People's War: A reply to Drew Forrest

SAIRR Opinion: People's War: New Light on the Struggle for South Africa - 4th December 2009

On Friday 27th November 2009 the Mail & Guardian published an attack on Anthea Jeffery's new People's War book. Her response (see below) was sent to the newspaper on Monday 30th November 2009 with a request that it be published with the same degree of prominence as the attack. Instead, the newspaper has failed to publish it at all.

Jeffery's response:

Drew Forrest's review of People's War: New Light on the Struggle for South Africa (see here) is an unconvincing parody of my book. For Forrest seeks to explain away 540 pages of evidence about the ANC's people's war on the simplistic basis that my alleged ‘dizzy romance' with Inkatha lies behind my supposed determination to ‘stretch the facts to fit my preconceptions'. [‘Polemic pretending to be history', Mail & Guardian 27 November 2009]

His review is also an extraordinary perversion of the truth, for he asserts that the ‘people's war' was ‘largely a figment'. He thus ignores:

• the ANC's visit to Vietnam in 1978 to learn the formula for people's war;
• its decision to adopt that formula, reflected in the ANC document The Green Book: Lessons from Vietnam;
• the determination made clear in The Green Book that the ANC would now embark on ‘a protracted people's war' in which opponents would be overcome via ‘a combination of political and military action'; and
• a host of subsequent ANC broadcasts and publications further exhorting people's war and, in time, praising the achievements of this strategy.

Forrest also implicitly asserts that the struggle was simply ‘a mass movement of ordinary South Africans', led by the United Democratic Front (UDF), in which the ANC was largely confined to ‘cheering from the sidelines'. But this ignores the fact that:

• the UDF was a puppet of the ANC (24 of the UDF's 25-strong national executive committee being members of the ANC underground);
• the ANC was unbanned and back inside South Africa when the people's war intensified in the early 1990s and the death toll in political violence rose three-fold from what it had been in the 1980s.

To explain away this sudden surge in violence after political liberalisation, the ANC and its allies developed the Third-Force theory, which Forrest endorses too. According to this theory, state president F W de Klerk had a ‘dual strategy' of talking peace while waging war: of pretending a commitment to negotiations while using the police and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) to destabilise the ANC.

The obvious involvement of both the police and the IFP in political violence lent significant support to this theory. But the theory also has many weaknesses:

• no credible evidence of De Klerk's duplicity has ever been found, despite assiduous endeavour;
• more than 800 policemen were killed in the early 1990s, many in premeditated ambushes, while thousands of IFP office-bearers and supporters were killed in similar ways; while
• a Third Force that killed so many of its own made no sense at all, especially when neither the police nor the IFP drew advantage from the killings but were instead discredited and weakened by them.

By contrast (all of which Forrest overlooks):

• the ANC had a declared ‘dual strategy' of persisting with its people's war after negotiations began for it saw the talks as nothing but ‘an additional terrain of struggle';
• the ANC had little compunction about attacking black civilians, including its own supporters, for the formula for people's war draws no distinction between combatants and others and regards all civilians (irrespective of their political affiliation) as expendable in conflict;
• the ANC had a motive to unleash violence, for it wanted to create enough mayhem and unrest either to spark an insurrection or to weaken its opponents to the point where it could triumph in negotiations;
• the ANC had the means to unleash violence, for the peace process allowed it to bring back into South Africa some 13 000 armed and trained combatants whom it then refused to disarm or disband; and
• the ANC was the only organisation to draw benefit from the 15 000 political killings that took place in the early 1990s (after all major apartheid laws had been repealed), for it used these to:
  • stigmatise De Klerk and the IFP,
  • stampede negotiators into giving it what Joe Slovo called ‘a famous victory' in negotiations, and
  • put great pressure on the first all-race election, while making it unthinkable for anyone to demand a re-run of the deeply flawed April 1994 poll in which it was accorded (no accurate count being possible) some 63% of the vote.

Forrest also suggests that Inkatha was the principal villain in violence and that the book seeks simply to obscure this. But this ignores one of the most important of the lessons from Vietnam - that people's war can be used not only against an incumbent government but also against all other rivals for power. Moreover, such rivals must be so weakened by the time of the transition as to give the insurgents hegemony and pave the way for the further stages of the revolution.

Against this background, it is not surprising that most of the violence was directed against Inkatha, which already had a million members in KwaZulu/Natal and on the Reef when the people's war began and so posed the greatest obstacle to the ANC's determination to dominate a post-apartheid South Africa. The IFP also bore the brunt of the casualties, for the police were correct in their analysis that ‘the ANC was waging an aggressive war' against the IFP ‘by military means' and that the IFP was ‘disadvantaged in its resistance' because it ‘lacked the quantity and sophistication of the weaponry available to the ANC'.

Forrest also overlooks the violence directed at many other groups, all of which were targets for attack under the formula for people's war. From 1984 to 1994, there was violence between the ANC and black councillors; between the ANC and the police; between the ANC and the Azanian People's Organisation; between the ANC and the Pan-Africanist Congress; between the ANC and the locally influential Labour Party in Port Elizabeth; between the ANC and alleged ‘vigilantes': in fact, moderate blacks tired of being coerced to take part in the ANC's campaigns of mass action. Always it was the ANC that was the common denominator in the conflict.

To all of this, Forrest turns a determinedly blind eye. It is thus not my book but his review which is ‘a shallow polemic'. His real gripe is doubtless that the book succeeds too well in piercing the veil the ANC has drawn across our recent past.

- Dr Anthea Jeffery. Jeffery is Head of Special Research at the South African Institute of Race Relations and author of People's War: New Light on the Struggle for South Africa, recently published by Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Issued by the South African Institute of Race Relations, December 4 2009

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter

Services Subscribe to newsletters News feeds Share this article Facebook Google Laaik.it Yahoo! Digg del.icio.us

 

Anthea Jeffery's latest book is a tract masquerading as history. And what makes it additionally depressing reading is its musty odour of déjà vu. Far from shedding "new light" on South Africa's pre-transition upheavals, it is a restatement of the ideological fixations of the South African Institute of Race Relations in the 1984-94 period and particularly its dizzy romance with Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi."

Drew Forrest, M&G November 27 2009

 

Related links

Articles:

The ANC's dirty war »

Buthelezi welcomes publication of "People's War" »

Comments

If you come across comments that are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate; contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs, please report them and they will be removed.

 

responses to this article

Shame on them all. To the above: Amen. This is an intellectually honesty and determined attempt at stating the facts as they were... of course, before the revisionism started. To all the assholes who supported the UDF or who were members of the White . .more Left (including the Black Sash, and those who provided safe houses for the ANC while they were committing this violence, to the Anglican Communion and Trevor Huddleston, and Beyers Naude, as well as Carl Niehaus, and the many other enablers of the ANC, including Donald Woods and Joe Slovo (they deserve to be named next to one another!) , and also to Helens Suzman and Joseph, Di Bishop and also the radical academics at Wits and UCT and anglophonic authors who were still fighting the Boer War and so peddled a warped version of reality in SA)) - shame on you all for what you have wrought!!! . .less by JVR on December 06 2009, 22:05 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Jeffery vs Dawes No wonder the M&G didn't print this. It makes their editor look silly. They have no answer to Jeffery's thorough thesis. Nick Dawes is the quintessntial useful idiot. by Charles Mostert on December 06 2009, 22:17 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Jeffery is making up facts . . . as to the following: >>no credible evidence of De Klerk's duplicity has ever been found, despite assiduous endeavour;<< This is completely incorrect. De Klerk signed many regulations between 1990 and 1993 which effectively . .more stripped away existing prohibitions and allowed IFP members to carry dangerous weapons in urban areas. These were used with devastating effect at Swanieville, and at Boiphatong to mention only two out of may instances where IFP impis ran amok and sowed devastation in the Vaal region. The ANC opposed these regulations but were repeatedly ignored as De Klerk ensured that the IFP impis remained untouchable. No impi's were ever arrested in the period of the CODESA talks 1990 -1993. >>more than 800 policemen were killed in the early 1990s, many in premeditated ambushes, while thousands of IFP office-bearers and supporters were killed in similar ways<< These events were not in the early 1990's. They were in the mid to late 1980's. They do not support Jefferey's case. . .less by Peter on December 07 2009, 03:57 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

The tyranny of political correctness It seems that the Forrest can't see the wood for the trees. Poor Drew and Dawes have both been overwhelmed by the tyranny of political correctness. So sad in an organ once known for its willingness and ability to speak truth to power. Perhaps Dawes could . .more explain why the rebuttal of Forrest's review was not published in the M&G as an act of accountable journalism and as part of his response to his "tell us what we are doing wrong" campaign. It would be downright irresponsible not to. Better still, muster the balls to apologise for your tardiness and publish the rebuttal in the next edition, please Nic. By the way Peter, openly made regulations are not evidence of duplicity. . .less by Paul Hoffman on December 07 2009, 07:19 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Poor Drew and Dawes . . . have been overcome by the truth. Nothing more, nothing less. Political correctness has nothing to do with it. Paul, the openly made regulations do show the fingerprint of duplicity. Study them sometime. At the time, 1990-1993 nobody . .more was watching them closely. There are many other regimes in history who paved the way for their duplicitous deeds by first making them legal. Your point is without foundation. . .less by Peter on December 07 2009, 08:00 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Jeffery 10 Forrest 0 And Forrest goes down for the full count. And the pattern of the ANC's conduct is continuing, for all to see. by Concerned South African on December 07 2009, 08:10 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

The pattern of the ANC's conduct today . . . The pattern of the ANC's conduct today has got nothing to do with the pattern of De Klerk and the IFP's conduct 15 years ago. Concerned, you have made a logical jump typical of those made by Jeffery. by Peter on December 07 2009, 08:47 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

The ANC created SA's crime monster Much of the crime in today's SA has it's roots in the ANC's deliberate policy of breaking down the traditional respect of elders in African society and giving the power to youths who were encouraged to use violence and intimidation to achieve their . .more aims. Behind the veneer of Saint Mandela that was presented to the world, the moral high ground that the ANC loved to parade is being shown up increasing to have been just an illusion, and as they descend ever faster into the murky slime of smelly African politics seen in much of the rest of this continent, their true colours are being revealed. Nic Dawes wants to know why the Western Cape doesn't buy his newspaper. Personally I find it a bit boring and politically correct. In its hey day it was a much more interesting read. It should be running the sort of debate that can be seen in Politicsweb. Like much of SA's newspapers, the content is not keeping up with the price increases, so the automated purchasing of such newspapers which happened in the past, now doesn't happen. . .less by Sad Days on December 07 2009, 09:23 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@ Peter Your credibility is unclear. You come in from the side nit-picking on facts trying to discredit the entire article. Give us some links where we can substantiate your claims, until then I have no reason to hold your claims above those of an idividual . .more formally engaged in race relations and research. . .less by Johnny V on December 07 2009, 09:46 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@JvR Idiot! by Phillis on December 07 2009, 09:51 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

drew forrest Not even the ANC takes drew forrest seriously. by witbooi on December 07 2009, 10:34 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

The ANC never WON SA - it was sold to them via DE KLERK After 15 years of "governing" it further proves that the ANC were totally incapable of winning any war - no matter how just the cause might have been......... by WhaataPoosiam on December 07 2009, 10:40 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Inkatha Nazis Inkatha was the African version of the Nazi black-shirts. They were the shock troops for Buthelezi's vision of a Zulu nationalist kingdom answerable to noone but him. They had the full backing of the apartheid security apparatus, which exploited the . .more organisation as a kind of internal 32 Battalion. Speak to anyone who lived in the townships on the reef during that time and they will tell you the word 'hostel' became synonymous with fear. These became the bases from which Inkatha's 'impis' would operate. The miracle is not that they failed; but having done so, that they continue to exist, and Buthelezi to live peacefully, without retribution. And given that the ANC has held back from revenge, I cannot think why Jeffrey would want to dig up this tired, one-side view of the Zulu fascists being victims, rather than perpetrators of violence. . .less by Gavin on December 07 2009, 12:43 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@Jvr/Phil Add Koos Kombuis and Max du Preez to your list. Or are you scared? by Koos on December 07 2009, 13:24 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@Jvr/Phil http://www.beeld.com/Content/Rubrieke/TimduPlessis/2145/e4cb4773b0414a6eb7803cc96c6ffafd/04-12-2009-01-44/%E2%80%99n_Lewe_anderkant_gatvol by Koos on December 07 2009, 14:19 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

M Pity. I used to think the M & G was South Africa's best newspaper. Now it is insulting its readers with political censorship. by Pieter Schoombee on December 07 2009, 14:28 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Very convincing argument Jeffery is absolutely right and not the crackpot she appears to be at first glance. It was all a plot by the ANC and the communist apparatchicks who control it. Buthelezi should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his excellent work trying to bring peace . .more and harmony between IFP hostels and the communities that surrounded them. Etc. . .less by Anthony on December 07 2009, 15:00 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@Phillis: You're obviously guilty... ...of being one of the P******* limp-wristed spineless twits that JVR is railing against and who were largely responsible for the destruction of civilised standards in SA. But I expect you think that's OK. If so, you're hardly in a position to call . .more anyone an idiot. . .less by Alset on December 07 2009, 15:02 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

JvR/Phil/Alset Why all the name changes for the same person, you never make a positive contribution only complaining about the past. You are a real Phyllis. by Piet on December 07 2009, 15:45 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

M I gave up my subscription years ago and have only bought it once or twice since. Its bcome so boring. Forrest has ben debunked over and over again. by js on December 07 2009, 16:04 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@Inkatha Nazis This statement was not my experience working in the constrcution industry in places like King Williamstown and Edendale in Pietermaritzburg.I am afraid Jeffrey is spot on and that every time the instigators of violence and boycotts was the UDF. by Mike on December 07 2009, 16:35 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Peoples war The struggle for liberation in SOuth Africa was far from being ideal and romantic but it achieved its objective of liberating the people of South Africa. The country is seeing an increased demonisation of the ANC and the Anti apartheid struggle. Anthea is . .more one among many who have sought to re-tell this country's story with the hope of changing reality. Those who had first hand experience of the so-called black on black violence will tell you that IFP and the police were at the centre stage of that violence. No amount of information twisting will erase that from the memory of ordinary South Africans who were at the recieving end of that violence. Anthea deliberately misleads with equating the people's war with the violence of the time. He argues that the ANC had more to gain from the violence but does not provide proof of that as he demands for De Klerk's involvement. Buthelezi should employ Anthea to be the party's spin doctor and he will surely have the nation believe that Gatsha is a God send. . .less by chuma on December 07 2009, 16:39 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@Peoples War Sorry my chuma, there were no IFP warriors in King Williams Town and dont forget, if you dont know, now you do, that neckclacing started in Queeenstown and rapidly spread to other parts of the Eastern Cape. by Mike on December 07 2009, 17:14 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@Johnny V Johnny, Jeffery's entire article is a nit-pick. Why is she delving back 15-20 years into the period 1990-1993? Simply to whitewash the IFP's involvement with the Nat govt. in forcing issues at CODESA. However, if we're going to nit-pick, then let's do . .more it properly. . .less by Peter on December 07 2009, 18:08 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

"Are you scared" Koos -am I scared of what? by JVR on December 07 2009, 19:05 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@JVR You are the only one still fighting the Anglo-Boer war old bean. So the apartheid regime was civilised according to you. Well yes of course it was if you benefitted from it. Maybe if you had been a black in a township or the rural areas you may have a . .more different perspective on what such "civilisation" entailed for those not of a paler hue. The white English-speaking liberals couldn't give a toss about you or the rest of the Afrikaner nationalists. Maybe you should emigrate to Canada, tell them how much you are a victim here in SA under the hated swart gevaar. . .less by Jeff on December 07 2009, 20:01 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Search for your brain Jeff! No Jeff --- Anglos have waged war on Boers since 1820 (go check that out), and still continue today. The Black Sash and company could not stand Afrikaners and Afrikaans, and wage determined political war to that end, the ANC was a convenient ally at the . .more time. The Boer war continues to this day, as you are evidently also still engaged in it. Now in fact, much (if not all) of the warped politics and social circumstances in SA is due to the one single fact that the Anglo Left never stopped fighting the Boer war. Now I do not (unlike you) ascribe odious motives to people I dislike or disagree with (and I do not play cards) -- instead, I would prefer to examine issues on their own merits, and what is said about the UDF etc above is unfortunately true -- those people who supported the ANC and enabled them have a lot to think about today (even in hindsight), and many of those thoughts I think are quite guilt-ridden. Who knows where you stand on this? Do you sleep well at night? Have you protested the murders on your own people by ANC supporters? Now stop revising history, and search for the brain you lost in 1994, you may yet find it. Remember, salvation is to be found in intellectual honesty. So develop honesty, and you and those around you will be better off as a result. . .less by JVR on December 07 2009, 20:57 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Where did Apartheid started. It started with the English.Not he Boer. They are to this day still trying to blame the Boer. by Alkie on December 07 2009, 21:45 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

aprtheid Apatheid started with the English. And to this day they are still blaming the Boer. by alkie on December 07 2009, 21:49 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

@Gavin If Inkhata were the Black Shirts, then let me point out that the ANC YL today are the Brown Shirts. The ANC seniors are using their youth wing to pave the way for an attack on all left forces until they themselves are attacked by the Boss for just . .more mentioning the word "socialism". The Nazis were in fact the "National Socialists". Let us have more revelations of the iniquities of the ANC-led struggle as well as its successes. Paul Trewhela's book about the Quattro prison camp will no doubt also be rubbished however accurate his research has been. Yes indeed the ANC is re-writing history to embellish its reputation and rule but the truth is emerging from the inner cracks and splits that have at last appeared. The 'negotiated settlement' was nothing more than an arrangement to get the capitalist-leaning ANC to enrich itself and get power without disturbing white economic hegemony. The new black elite are nothing more than the 'assimilados' of our country. They are fully coopted and must be displaced before full liberation is achieved. It is the ANC that now regards the 'blacks' of the IFP and the 'blacks' of the apartheid poice force as among the 'previously disadvantaged'. No more need be said . .less by Costa Gazi on December 07 2009, 22:06 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Defying logic? Forrest seems to go to any length to defy logic. He is of course writing what people want to read. How can big cuddly St Nelson be involved with such alleged nastiness? Impossible! Even a school kid knows there is two sides to every story. by Alan on December 08 2009, 09:56 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

ANC's 'People's War " continues in 2010 Forrest is in for a bigger surprise. The ANC's 'People's War' is continuing up until this day against the South African population. Operation Vula''s continuance is suspected by me to be behind the horrific volume and mutilations of whites . .more during farm attacks and home robberies. When security forces clamped down on Operation Vula, spearheaded by Mac Maharaj, Ronnie Kasrils, and Siphiwe Nyanda. the tons and tons of weaponry was already relocated. The infrastructure and logistics were also not dismantled. Robert Mcbride's Ekurhuleni Metro Police is known to have more arms available than one can imagine. He was caught smuggling AK 47's from Mozambique. The training of those involved in farm attacks and house robberies suggests politics of the war kind behind everything... . .less by Pieter on December 09 2009, 01:22 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Peoples War Thank you for publishing this it takes real gut to put what most of us know or suspected into print. I do not think you will be popular in some circles by Usilida Kafra on July 29 2010, 18:52 Find this comment inappropriate? Report it

Name
Subject
Comment