The Freedom Charter, a programme which still embraces many of the\nessential aims of our struggle, was adopted at the Congress of the People, held\non 26-27 June 1955.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Attended by some 3,000 delegates, the Congress of the People was\none of the most representative gatherings ever held in South Africa. Like the\nlaunching conference of the UDF in August last year, it aroused enormous\nenthusiasm in the working class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the run-up to the Congress, meetings were organised in different\nparts of the country, giving an opportunity to working people to voice and\nwrite down their demands. The Freedom Charter, reported O. R. Tambo, was\n“being compiled from thousands of written statements\u2026gathered at thousands\nof small meetings.” [1]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n “For months now,” wrote New Age<\/em> (June 23, 1955), “the demands\nhave been flooding into COP headquarters, on sheets torn from school exercise\nbooks, on little dog-eared scraps of paper, on slips torn from COP\nleaflets.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Apparently stemming from a proposal first made publicly by Z. K.\nMatthews, the calling of the Congress was seen as a means of raising the\npressure on the white government by showing the groundswell of unity backing up\nthe ANC’s democratic demands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It could not, of course, be the “people’s parliament”\nwhich some called it – for it gathered under the threatening guns of the\noppressor state and was powerless to implement its will. But this very fact\nhighlighted for the people, who sent delegates to it and supported it, that the\ndemocratic will of the majority would always be frustrated until that state\npower was overthrown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Congress of the People thus could have provided a springboard\nfor the launching of a new and more effective round of nationwide action –\nextending and consolidating working-class political organisation for yet bigger\nbattles to come – if the leadership had been united with a clear conception of\nwhere to lead it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As with all the campaigns of the 1950s, the campaign of\npreparation for the Congress was most effective where the working class was\nbest organised. They saw the possibilities which it opened up, and they took it\nup vigorously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus in Port Elizabeth (as a SACTU activist, Alven Bennie, later\nrecalled):<\/p>\n\n\n\n The workers responded with enthusiasm and we were working day and night preparing for the Congress of the People\u2026That campaign helped us a lot\u2026The workers would bring their demands to the offices after work. We worked till late and they would come in with their papers from different industries. We set up small committees, not only for the Congress, but we would organize a committee of workers so that they could continue with the work of organizing for the trade unions – in the dairies, laundries, road construction, with building workers, railway workers, etc.<\/p> The real organizing of the workers was boosted by the campaign\u2026they had something to keep them together to discuss common problems. Some of their problems were those of higher wages, better working conditions\u2026We explained that workers must unite, have a union to represent them. So, this gave us a chance to organize workers and explain to them that some of these problems would not be solved by the Congress of the People\u2026 [2]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In other areas, where the middle-class predominance in the ANC was\nabsolute, there was little or no response to the campaign. “Although the\nANC was responsible for the creation of the Congress of the People,”\nreported the NEC in December 1955, “many of its leaders and many of its\nbranches showed a complete lack of activity as if some of them regretted the birth\nof this great and noble idea.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why should the idea of the Congress of the People have been\n“regretted”? Many of the middle class in the ANC sensed that the\nCongress would provide a forum where working-class people could raise a\npolitical voice in a concerted way, and exert public pressure from the left\nupon the policy of the movement. They feared losing control of the direction of\nthe ANC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Revolutionary\ncharacter<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n “Grounds” for their anxiety were evident in the\nrevolutionary character of the demands which poured in from the working class,\nwho wanted not only an end to racial oppression but an end to their enslavement\nby capitalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Communist Party member has disclosed how the committee on which\nhe served, which received and sorted these demands to prepare a framework for\nthe Freedom Charter, censored out the many demands for “socialism”\nwhich flowed in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, the concrete social needs of workers for a national\nminimum wage, unemployment benefits, decent housing, education, hospitals,\ntransport, etc, did find their way into the Charter and form a very important\npart of it. Included with them was the nationalisation clause, which was seen\nby workers at the Congress of the People as a cornerstone of the whole Charter:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The National wealth of our country, the heritage of all South Africans, shall be restored to the people; The mineral wealth beneath the soil, the Banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Here was embodied the recognition of the working class that the\nachievement of national liberation and democracy involved overthrowing the\ncapitalist class and breaking the grip of the profit system. At the Congress,\nthe mover of the nationalisation clause explained it to the delegates in these\nwords:<\/p>\n\n\n\n It says ownership of the mines will be transferred to the ownership of the people. It says wherever there is a gold mine there will no longer be a compound boss. There will be a committee of the workers to run the gold mines. Friends, we also say that wherever there is a factory and where there are workers who are exploited, we say that the workers will take over and run the factories. In other words, the ownership of the factories will come into the hands of the people.<\/p> \u2026Let the banks come back to the people, let us have a people’s committee to run the banks.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The next speaker, a trade union leader from Natal, spelled out the\nsignificance which the working class attached to this clause of the Charter:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now comrades, the biggest difficulty we are facing in South Africa is that one of capitalism in all its oppressive measures versus the ordinary people – the ordinary workers in the country. We find in this country, as the mover of the resolution pointed out, the means of production. The factories, the lands, the industries and everything possible is owned by a small group of people who are the capitalists in this country. They skin the people, they live on the fat of the workers and make them work, as a matter of fact in exploitation. They oppress in order to keep them as slaves in the land of their birth.<\/p> Now friends, this is a very important demand in the Freedom Charter. Now we would like to see a South Africa where the industries, the lands, the big businesses and the mines, and everything that is owned by a small group of people in this country, must be owned by all the people in this country. That is what we demand, this is what we fight for and until we have achieved that we must not rest. [3]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Nothing was said publicly at the Congress, by any ANC or CP\nleader, to contradict this view. Nevertheless, the real attitude of the\nleadership was different, as soon became apparent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of those who had brought the nationalisation clause as a\nresolution from the Cape has recalled a bitter struggle, not only by some ANC\nleaders, but also by leading “Communists”, to prevent its inclusion\nin the Charter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then, once the delegates to the Congress of the People had\nreturned home, the leadership began to reinterpret the Charter publicly and\ndeny its anti-capitalist character.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Criticised<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n At the Natal ANC conference in October 1955, a resolution\ncriticised the nationalisation clause on the grounds that it “creates the\nimpression that something will be taken away from someone (maybe the ‘Haves’)\nand given to some other person (maybe the ‘Have-nots’). We would prefer\nsomething like this: ‘shall be shared equitably among all the people.'”<\/p>\n\n\n\n (It has yet to be explained how wealth can be “shared\nequitably” while the productive forces are privately owned and the economy\nis based on profit and exploitation.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n This conference also disliked the demand for a 40-hour working\nweek (it was unnecessary “padding”!) and stated that “making\nunused housing space” available should not require more than one family to\nlive under one roof. (Even in the enormous mansions of the rich?!)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reflecting similar views, Lutuli insisted (in a statement prepared\nfor the Treason Trial) that the ANC did not favour abolition of private\nownership of the means of production. [4]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Nelson Mandela, too, took this line publicly in 1956. [5]<\/a> He was still repeating it\nat the Rivonia trial in the 1960s:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The realisation of the Freedom Charter would open up fresh fields for a prosperous African population of all classes, including the middle class. The ANC has never at any period in its history advocated a revolutionary change in the economic structure of the country, nor has it, to the best of my recollection, ever condemned capitalist society. [6]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In no way did the Communist Party leadership ever express\ndisagreement with these positions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, in a document prepared for the defence in the Treason\nTrial, a leading CP member, Jack Simons, supported the Lutuli\/Mandela\ninterpretation of the Charter. He stated that it did not call for public\nownership of the means of production, and that it contained no suggestion of a\ntransition to a classless and socialist society. Adhering to the\n“two-stage” conception of Stalinism, he asserted that, in the\nconditions of South African autocracy, Marxists could be expected to work for a\nbourgeois democracy. [7]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Necessary?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Congress and Communist Party leaders argued that this\n“interpretation” of the Freedom Charter was necessary in order to\navoid frightening the black middle class away from the Congress movement. But\nthe Freedom Charter called for the nationalisation, not of the little township\nshop, not of small private property, but of the commanding heights of the economy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n With workers’ democratic control and management of production as a\nwhole, based on the main concentrations of industry, mining, agriculture and\nfinance, small private businesses would in fact be necessary to facilitate\ndistribution and small-scale services through a lengthy transitional period. In\ncontrast, a “bourgeois democracy”, leaving the economy to be\norganised on criteria of profit, would leave the middle class at the mercy of\ncapitalist monopolies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In reality the Congress\/CP leadership backed off from the\nnationalisation clause of the Freedom Charter because they were still pursuing\na futile search for reconciliation between the demands of the masses and the\ninterests of the liberal capitalists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the same reason, they could not move to build systematically\nupon the enthusiastic working-class support which the Congress of the People\nand the adoption of the Freedom Charter had aroused. The lack of a\nrevolutionary class<\/strong>conception of the struggle thus\nblunted the thrust of the movement at every point when clear leadership was\nneeded to march forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instead of a renewed campaign of action the ANC launched a\ncampaign\u2026to get a million signatures in support of the Charter. What effect\nthis was supposed to have in changing the real relationships of power in South\nAfrica was a mystery (and for that reason petitions usually leave workers stone\ncold). This petitioning campaign managed to get an estimated 100,000\nsignatures, mostly in the Transvaal, and then fizzled out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From this time, ANC and CP leaders placed increased emphasis on\ntrying to organise an “anti-Nationalist front” – a front based not on\nmass unity in action, but on assembling the widest possible range of support,\nmainly verbal, of anyone to the left of the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus Walter Sisulu, writing in Africa\nSouth <\/em>(January-March 1957),\nstated that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even the United Party will have to make up its mind. It will be faced with the question of joining with the Nationalists completely and sharing the fate which will face all racialists, or joining with the larger family of the democratic forces against apartheid.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Just how the black workers could be part of the same\n“family” with their capitalist masters – or in any way rely on them\nfor real support – was not explained. [8]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, from 1955, the lull in the mass movement was\nbeginning to end. The struggle launched by African women in 1956 against the\ngovernment’s attempt to impose passes on them, and the bus boycott in Evaton,\nwere signs of a resurgence. By early 1957 the mass movement had reached its\nhighest point in the decade, with the Alexandra bus boycott and the nationwide\necho it evoked among working people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1955 SACTU was formed, a non-racial trade union movement whose\nfounding principles provided the basis on which mass fighting trade unionism\ncould have been built.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet Congress leaders were as much, and indeed more, preoccupied\nwith the twists and turns of the remainder of the tiny black middle class, and\nthe liberals who associated with them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Inordinate attention was paid, for example, to an inter-denominational\nconference of African churchmen held at Bloemfontein in October 1956 to\nconsider the NP government’s Tomlinson Commission proposals on the Bantustans.\nThe clergy’s opposition to these proposals, and their decision to call for a\n“multi-racial conference” of “national leaders” was, it was\nclaimed, an “important step” in the “broadening” of the\n“anti-Nationalist front”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet, surely, what really mattered was not the support of this handful of individuals, powerless on their own account, but the organisation of the as-yet unorganised mass of the working class, thirsting for a clear lead. [1]<\/a>\nQuoted in From\nProtest to Challenge<\/em>,vol.\n3, p. 59.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/a>\nLuckhardt and Wall, Organize\nor Starve!, The History of the South African Congress of Trade Unions<\/em>,\nLondon, 1980, p. 337.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3]<\/a> See From\nProtest to Challenge<\/em>, vol. 3, p.195-6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [4]<\/a> See sources quoted in Gerhart, Black Power in South Africa<\/em>,\nCalifornia, 1978, p. 95, and From\nProtest to Challenge<\/em>, vol. 3, p. 195-6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [5]<\/a> See Liberation<\/em>,\nJune 1956.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [6]<\/a>\nFrom his statement to the court, dated April 20, 1964. It should\nbe noted that Mandela used the trial to make as clear as possible a public\nstatement of his political beliefs, and made no attempt to conceal his views in\nthe hope of leniency. Courageously facing his accusers, he proclaimed his ideal\nof a “democratic and free society” as one “which I hope to live\nfor and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to\ndie.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n [7]<\/a> See From\nProtest to Challenge<\/em>, vol. 3, p. 63.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nContinue to Chapter Six<\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n