South Africa’s Dangerous Right Turn : Anti-Apartheid Movement Radicalized as Whites Harden

White South Africa’s dramatic swing to the right, which has been met with dismay by governments and organizations in the West, has been welcomed by more radical anti-apartheid forces inside the country. There are now indications that the strong and until-now moderate anti-apartheid movement, led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other prominent community leaders, could be radicalized and its policy of nonviolence thrown overboard. The radicalization of Tutu and other moderates in the country is all but complete. South Africa’s whites have achieved what the country’s black radicals have long wanted--a more aggressive and defiant movement that would adopt more violent strategies than it did in the past.

The swing to the right started when President P.W. Botha was in a dither over his reform program. His lack of vision and clarity disillusioned black and white moderates while radicals, both black and white, were driven to their extremes. Despite this, Tutu and the moderate leadership in the country managed to hold in check their supporters who were looking for a more confrontational approach. In last year’s general elections the quasi-liberal Progressive Federal Party, then the official opposition, was upstaged and the Conservative Party, committed to white supremacy, became Botha’s opposition. In the past six weeks there were three local elections that the conservatives won. The last one was a shattering defeat for the ruling National Party. The National Party is now also going to the right in its desperation to win back its supporters as the influence of the liberal Progressive Federal Party has waned.

And as it becomes clear that Botha’s initiatives backed by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan have come to naught, outside observers have viewed the rightward political shift with foreboding.

South African black radicals, on the other hand, have welcomed this swing to the right. Why are they doing this when it could mean a hardening of attitudes on all sides and more confrontation rather than negotiation? The first reason is that all anti-government organizations inside South Africa, including trade unions, are led by graduates of the “Class of ‘76”. These graduates, who recall the brutality of 1976 when the Soweto uprising was crushed by the government, have never believed in the politics of moderation and negotiation. And negotiation is what Tutu and other prominent leaders have tried to achieve. Now that whites have swung to the right, and negotiation and moderation have been or are about to be shelved, these activists breathe with relief.

The second reason is that radicals have always been wary of Botha’s style of leadership and his reform initiatives. Botha was the first ruling party leader to seriously go about the business of trying to dismantle apartheid. He was also the first National Party prime minister to visit black townships, sometimes during times of crisis. He also fought against petty segregation, and now the country’s major post offices and many previously whites-only facilities are open to all races. But Botha’s greatest asset was the hostility and hatred he enjoyed from the far right, which is loathed by the black community. Blacks argued that if white conservatives hated Botha, then surely what he was saying should be looked at more closely.

Although Botha’s initiatives foundered because he lacked the vision and courage to fight the conservatives, there was always a school of thought among middle-aged and elderly blacks that he should be given a chance. And this was a problem to radicals who always came up against these perceptions when organizing campaigns. Now that Botha has swung to the right, his woolly policies will be shelved and no longer confuse blacks, radicals now argue.

Another of Botha’s reforms, scrapping the law that forbade racially integrated political activity, created problems for activists. Because this law was revoked, more whites could participate in black organizations and their activities. But the more radical black activists resented this because they have always been suspicious of white participation in the liberation struggle. They have argued that whites who support the struggle do not exist and that whites in black organizations have agendas of their own.

During the past three years, white liberal universities and other whites and their organizations supported the liberation struggle and black radicals were forced to the background. But when whites swung to the right in the last election, the radicals’ views were vindicated. The elections confirmed that white South Africa still supported apartheid and that there were few whites opposed to it. These radicals and their views now rule the roost.

The swing to the right has also strengthened the arguments of those activists who believe that negotiations are now out of question. Two years ago, talks seemed imminent between the government and the popularly supported but government-banned African National Congress. Many radical activists feared that their cause was about to be lost. Now that such talks are not planned, radical activists believe that the rightward swing has helped stop any of black organizations from blundering into negotiations with whites. The stage for negotiations will be set only when white South Africa wants them and when anti-apartheid organizations are scoring gains.

For the time being, black and white in South Africa are once again squaring off --with radical activists believing that the feared fight to the finish is ready to start.