TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/070191/0701003.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 7.9 KB | 167 lines

                                                                                WORLD, Page 38

SOUTH AFRICA

Who Will Lead This Divided Nation?


Apartheid is nearly gone, but the African National Congress is
ill prepared to take over and seems to have lost the political
initiative

By SCOTT MACLEOD/JOHANNESBURG -- With reporting by Mark Suzman/
Johannesburg


    When Nelson Mandela gathers his followers next week for
their first conference inside the country in 30 years, they
should be able to review their achievements with pride. The
African National Congress, established in 1912, is nearer than
ever to its goal of replacing apartheid with democracy for all
races. Last week the last legal pillar of segregation tumbled
when the Parliament revoked the Population Registration Act of
1950, fulfilling President F.W. de Klerk's promise to abolish
South Africa's major discrimination laws.

    These are not particularly good days, however, for the
A.N.C. The meeting in the Natal province capital of Durban is
expected to elevate Mandela to the movement's presidency, but
his stature has been trimmed by the conviction of his wife
Winnie on kidnapping and assault charges two months ago. The
challenge for the 2,000 delegates is how to retake the political
initiative that the A.N.C. has lost to De Klerk in the past
year. Thanks to his democratic advances, Pretoria's
international isolation seems ever closer to an end. Even in the
U.S., where antiapartheid sentiment is strong, pressure is
building to end the five-year-old economic boycott.

    The A.N.C. was doomed to fall short of the absurdly high
hopes inspired by Mandela's release from prison in February
1990. But the organization has genuinely dismayed many South
Africans with its increasingly strident demands, its role in
township violence, its muddled ideas about nationalizing parts
of the economy and its maddening bureaucratic sluggishness. Not
long ago, A.N.C. leaders could be heard arguing that the
government should simply hand over power. Now it is reasonable
to wonder if the organization, even with its large number of
sympathizers, could win a democratic election when one is
finally held. And if the A.N.C. did come to power, would it be
fit to govern?

    During the same period, De Klerk has shown impressive
skill at outmaneuvering Mandela and maintaining control of the
transition process. He enjoys strong support from whites and
blacks alike. "This is not a regime that is collapsing," says
Lawrence Schlemmer, director of Johannesburg's Center for Policy
Studies. The government's competency has frustrated the A.N.C.
Most galling of all has been the success that De Klerk has had
in being welcomed by black African leaders the congress
considers close allies.

    Some congress officials charge that De Klerk is also
actively building up the rival Inkatha Freedom Party, the mainly
Zulu organization headed by Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. Opinion
polls indicate that the A.N.C. has the support of more than 60%
of blacks, in contrast to 10% for Inkatha. But congress
officials fear that De Klerk's ruling National Party will
eventually form a coalition with Inkatha to keep the A.N.C. out
of any government.

    In a press conference arranged by the congress last month,
retired Major Nico Basson accused the South African Defense
Force of arming Inkatha to stir up tribal hostility. While the
army and Inkatha denied the charges, eyewitnesses have seen
white policemen escorting Inkatha impis (armed Zulus) from the
scene of recent bloody attacks.

    But not all the A.N.C.'s troubles can be blamed on others.
While most members recognize the need for negotiations, some of
its leaders are still caught up in dreams of revolution. "The
very notion of revolutionary politics excludes any idea of give
and take," says John Kane-Berman, executive director of the
South African Institute of Race Relations in Johannesburg. "But
that's the game the A.N.C. has been pushed into playing." The
desire to remain a liberation movement until white domination
ends may be understandable, but in such a delicate period,
confrontational tactics discourage the climate for negotiations
that the A.N.C. itself is demanding.

    The movement has also bungled its relations with Inkatha,
which may have as many as 1 million members. While congress
leaders consider the Zulu chief a sellout for serving as chief
minister of the Pretoria-created KwaZulu homeland, Mandela
indicated that he wished to meet with Buthelezi. He was
apparently overruled by hard-liners. Last August, as Buthelezi's
followers sought to expand their influence beyond Inkatha's
stronghold of Natal, fierce clashes erupted in the black
townships around Johannesburg. By the time Mandela finally sat
down in an attempt to make peace with Buthelezi last January,
more than 1,000 people had been killed -- for which both sides
bear responsibility.

    Only recently has the A.N.C. begun to recognize its
sagging popularity. A campaign to increase its membership by 1
million has failed by half. Following Mandela's release, A.N.C.
members disparaged smaller rival organizations such as the Pan
Africanist Congress and the Azanian People's Organization. Now,
seeing the danger of fragmenting the antiapartheid camp, the
A.N.C. has sought to bring the others into a "patriotic front."
But the congress's performance has scared off those whites who
were generally sympathetic. "Many have decided to remain
aloof," says Jan van Eck, a Member of Parliament for the liberal
Democratic Party, "because they are unsure exactly what the
A.N.C. offers."

    Divisions are growing within the congress on tactical as
well as ideological matters. In general, moderates trust the
government's commitment to a process that could result in the
A.N.C.'s accession to power, while hard-liners feel De Klerk is
perpetrating a sophisticated ruse. Both are struggling to
dominate the new 100-member National Executive Committee that
is scheduled to be elected next week; its primary responsibility
will be to chart the movement's course to negotiations.

    If the Durban gathering turns into a factional face-off,
the hard-liners will probably come out on top. Growing
increasingly shrill, the A.N.C. issued demands last April that
De Klerk was certain to refuse, such as the firing of Defense
Minister Magnus Malan and Law and Order Minister Adriaan Vlok.
Though himself a moderate and the movement's peacemaker, Mandela
last week sided with hard-liners by flatly declaring as
nonnegotiable the A.N.C.'s requirement that an elected
constituent assembly, rather than leaders of political parties,
draw up a new constitution.

    One test of the A.N.C.'s future direction will come when
the committee decides how to answer calls to step up "mass
action" campaigns of strikes, boycotts and marches. De Klerk
charges that these inspire violence and intimidation, poisoning
the atmosphere for talks. But A.N.C. hard-liners feel that mass
action, like international sanctions, is a vital weapon. "If you
look at how the East European countries changed," says Peter
Mokaba, leader of the A.N.C. Youth League, "it was mass action
that actually pushed the undemocratic regimes out of power."

    Fearful of giving way on any of its long-standing demands,
the A.N.C. could come to be seen as blocking progress toward a
political settlement. Last week De Klerk told Parliament that a
multiparty conference could be convened within a matter of
months to decide exactly who would negotiate a new political
system and how they would go about doing it. The A.N.C. has
vowed to boycott any constitutional discussions until the
government fulfills an agreement to free all political prisoners
and allow exiles to return home. De Klerk has not yet extended
a formal invitation to the gathering. When he does, the A.N.C.'s
response will help decide not only the fate of the liberation
movement but of South Africa as well.