Why the ANC needs 'racism' to survive - DP

The opposition's response to the govt's national racism conference ( 29 August 2000)

The Democratic Party’s response to the ANC government's national racism conference, as presented by Dene Smuts MP, 29 August 2000:


The political agenda behind the National Racism Conference

29 August 2000

The ANC has never been a political party. Right from the start, up to now, the ANC is a coalition, if you want, of people of various political affiliations. Some will support free enterprise, others socialism. Some are conservatives, others are liberals. We are united solely by our determination to oppose racial oppression. That is the only thing that unites us. There is no question of ideology as far as the odyssey of the ANC is concerned, because any question approaching ideology would split the organisation from top to bottom. Because we have no connection whatsoever except this one, our determination to dismantle apartheid.

Nelson Mandela, 1990[1]

Because racism lives, the struggle continues! Because of that, the ANC must remain what it has been for many decades, a movement for the elimination of the legacy of the system of racism.

Thabo Mbeki, 1999[2]


Earlier this year the ANC decided to embark on a campaign against ‘racism’ in South African society. In his January 8th statement, on the 88th anniversary of ANC, Thabo Mbeki stated that “consideration should be given to convening a National Congress Against Racism this year. This would enable us to have a broad-based programme of action against the cancer of racism as we enter the first year of the African Century.”

Following Mbeki’s speech, the Human Rights Commission approached the ANC to discuss this Conference. On the 1st of February they met with Mbeki, and on the 4th of February Mbeki announced, in his opening address to Parliament, that the SAHRC would have the honour of holding the Conference. He stated that the “brutality of racism” will “continue to exist in our society unless all of us engage this monster consciously and systematically.”

As with the investigation into ‘racism in the media’ there is a disturbing confluence of interest between the agenda of the ruling party, and the actions of the Human Rights Commission. The President and Deputy-President will be keynote speakers and government Ministers and their Deputies will participate in the working groups. The leader of the the opposition has been refused speaking time.

Thus, the Conference will (in all likelihood) be advancing an ANC agenda. It is unlikely that the racial policies and rhetoric of the ruling party will come under any sort of scrutiny. The Conference (if early indications are any guide) will also be focused solely on “white racism.” In its report on “racism in the media” the SAHRC stated, “the reality in South Africa is that racism is manifested as white racism. That is a fact.”[3]

It should also be pointed out that the ANC has launched its “anti-racism” campaign at a time when “white racism” has completely disappeared as a political ideology in this country. Jaap Marais was the only South African politician left willing to defend Apartheid, and he passed away a few weeks ago. White South Africans have sought to protect their interests through principles of non-racialism and individual rights, as enshrined in the Constitution.

At the same time, the ANC has extended its control over almost all ‘levers of power’ within the state. The separation between party and state has been largely extinguished. The judiciary, although weakened, is perhaps the only state institution still independent of the ruling party. It is also ANC policy to extend party control over all institutions in civil society such as the media, business and sporting bodies.[4]

The Democratic Party (now the Democratic Alliance), which was founded upon liberal opposition to apartheid, emerged as the official opposition following the 1999 general elections. As a consequence liberalism forms the major ideological and political opposition to the hegemonic aspirations of the ruling party.

The ANC recognises liberalism as its major opponent both intellectually and politically. In a document prepared for their National General Council the ruling party states: “We must fight against the liberal concept of ‘less government’... The purpose of this liberal offensive is to deny the people [with the ANC as the vanguard] the possibility to use the collective strength and means concentrated in the democratic state to bring about the transformation of the South African society.”

In a section entitled “Forces Against Transformation” the document states, “More importantly [mobilisation against the ANC] finds expression in the attacks on the transformation project itself and in the promotion of essentially neo-liberal ideas, as articulated by the Democratic Party.”[5]

The campaign by the ANC against ‘white racism’ serves a number of ideological purposes:

- By mobilising against a common enemy (albeit an imaginary one) the black majority is kept united behind the ANC (and the party united behind Mbeki).

- The accusation of ‘racism’ is an attempt to create a moral panic, to delegitimise liberal opposition, and to soften-up institutions that place a check on ANC power.

- The need to ‘uproot the demon of racism’ then justifies the intrusion by the state into a civil society still outside the control of the ruling party.


The non-racial tradition of the ANC was essentially founded on three tenets: Firstly, there would be equality of opportunity in a non-racial South Africa; Secondly, that there would be no discrimination against individuals on the basis of their race; Thirdly, that South Africa was ‘one nation’ which belonged to all who live in it, black or white.

Thus Albert Luthuli stated in 1961, “In economic matters we will be satisfied with nothing less than equality of opportunity in every sphere, and the enjoyment by all of those heritages which form the resources of the country which up to now have been appropriated on a racial "whites only" basis. In culture we will be satisfied with nothing less than the opening of all doors of learning to non-segregatory institutions on the sole criterion of ability... We do not demand these things for people of African descent alone. We demand them for all South Africa's, white and black. On these principles we are uncompromising.”[6]

Oliver Tambo defined non-racialism as follows: “There will be no racism of any kind and therefore no discrimination that proceeds from the fact that people happen to be members of different races. That is what we understand by non-racial.”[7]

Shortly before the election Mandela stated, “Let everybody start from the premise that we are one country, one nation, whether we are white, coloured Indian or black.”[8]

But as the power of Thabo Mbeki has waxed so the non-racial tradition within the ruling party has waned. The triumph of the Africanist tradition within the ANC occurred at the 50th National Conference of the ANC, where Mbeki was anointed President of the ANC.

This shift was signalled by a document prepared for the Mafikeng Conference by Joel Netshitenzhe. In the document he called for “a continuing battle to assert African hegemony.” He also endorsed the view that the “main content of the NDR should find expression in the leadership structures of the ANC, and indeed, in the country as a whole. This is usually referred to as ‘African leadership.’ ”[9]

In a resolution on the ‘National Question’ the Conference endorsed Netshitenzhe’s document as “valid”. The resolution also adopted demographic representivity as party policy—“the employment patterns and practices within Ministries and government Departments should be monitored to ensure that they reflect the demographic aspects of our population.”[10] The resolution stated that these policies be implemented within four months, and monitored by the National Executive Committee.

Although the ANC justified ‘demographic representivity’ in terms of a discourse of ‘redress’ and ‘Affirmative Action’, this policy was a moderated form of Africanisation, rather than an extreme form of corrective action. Netshitenzhe noted that the ANC must make sure a “critical mass” is not reached “where perceptions of dominance take root.”[11]

Mbeki’s vision of ‘racial transformation’ represented a decisive break with the non-racial tradition of the party, as articulated by Luthuli, Tambo and Mandela. Where Luthuli had advocated equality of opportunity, Mbeki advocated an equality of outcomes. Where Tambo had argued that ‘non-racialism’ meant no discrimination on the basis of race, Mbeki stated that discrimination was an acceptable means to achieve a ‘non-racial’ end. And where Mandela called for South Africans to see themselves as ‘one nation’ Mbeki stated that the ‘reality’ was that South Africa was ‘two nations.’

Yet in order to maintain backward legitimacy (and the moral high ground) the ANC had to reconcile its shift towards Africanism, with a non-racial tradition that had brought it international kudos. It has sought to do this by trying to redefine “Africanism” as “non-racialism” and “non-racialism” as “white racism.” Like Humpty Dumpty the ANC has tried to become the masters of the words; so that they mean just what the ANC choose them to mean—neither more nor less.


Using the race-card to justify the retention of the ANC’s liberation movement character

In 1991 Marina Ottaway wrote that a successful transition to democracy in South Africa was largely dependent on the ANC discarding the liberation movement heritage and becoming a normal political party. Ottaway pointed to the growing malaise of single party regimes in Africa in the 1980s where “the ruling parties had become instruments of domination by entrenched elites.”[12]

A liberation movement, she wrote, was the ‘mouthpiece’ or vanguard of an ‘oppressed nation’ and its leader was the embodiment of that nation. There were two features which distinguished a liberation movement from a political party: Firstly, the liberation movement did not see itself as one of a number of equally legitimate political players representing a defined constituency. Rather, the movement was the sole legitimate representative of the ‘oppressed nation.’ The imperative of maintaining unity justified the suppression of rival organisations. Secondly, while a political party seeks to gain power through elections, it is resigned to the fact that it can lose it. A liberation movement on the other hand, is involved in a Manichean struggle to overthrow the colonial oppressor and seize power once and for all.[13]

In the early 1990s the ANC continued to place a stress on its role as ‘mouthpiece’ and ‘mobiliser’ of the ‘African people.’ In 1990 Nelson Mandela stated,

The ANC has never been a political party. Right from the start, up to now, the ANC is a coalition, if you want, of people of various political affiliations. Some will support free enterprise, others socialism. Some are conservatives, others are liberals. We are united solely by our determination to oppose racial oppression. That is the only thing that unites us. There is no question of ideology as far as the odyssey of the ANC is concerned, because any question approaching ideology would split the organisation from top to bottom. Because we have no connection whatsoever except this one, our determination to dismantle apartheid.[14]

The stress on unity during the anti-colonial (or anti-apartheid) struggle was understandable. The colonial powers (and the apartheid state) had used divisions within the ranks as a tool to secure (and then maintain) domination. Pixley ka Isaka Seme (a founding member of the ANC) put it this way: “These divisions, these jealousies, are the cause of all our woes and all our backwardness and ignorance today.”[15]

Ottaway wrote that the desire to maintain unity was understandable, the transition to democracy “requires the breaking-up of [the ANC] into a variety of organisations, representing the different issues and conflicts of a real country rather than of an idealised ‘oppressed nation.’ ”[16]

With apartheid thoroughly dismantled, the ANC has chosen to retain its liberation movement character. This has led to various stresses and contradictions emerging within the movement. Partly to deal with these tensions the ANC opened up the state to party political patronage; and put in place a highly centralised party structure. Deployment to positions within the state, would be centrally controlled by the party leadership. All ANC members, wherever deployed, would be bound by rigid party discipline. Party members who lost out in internal power struggles were compensated through redeployment to comfortable positions (such as ambassadorships) and so kept inside the movement.

Among the many down-sides of this approach was it turned the state into an instrument of political patronage rather than an instrument of delivery. The ANC leadership had side-stepped this problem by claiming that the major obstacle to delivery was the fact that the “forces against change” (the “old guard”) were still in positions of power. Once they had been removed, the ANC argued, and replaced with “forces for change” (i.e. ANC cadres) the state would be able to rapidly deliver. However, these policies merely led to a massive loss of skills and experience and the promotion of unqualified ANC politicians: The ANC found their greed counterbalancing their ambitions.

The focus on maintaining elite unity, rather than delivering to the black population as a whole, has also contributed to a massive increase in inequality within the black African population. The proportion of black African households within the richest ten percent of households increased from nine percent in 1991 to twenty-two percent in 1996. The Gini co-efficient within the black African population increased from 0.62 in 1991 to 0.66 in 1999. “Inequality among African households is now comparable with the most unequal societies in the world.”[17]

The ANC is now the ‘mouthpiece’ of an ‘oppressed nation’ with radically divergent class interests. The highly centralised party structure of the ANC has been unable to cope with the radically conflicting interests of the unemployed, the labour unions and the new black elite. The sole unifying message of the ANC remains race.

Mbeki has sought to downplay such intra-black inequality, and he has continued to emphasise the relative wealth of the white population. He has also sought to create a new enemy, a new ‘racial oppression’, against which the movement can unite.

On the 20th of November 1999, in an address to the Black Management Forum (BMF), Thabo Mbeki stated that throughout its history the ANC has had “as one of its central tasks, if not the central task, the defeat and elimination of racism in our country. This remains one of the strategic objectives of the ANC.”

Dismissing previous calls for the ANC to become a party, Mbeki stated that the ANC would only change its character “once it had completed its historic mission—once the purposes for which it had been established had been accomplished. Because racism lives, the struggle continues! Because of that, the ANC must remain what it has been for many decades, a movement for the elimination of the legacy of the system of racism.”

Thus an ANC document entitled ‘Uprooting the Demon of Racism’ explicitly states:

“The struggle for freedom still remains incomplete as long as the legacy of apartheid remains. This task therefore demands that we achieve the greatest unity of the masses of our people... to continue to intensify the fight against racism.”[18]

Using the race-card to maintain black unity

The threat that the post-apartheid de-racialisation of the middle classes posed to the ruling party was that black South Africans (interacting as equals with white South Africans) would lose their sense of colour, and with it, their loyalty to the ANC. As the apartheid ideologues recognised there is a certain species of equality that leads to a blunting of prejudice. J.G. Strijdom noted “you cannot retain your sense of colour if there is [no apartheid] in the everyday social life, in the political sphere or whatever sphere it may be, and if there is no residential separation.”[19] Another concern, was that an Africanist intelligentsia could outflank the ANC on the ‘left’ and take with them a large section of the ANC support base.

Thus, from 1994 onwards a major concern of Mbeki was keeping the black middle strata ‘activised’ behind the ruling party through ‘representivity’. A recent ANC document acknowledged that the black middle strata had “benefited most from the policies of affirmative action.” The document stated, “We must ensure the ongoing mobilisation of this sector so that it continues to see its interest linked to that of the [ANC], by organising them into the ANC and by engaging with the organised formations in this sector.”[20] Mbeki’s most Africanist speeches have been addressed to organisations representing the black middle strata.

By following an Africanist agenda Mbeki has prevented any outflanking from the left. Equally, more non-racial black South Africans can be dissuaded from crossing over to the opposition by the ‘sell out’ tag.

Mbeki’s recent ‘Oliver Tambo Lecture’ provides the most overt demonstration of the use of the ‘race-card’ as a means of shoring up black unity.[21]

Mbeki seized on a comment by Tony Leon comparing Virodene to a “snake-oil remedy” to launch a diatribe both against Leon and against the white population generally.

Mbeki accused Leon of enunciating an “entrenched white racism that is a millennium old.” By misrepresenting what Leon had said, and imposing his own meaning, Mbeki was able to conclude: “According to him (Leon)... these solutions, because they are African, could not but consist of the pagan, savage, superstitious and unscientific responses typical of the African people.”[22]

Mbeki did not refer to Leon by name, but as “the white politician” (six times). By doing so, he depersonalised Leon and turned him into a symbol of the white population. As Franz Boas wrote, it does not take much “to provoke the spirit that prevents us from recognising individuals and compels us to see only representatives of a class endowed with imaginary qualities that we ascribe to the group as a whole.”[23]

Elsewhere in his speech Mbeki referred to the white population in the following terms:

- “Such crimes against humanity as slavery, colonialism and apartheid would never have occurred unless those who perpetrated them, knew it as a matter of fact that their victims were not as human as they.”

- “It is not the arrogance of the racism of those who have convinced themselves that they are superior, the colonialists.”

- “Those who occupy many dominant positions in the society to which we belong, define us as a problem and behave towards us as to a problem, as the unwanted!”

- “We have lost our country and our identity, because of the perfidious actions [of white people.]”

- “Because of the colonialism of a special type, the victory of the national liberation struggle did not result in the departure of the foreign ruling class.”[24]

Mbeki’s speech served two functions: The first was as a means of ensuring black unity. Despite the widening inequality within the black population, black South Africans were still faced with a common enemy of ‘white racism.’ In his BMF speech Mbeki had stated that though the black middle class had moved from the townships to the suburbs, “none of us who is black can avoid the daily recognition that racism continues to be a defining feature of... the new South Africa.”

This method is not particularly new. Freud wrote, “it is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness.”[25] By labelling this outgroup as ‘racists’ anyone who steps outside the racial laager can be effectively labelled sell-outs. Thus Mbeki warns the black middle class against falling “under the influence and leadership of [their] erstwhile enemy.” And he equates black South Africans who have lost their colour prejudice to “foot-lickers” of the whites.[26]

The second function is to delegitimise the white population. By attacking whites in such vituperative terms Mbeki is turning them into, what Hannah Arendt describes as, “objective enemies”. Arendt compared this method to the “man who persistently insults another man until everyone knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self defence.” Similarly, by attacking the white minority in such aggressive terms, Mbeki and the ANC would seem justified in removing whites from all positions of power.[27]

Using the race-card to promote the ANC’s ideological agenda

The ANC’s new definition of ‘racism’ received its clearest expression in the statement of the ANC to the HRC inquiry into racism in the media. In their submission the ANC drew a distinction between two kinds of racism: Racism, the ANC said, had “subjective” and “objective” manifestations. The subjective factor acted as the “ideological framework” to justify and entrench, “racially oppressive and discriminatory social relations” or objective racism.[28]

Subjective racism

The submission argued that all whites carry a stereotype of Africans, all the time. On the basis of a pruned quote from Hertzog and an extract from J.M. Coetzee’s Disgrace, the ANC concludes: “White South African society continues to believe in a particular stereotype of the African, which defines the latter as: immoral and amoral; savage; violent; disrespectful of private property; incapable of refinement through education; and, driven by hereditary dark, satanic impulses.”

The document argued that to understand racism in the media (and presumably in broader society as well) “we must start from this basic point—that many practitioners of journalism in our country (including the foreign correspondents) carry this stereotype in their heads at all times... this stereotype informs the entirety of their work.”

The ANC argued that this “stereotype” manifested itself as “the concept of white fears” during the transition; because whites were convinced this stereotype “reflected the truth about what the black people are.”[29]

More recently, the ANC proceeds, this “stereotype” has manifested itself in criticisms of Thabo Mbeki. The document then quotes from three critical but balanced articles on Mbeki in the Sunday TimesMail & Guardian and Leadership magazine.

According to the ANC these articles signified the determination by the white media “to reaffirm its belief that its racist stereotype of Africans was correct. And what this stereotype, as exemplified by Mr Mbeki, indicated, was the Africans, necessarily with the exception of Nelson Mandela, are: corrupt; anti-democratic; dictatorial; and, contemptuous of the people.”

According to the ANC, the media “has proceeded, ‘full steam ahead’ to do its best, relying on outright lies, to project the repulsive and terrifying stereotype of the African barbarian.”

Indeed, according to the ANC submission, all journalism critical of the ANC is “directed” by this stereotype: The news must argue “that the situation is getting worse, it must show that when the African barbarians took over from the civilised whites, the rot started and is escalating beyond control.”[30]

The logic of the ANC is thus: All whites carry around a “stereotype of Africans” as corrupt, anti-democratic, dictatorial etc. This stereotype informs and directs whites in their relations with black South Africans. Therefore, if whites criticise the ANC (“the African government”) for being corrupt and dictatorial, they are merely giving vent to “the repulsive stereotype of the African barbarian.” Thus, because such criticism is motivated by “unashamed racism” it is illegitimate and should be silenced. Equally, black South African journalists who portray the new South Africa in a “negative light” have also “absorbed into their consciousness the white stereotype of the black savage.”[31]

In a recent document, the ANC states that the “Forces opposed to transformation” have attempted to “weaken the ANC” by (inter alia) “presenting its leadership in government and its public representatives as corrupt, authoritarian, inept and only enriching itself at the expense of the masses that voted it into power” or as calls for the ANC to “modernise and become a regular political party.”[32]

Thus, be defining any such comment as ‘racist’ the ANC would delegitimise any criticism that ‘weakens the ANC’ or places a check on its power. The ANC complains (elsewhere) that the media “like the opposition, see themselves as the protectors of South Africa’s liberty against ‘the natural inclination of a predominantly black government to dictatorship and corruption.’ ”[33]

Thus, the ANC theory of ‘subjective racism’ is a fairly crude and transparent attempt to silence dissent. It is a professed goal of the ANC to extend control over the media, the economy and civil society. However, if the ANC pursued this goal openly, it would be seen (quite rightly) as a power-grab by an intolerant and authoritarian party. However, by using the race-card the ANC can try and silence key dissenting voices, and extend party control, all with the ostensible goal of ‘uprooting the demon of racism.’

Objective or ‘structural’ racism

For the ANC “objective racism” (or structural racism) is manifested in the “racial disparities” of wealth, skills, education, and opportunity “in favour of whites” and in the continued overrepresentation of whites in management and the professions. According to the document “South African society continues to be structured according to the racist prescription that the whites are superior and the blacks inferior.”

Thus, the fact that whites (as a group) are, on average, better off than black South Africans (as a group) is “objective racism.”

The document blames the persistence of high levels of poverty, illiteracy and unemployment in the black population on continued subjective “white racism” (rather than on, for instance, the failed policies of the ANC.) According to the ANC “racist ideology” has been used “to justify and promote the further entrenchment of the unacceptable reality represented by these disparities.”

The ANC argues that because whites are better off (on average) than black South Africans, this means that the “power-relations” are skewed in favour of whites. According to the ANC “racism” defines interpersonal relations and represents “a subset of power relations” which continue to position whites as “the dominant” and blacks as “the dominated.”

This theory of ‘power relations’ is parroted by the HRC, which states, “the truth is that power relations between black and white people in South Africa are still skewed [in favour of whites.]” The evidence the HRC provides to support this contention is that “statistics reveal that the indices for poverty are that a disproportionate number of black South Africans live in extreme poverty, more blacks are unemployed, live in informal squatter camps, are homeless and suffer from diseases like TB and HIV/AIDS.”

Implications of the new definition

The ‘power relations’ argument serves a number of ideological purposes for the ANC:

Firstly, by defining the continued impoverishment of a large part of the black population as ‘racism’ and the result of ‘skewed power relations’ the ANC can evade responsibility for its failure to deliver. Responsibility for the ruling party’s failure to uplift the poor and unemployed is shifted onto the white minority.

Secondly, in order for the ANC to uplift the black majority, they must shift the power relations in favour of black South Africans. The black majority (with the ANC in the vanguard) “must develop collective power to counter-balance” that of the white minority. This provides a justification for the extension of ANC control over all ‘centres of power.’

Thirdly, the ANC define whites as both ‘inherently racist’ and as slaves to their ‘racial stereotypes of Africans’ (a view endorsed by the HRC). The only agency white South African’s have is to exercise their racism consciously or unconsciously. Black South Africans cannot be racist because of the prevailing power relations. Thus, because whites cannot change, and because their ‘subjective racism’ entrenches ‘objective racism’ in society, the ANC would be justified in removing whites from their ‘dominant positions’ in society. The ANC states that “our struggle to create a non-racial society must therefore recognise the fact that, centrally, the offensive against racism addresses the issue of power relations in our society.”[34]

An inversion of meaning

It is at this point that meaning is inverted. According to the ANC theorising, Africanism is non-racialism, for it seeks to improve the ‘power position’ of the black majority. Liberalism is ‘racist’ for it limits the ability of the ANC controlled state to “use its collective strength to improve the power position of those who are disadvantaged” and allows the white minority (in civil society) to “exercise [their] power, unfettered by anything.”[35]

Non-racialism (or colour-blindness) is ‘racist’ for it seeks to limit the means (such as racial discrimination) by which the ANC seeks to advance ‘demographic representivity.’ This would, according to the ANC, leave structural or objective racism (defined as the over-representation of whites in institutions) intact, it thus constitutes ‘colour-blind racism.’[36]

Thus, in their Uprooting the Demon of Racism document, the ANC state that two forms “racism” take in South African society are: the “active denial of race” (i.e. colour-blindness); and, the argument that whites, as a minority, are often the victims of racism. This second method the ANC argue is employed “by powerful sectors throughout our society to resist real transformation of the power relations that underpinned apartheid.”[37]


The Democratic Party welcomes indications at the weekend[38] that President Mbeki will tone down his anti-white ‘two nations’ rhetoric. However, we doubt that the strategy described in this document will alter to any meaningful extent. Tensions between the ANC and its Alliance partners are peaking. The Cosatu conference is being held in September, and the local government elections in November; that is surely why the Race Conference has been convened in August.



[1]Marina Ottaway, ‘Liberation Movements and Transition to Democracy: the Case of the ANC,’ The Journal of Modern African Studies, 29, 1 (1991) pg 68

[2] Thabo Mbeki, Speech at the Annual National Conference of the Black Management Forum, Kempton Park, 20 November 1999

[3] ‘Faultlines: Inquiry into Racism in the Media’ SAHRC Report, 24 August 2000

[4] See the ‘Cadre Policy and Deployment Strategy’ Umrabulo No. 6 1999, and the ‘Cadre Policy’ adopted at the ANC’s 50th National Conference in 1997

[5] ANC discussion document ‘Tasks of the NDR and the Mobilisation of the Motive Forces’ Umrabulo No. 8 2000

[6] Text of the Nobel Lecture delivered by Chief Albert Luthuli in the Oslo University, December 11, 1961

[7] Sechaba, August 1985 National Executive Committee

[8] Sunday Times 24 April 1994

[9] Joel Netshitenzhe, ‘Nation Formation and Nation Building: The National Question in South Africa’ Umrabulo No. 3 July 1997, see theses 7 & 8

[10] Ibid, section 14

[11] Ibid

[12] Marina Ottaway, ‘Liberation Movements and Transition to Democracy: the Case of the ANC,’ The Journal of Modern African Studies, 29, 1 (1991) pg. 64

[13] Ibid pp 64-67

[14] Ibid pg 68

[15] ANC discussion document ‘Uprooting the Demon of Racism’ Umrabulo No. 8 2000

[16] Ibid pg 82

[17] Andrew Whiteford and Dirk Ernst van Seventer, ‘Winners and Losers: South Africa’s changing income distribution in the 1990s’ WEFA Southern Africa, 1999

[18] ANC discussion document, ‘Uprooting the Demon of Racism’ Umrabulo No. 8 2000, see conclusion

[19] Cited in Heribert Adam and Hermann Giliomee, The Rise and Crisis of Afrikaner Power (Cape Town: David Philip), 1979: pg. 117

[20] ANC discussion document, ‘Tasks of the NDR and the Mobilisation of the Motive Forces’ Umrabulo No. 8 2000

[21] Thabo Mbeki, ‘Where are they now?’ Second NIEP Oliver Tambo Lecture, 11 August 2000

[22] Ibid

[23] Franz Boas, Race and Democratic Society (New York: J.J. Augustin), 1945: pg. 78

[24] Thabo Mbeki Second NIEP Oliver Tambo Lecture, 11 August 2000

[25] Cited in Michael Ignatieff The Warrior’s Honor: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience (London: Chatto & Windus), 1998: pg. 61

[26] Second NIEP Oliver Tambo Lecture

[27] Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (London: Andre Deutsch) 1973, pg 424

[28] Statement of the ANC at the Human Rights Commission Hearings on Racism in the Media, 5 April 2000: pg 1

[29] Ibid pp 2-4

[30] Ibid

[31] Ibid pp 6-14

[32] ‘Tasks of the NDR’ Umrabulo No. 8 2000

[33] ‘Uprooting the Demon of Racism’ Umrabulo No. 8 See section on the media

[34] Statement of the ANC at the HRC, 5 April 2000 pg 1

[35] Ibid, pg 17

[36] Howard Barrell, ‘What has racism got to do with it?’ M&G submission to the HRC, 9 March 2000

[37] ‘Uprooting the Demon of Racism’ Umrabulo No. 8 2000, see section entitled ‘strategic observations.’

[38] Sunday Times 27 August 2000