Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu
ON Sunday 23 March 2025, the IFP celebrated 50 years of its existence. It was on 21 March 1975 when the late Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi formed Inkatha Yenkululeko Yesizwe. This was dubbed a cultural movement disguised as the revival of Inkatha ka Zulu which was established by King Dinuzulu in 1922. On the eve of the first democratic election in April 1994, Inkatha Yenkululeko Yesizwe converted to a political party called Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP).
From 1975 to 2012, Buthelezi was the only leader of the IFP. In 2012 Inkosi Mzamo Buthelezi of Mbongombongweni was elected as the first Deputy President of the IFP. There was speculation that Inkosi Mzamo would be the next President of the party. However, it was Velenkosini Hlabisa who took the reigns from Prince Buthelezi in 2019.
The key question becomes: what is the future of the IFP following the passing of Prince Buthelezi? To answer this question, one must reflect on the history of this organisation – both in its own right and in the context of South Africa’s broader political context.
When Inkatha was formed in 1975 it received the blessings of Zambia’s President Kenneth Kaunda who hosted the ANC following its banning (together with the PAC) in 1960. It also received the blessings of the ANC under the leadership of Oliver Reginald Tambo.
The idea behind the formation of Inkatha was to provide a political home to political activists who were left stranded when the ANC and the PAC were banned. It is for this reason that some of the former and current ANC and SACP members and leaders were once members of Inkatha. It is for the same reason that Prince Buthelezi used to visit the ANC Headquarters in Lusaka to give reports and get a fresh mandate. This continued until 1979 when Buthelezi led a 17-member delegation to London to meet the ANC leadership. By this time, there was a trust deficit between Buthelezi and some in the ANC. Although Tambo had promised to meet Buthelezi again, such a meeting never materialised.
In 1983, the United Democratic Front (UDF) was formed to mobilise the oppressed masses against the apartheid regime. There was an antagonistic relationship between the UDF and leaders of the Bantustan Homelands created by the apartheid regime as part of its divide-and-rule policy. Although Buthelezi did not accept full ‘independence’ like his other counterparts, he led the KwaZulu Government.
The establishment of the Zulu Police (ZP) marked a new epoch in the history of this country. The fact that Buthelezi was the leader of the Inkatha and KwaZulu Government saw his roles being conflated. Similarly, the role of the ZP was sometimes linked to Inkatha as opposed to the KwaZulu Government. This view was compounded by the violence which engulfed KwaZulu and Transvaal (now KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng). The ZP and the Kitskonstabel (township police) were accused of colluding with the apartheid government. Their assumed enemies were the ANC, SACP and UDF.
These real and assumed divisions worked for the apartheid regime. The so-called black-on-black violence in KZN and Gauteng happened in this political context. Apartheid operatives supplied arms and ammunition to the warring factions to sustain the killings. They also used the media to fuel rivalries.
What painted the IFP in a bad light was the fact that under Buthelezi it took a different approach to the liberation struggle. For example, Buthelezi was opposed to the sanctions on the grounds that the people who were going to suffer the most were the black masses on behalf of whom the liberation struggle was fought. Secondly, Buthelezi had resolved to fight the apartheid system from within. Some viewed this stance as tantamount to selling the struggle.
During the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) talks, the IFP pushed for a federal state while others wanted a unitary state. The resultant provinces were a compromise to accommodate both views. Secondly, Buthelezi wanted the Zulu King and the Zulu monarchy to be accorded a special status. Ingonyama Trust was born out of these discussions. It was for this reason that the IFP only agreed to participate in the 1994 general election at the last moment following the intervention of Kenya’s Prof. Washington Okumu.
Under Buthelezi the IFP ran KZN alone, through a coalition with the ANC, and then lost it to the ANC. Currently, the IFP managed to lead KZN through the back door when it formed a coalition with the ANC, DA and NFP displacing the newly formed uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) which obtained the most votes. Nationally, the IFP is one of the 10 political parties which formed a coalition government.
The passing of Prince Buthelezi on 9 September 2023 set the IFP on a new political path. He had already handed the baton to Hlabisa. But the latter was not as comfortable in his position as Buthelezi was. Some within the party challenged his leadership. Even when he tried to forge relations with the ANC, that decision was opposed by some in the party and the idea had to be aborted.
A few things pose a challenge to the IFP’s existentialism. The first one is about leadership. Should leaders wrestle for positions, that would be the end of the party’s growth. The second one is the IFP’s decision to work with the DA in KZN and to form part of the multiparty coalition after the 2024 general election. While these decisions were dictated by the prevailing circumstances, they robbed the party of the opportunity to redefine and rebuild itself. The third issue is the party’s inability to expand to other provinces which deprives it of numbers during elections. Fourthly, the increased number of political parties in each election means that competition is rife. Lastly, the IFP must define what it stands for so that those who are current and future members would know what the party is offering to the electorate.
The future of the IFP is in its own hands. Leadership prowess is of the essence.
* Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is the Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.