« | Home | »

After Marikana

Tags:

The key point to grasp about the Marikana shootings (we’re not allowed to call them a massacre because that makes them sound like the bad old days of Sharpeville) is that the National Union of Mineworkers, South Africa’s biggest union, is in apparently terminal decline and has been losing control of one pit after another to its new rival, the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union, which has no political affiliations. The NUM is the spinal chord of the ANC alliance. Its leaders are always Communist Party members, it has provided the last three secretaries-general of the ANC in succession, and it is the dominant presence in the labour federation, COSATU. The decline of the NUM threatens the whole structure of ANC power.

This is why the police – who are effectively an arm of the ANC – drew a line in the sand at Marikana. Three thousand workers had been camping out in protest for six days and the NUM leader could only address them from the safety of a police armoured car; the AMCU leaders were cheered by the strikers. The police announced on Thursday morning that come hell or high water they were going to end the protest that day and they arrived prepared for war in steel helmets and bullet-proof vests, armed with semi-automatic weapons. The AMCU leader, Joseph Mathunjwa, had talked to the police and knew what was going to happen. ‘The writing is on the wall, they are going to kill you,’ he told the strikers, pleading with them to leave. They wouldn’t listen.

Immediately after the shootings there was a typical ANC black-out. For 24 hours no information was released and no one was allowed anywhere near the hospitals or hostels where the wounded and surviving strikers were, while the ANC decided on its line. ‘Today is not an occasion for blame, finger-pointing or recrimination,’ President Zuma said on Friday. ‘Today challenges us to restore calm and to share the pain of the affected families and communities.’ This is an awkward straddle because there are really only two alternatives. If you condemn the police then you are effectively saying that they and the ANC behind them are a lot of murderers. On the other hand, if you support the police action you are effectively saying that some of your countrymen deserved to be shot. The commission of inquiry now being set up will doubtless find a way to avoid expressing either view, however. It is also more than probable that the entire labour force at the mine will be sacked and a new NUM-disciplined workforce recruited in its place.

But that won’t save the ANC. In exile, the ANC could surmount any crisis merely by iron discipline. In 1968 they supported the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the line was enforced and that was that. But those days are gone and such tactics will not contain the shockwaves from the massacre at Marikana. Ultimately, it is bad news for Zuma, as it will strengthen the views of those in the ANC who feel he is a hopelessly incompetent blunderer – but he may still have the votes to prevail.

The decay of the ANC alliance is now far advanced and irreversible. South Africa is anyway a very difficult country to govern, and as the ANC gradually falls apart the process is likely to be a violent one, like an old volcano blowing itself to bits.

Comments on “After Marikana”

  1. Neil Kitson says:

    And this would then be “terrorism” wouldn’t it? If the ANC killed civilians to achieve a political goal, I think that’s “terrorism.” Or maybe it’s just mass murder. Maybe “terrorism” is a useless concept.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • UncleShoutingSmut on Goodbye, Circumflex: Unfortunately this post is likely to leave readers with a very partial idea of what is going on. Firstly, there is no "edict": all that has happened i...
    • martyn94 on The Price of Everything: If it's a joke at anyone's expense, it's surely at the expense of any super-rich who take it seriously. I used to skim it occasionally as a diversion ...
    • mideastzebra on Swedish-Israeli Tensions: Avigdor Liberman was not foreign minister November 2015.
    • lars hakanson on Exit Cameron: Europe will for good reason rejoice when the UK elects to leave. The country has over the years provided nothing but obstacles to European integration...
    • Michael Schuller on Immigration Scandals: The Home Office is keen to be seen to be acting tough on immigration, although I'm not sure that the wider project has anything to do with real number...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement