Winnie Mandela’s Trial More Than a Simple Question of Innocence or Guilt : South Africa: Charges that the ANC engineered the disappearance of a key witness and silenced two others threaten democratic forces.

The trial of Winnie Mandela has tragically become a test of the African National Congress’ commitment to justice and democracy in a post-apartheid South Africa. How the question of her guilt or innocence was transformed into one of party principle is chiefly the result of the disappearance of a key prosecution witness and the refusal of two others to testify out of fear for their lives. The prospects for a transition to a just and democratic South Africa have been imperiled.

Suspicions are that ANC leaders encouraged or arranged Gabriel Mekgwe’s disappearance, which has postponed the trial until March 6. Those same leaders have also sought to portray Winnie’s indictment on charges of kidnapping and assault in connection with the December, 1988, murder of a 14-year-old black activist by her bodyguards as part of “a pattern of harassment and persecution.”

When Winnie, idolized by many black South Africans as “the mother of the nation,” was first implicated in the murder of Stompie Seipei and the beating of Mekgwe and two other young activists, most analysts regarded it as an unfortunate and embarrassing incident, but not one that would influence the future of the ANC or South Africa.

At the time of Seipei’s murder, Winnie held no position in any organization, such as the United Democratic Front, that sympathized with the then-banned ANC. Following the murder, a committee of the front’s leaders issued a statement expressing outrage “at Mrs. Mandela’s obvious complicity in the abductions” of Seipei and the other youths. They also censured her for violating “the spirit and ethos of the democratic movement.” Winnie’s visibility and influence declined dramatically as a result of the censure.

When her husband, Nelson, was released from prison in February, 1990, most analysts expected Winnie to play no more than a minor role in South African politics. By late 1990, however, her influence within the ANC was greater than ever before--despite the conviction, in May, of Winnie’s chief bodyguard, Jerry Richardson, for Seipei’s murder and her subsequent indictment.

How did this happen?

--Winnie has long been a hero to militant black youths throughout South Africa because of her spirited defiance of white authorities. Not surprisingly, the fact that Winnie is being tried by white authorities who have repeatedly attempted to discredit other black leaders has boosted their faith in her. These “young lions” now constitute a powerful constituency within the ANC.

--The return of the ANC’s exiled leadership to South Africa eased Winnie’s rehabilitation. The influence of the leaders most critical of Winnie has declined since the ANC moved its headquarters from Lusaka, Zambia, to Johannesburg. Control over party affairs is concentrated in the hands of officials who, since they were out of the country, had no direct knowledge of the events leading to Winnie’s censure. ANC Secretary-General Alfred Nzo, one of those officials, has been principally responsible for Winnie’s appointment to several posts in the party, including head of its social welfare department, despite protests from rank-and-file members.

--Winnie has been helped by international support. During her husband’s visit to the United States last June, Winnie received nearly as much attention and adulation--”a wonderful role for women”--as he did.

--Most important, Winnie has been allowed to return to center stage because of her husband. Nelson Mandela’s devotion to Winnie is certainly understandable. She suffered greatly during the nearly three decades he spent in prison. He is reported to believe that her troubles--and mistakes--were largely due to his absence. Although Mandela has not personally promoted his wife’s fortunes within the ANC, he does not appear to have done anything to prevent her from accumulating party power.

It is Winnie’s role in the ANC and the party’s handling of her trial that seriously threaten prospects for a smooth transition to a just and democratic South Africa. If, as is strongly suspected, charges against Winnie are dropped because of Mekgwe’s disappearance and the ANC is held responsible, even indirectly, for the aborted trial, the party’s credibility would be severely strained, if not destroyed. The resistance of white South Africans to majority rule would be stiffened.

This danger was underscored in an editorial by the Weekly Mail, a South African newspaper generally considered pro-ANC. “As witnesses are terrified into silence and disappearance becomes the order of the day,” the paper editorialized, “the whole (ANC) organization will be tarnished.” Another liberal South African paper, the Star, commented: “A government-in-waiting that tolerates assaults against the very structures on which civilized society must be built represents a danger to all who aspire to a free, fair democracy.”

The ANC’s efforts to win support among South Africa’s growing black middle class, which have not been as successful as most analysts expected, would also suffer if Winnie’s trial is called off. Many ANC-leaners may switch to Inkatha and the Pan-Africanist Congress.

No less important is that the Winnie issue risks undercutting those within the ANC who believe that political leaders must be accountable to the people. With the exception of her husband, Winnie’s ANC allies make up the worst elements in the party. Her political rehabilitation has been mostly facilitated by old-line party functionaries, like Nzo, and embittered township militants least committed to democracy. The democrats in the party are afraid to speak out, in part because they worry that public criticism of Winnie would strengthen the hand of their political foes. Others are silent because of fears about their own political--and possibly personal--survival. This sets a dangerous precedent.

Americans who have supported the ANC in its struggle against apartheid have a major stake in the outcome and handling of Winnie’s trial. If anti-democratic elements within the party triumph, the credibility of anti-apartheid leaders would be every bit as damaged as was that of anti-war movement leaders when the horrors of victorious communism in Vietnam and Cambodia were revealed. Silence in this case would also bolster conservatives’ charges that liberals who have protested against apartheid care less about injustices committed by blacks than they do about injustices committed by whites.

Without delay, members of Congress who led the fight for sanctions against South Africa--Reps. Stephen J. Solarz (D-N.Y) and William H. Gray III (D-Pa.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)--should sponsor a resolution urging that plans to give U.S. aid to the ANC be put on hold until President Bush finds that ANC leaders played no role to prevent Winnie from standing trial. This would be consistent with the Mandelas’ earlier statement that the issue of Winne’s role in the murder must be decided in court.

Ignoring the issues raised by the forced postponement of Winnie Mandela’s trial would be an extreme disservice to those within the ANC who have struggled so long and hard for a just and democratic South Africa. If Americans with credibility in ANC leadership circles speak out now, loudly and clearly, in favor of due process of law, the party’s democrats would be rewarded. If not, South Africa’s next generation of potential autocrats could gather strength.