of getting swept away by wave of euphoria which ensued with the release of Nelson Mandela, and by the sudden elimination of the prospects of a "race war," whatever that meant, in southern Africa. These leaders were told, repeatedly, on many occasions that fight was about saving the average oppressed black person from the ravages of apartheid, not about the well-being of a handful of leaders, or about saving capitalism and preserving the ill-gotten gains of the white minority. They ignored the all of the advice, warnings, and pleadings because they knew best. To this day, their response to all criticism of their behavior and poor performance when it comes to serving the black majority remains the same, they know what's best. As long as the ANC remains in power, nothing will change for the better for the average black person in South Africa because that is not the ANC's agenda.

    Clicky Web Analytics