ANC Can’t Claim Sole Rights to the History and Heritage of SA’s Liberation

Following the formation of the uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) Party by the ANC’s erstwhile president, Jacob Zuma, the former liberation movement has taken the new political party to court. The ANC asserts its steadfast commitment to defending the legacy and intellectual property rights of uMkhonto we Sizwe amidst ongoing litigation at the Mangaung Electoral Court. At face value, the ANC’s assertions make a lot of sense, but there could be more than meets the eye.

South Africa operates according to rules and aims to protect intellectual property rights and identity. Central to this framework is the protection of intellectual property rights and identity, which are regarded as essential components of fostering creativity, innovation and cultural preservation. Therefore, the ANC’s perspective on the lawsuit, which encompasses protecting legacy and brand identity, is legitimate and fair.

However, using the public interest approach to law and politics, a counterargument can be made that the ANC could be wrong in claiming ownership of South Africa’s liberation struggle, including uMkhonto we Sizwe. The history of the liberation and its symbols can be rightfully regarded as part of the country’s cultural heritage, which “encompasses the values and the identity of nations.” Rightfully, places such as the Apartheid Museum and the Nelson Mandela Capture Site are national symbols.

Analysts and the South African public often overlook the critical issue of ownership concerning South Africa’s rich political struggle heritage, which spans over five centuries. This heritage encompasses a complex combination of narratives, symbols and historical events that have shaped the South African identity and trajectory.

Yet, amidst discussions of political movements and historical milestones, the question of who rightfully owns this heritage is frequently side-lined or ignored. The struggle for liberation was not a singular narrative or the sole accomplishment of one political entity. This means that the ANC alone cannot claim ownership of any of the struggle icons, from Chief Jantjie in the Northern Cape to Robert Sobukwe and Hector Peterson.

This oversight is particularly concerning given the profound impact of this heritage on shaping contemporary political discourse, societal norms, and collective memory. It is imperative to recognise and address the complexities of ownership surrounding South Africa’s political struggle heritage to foster a more nuanced understanding of its significance and ensure that diverse voices and perspectives are duly acknowledged and respected.

Therefore, South Africa’s political struggle heritage is a complex tapestry woven from the resistance of indigenous groups against colonial encroachment, slave revolts, anti-apartheid movements, and the tireless efforts of countless activists, some known, many anonymous.

• ANC’s monopolisation of the history of liberation

In his article titled Why is Steve Biko’s remarkable legacy often overlooked?, University of Dundee’s Matthew Graham argues that “since the end of apartheid in 1994, the governing ANC has worked hard to monopolise the history of liberation”. He continues to state: “A plethora of groups, including Black Consciousness, the United Democratic Front, the PAC and student organisations, were all involved in the anti-apartheid struggle, yet the ANC has worked to disregard the efforts of alternative actors.”

Particularly concerning, the ANC also decided to “squeeze out” prominent individuals like Steve Biko, Sobukwe and many others who worked outside it. “To fully recognise the power and influence of Biko’s ideas would disrupt the ANC’s preferred version of history,” argues Graham. The importance of Black Consciousness (BC) is often relegated to footnotes of the liberation struggle, whereas it should be recognised for what it was worth.

When the BC movement emerged in the 1970s, a decade had passed since the banning of the ANC and the PAC, creating a period of political lull. Graham believes that BC proved to be a more potent force compared to the established liberation movements. It served as a transformative influence, liberating minds, revitalising and mobilising political resistance, and injecting new vigour into the waning ANC, particularly as fervent young activists enlisted in the exiled armed struggle (alas, uMkhonto we Sizwe).

Did the ANC bury the Pan-Africanist Congress alive? The PAC was “the most effective and influential body to exist in the anti-apartheid era”, but history books appear to unfairly credit the ANC for events like the Sharpeville massacre on 21 March 1961 (which has been repurposed as the Human Rights Day to fit the modern neoliberal political jargon). What is actually bemusing is that the likes of the ANC “were actually banned because of an activity that was not their own but rather of the PAC”.

This raises an important question: why has the PAC been marginalised in post-apartheid narratives of the struggle?

Look no further than the ANC. Its actions in the court challenge against the MK Party demonstrate its ongoing practice of ahistoricising others. Ironically, the ANC does not claim Zuma as its property yet chooses to ridicule and castigate him as it has done throughout the years. MK Party feels the brunt of the ANC’s self-serving strategy, which has effectively silenced the PAC's contributions to the struggle.

• ANC’s misreading of the capitalist concept of intellectual property rights

ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula has suggested that former President Zuma should establish his own political party, dubbed the ‘uMsholozi Party’, and refrain from interfering with ANC affairs. In addition, Mbalula also announced plans to proceed to Pietermaritzburg to formalise uMkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC.

The ANC asserts its steadfast commitment to defending the legacy and intellectual property rights of uMkhonto we Sizwe amidst ongoing litigation at the Mangaung Electoral Court. It emphasises the historical collaboration between the ANC and the South African Communist Party (SACP) in forming MK, which operated under the ANC’s political guidance.

The ANC’s legal challenge against the registration of the MK Party is based on concerns regarding Zuma’s involvement in it, which should not be a problem under normal circumstances. With the 2024 general elections on the horizon, the country’s political landscape remains dynamic and contentious. Courts should be extremely careful in their approach because they can fortuitously allow the privatisation of the country’s cultural heritage, a common good.

• South Africa’s political struggle heritage belongs to the public

In my view, the ANC’s decision to take the MK Party to court highlights a fundamental issue surrounding the ownership of South Africa’s political struggle heritage. While the ANC is committed to defending its legacy and intellectual property rights, it is crucial to question whether any single entity, including the ANC, has the right to claim monopoly over symbols of the struggle for liberation.

Firstly, it is essential to recognise that South Africa’s political struggle heritage belongs to the public domain rather than any particular organisation or party. The struggle against apartheid and for freedom and democracy involved the collective efforts of numerous individuals, groups, and movements beyond just the ANC. Therefore, the ownership of symbols, names and entities associated with this struggle should not be restricted to any single entity. Names like uMkhonto we Sizwe represent a collective fight, not a partisan brand. The public, not the ANC, owns this heritage.

Secondly, Zuma’s formation of the MK Party represents a legitimate exercise of political freedom and expression within South Africa's democratic framework. As a former president and prominent political figure, Zuma has the right to establish a political party and rally support behind it. After all, South Africa’s democracy guarantees freedom of association. Denying the MK Party registration based on its name stifles political participation and undermines democratic principles.

The ANC’s actions could be construed as a covert dictatorial strategy, aiming to limit the political rights of anyone it deems as real competition. Its attempt to challenge the MK Party’s registration based on concerns about Zuma’s involvement appears to be motivated more by political rivalry than genuine concerns about intellectual property. Perhaps the ANC sees the emergence of the MK Party as the end of its “one-party participatory democracy,” using the late Kenneth Kaunda’s words.

Furthermore, the historical collaboration between the ANC and the South African Communist Party (SACP) in forming MK does not grant the ANC exclusive ownership over MK’s legacy. The participation of multiple organisations and individuals in the struggle, including Black Consciousness recruits in the 1970s, means that MK’s heritage belongs to the broader liberation movement and the people of South Africa. Therefore, the ANC should not gatekeep symbols of a shared struggle.

The ANC’s energy is better spent on policy debates and addressing public concerns. Litigation over a name distracts from real issues. There are serious issues ranging from blackouts and dry taps to poorly run municipalities and maladministration that require attention. Sadly, the ruling party has also not been able to run its affairs, leading to lawsuits amounting to millions of rands.

In light of these considerations, the ANC’s legal challenge against the MK Party risks undermining the principles of democracy and political pluralism. Instead of monopolising symbols of the struggle, the ANC should embrace diversity within the political landscape and engage in constructive dialogue with alternative voices and perspectives.

By insisting on intellectual property, the ANC may as well claim everything and everyone associated with the struggle for liberation, including Zuma himself and his Umshini Wami signature.

Siya yi banga le economy!