Johannesburg - “I am really honoured to finally meet you in person, Mr Letsoalo”. Believe it or not, these were the words directed to me by Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi upon being introduced to him at an (intellectual) event on 22 November, 2018. That was, of course, the first time I met the long-serving leader of the Inkatha Freedom Party, although he is a very familiar face in this country.
Honoured to finally meet me? This is the charmingly disarming humility evinced by such a man, known in the whole country, the continent and the world. However, my mind immediately raced to question as to what could have pricked the heart of the founder of Inkatha to exude such positive and venerable remarks about me. This is a story for another day, except to say that was the beginning of more interactions with the nonagenarian!
The present textual piece, though, is prompted by the fact that yesterday was his 94th birthday. Yes, he was born on 27 August, 1928 to Inkosi Mathole Buthelezi (of the Buthelezi clan) and Princess Constance Magogo kaDinizulu.
She was King Solomon’s sister, while Inkosi Mathole Buthelezi was the king’s “prime minister”, by extension the “prime minister” of the Zulu nation.
When Buthelezi succeeded his father as Inkosi of the Buthelezi clan in 1954, he became the “prime minister” of the Zulu nation under King Cyprian kaBhekuzulu, which role he continued to perform under the reign of King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu to date (under King Misuzulu kaZwelithini).
Just last weekend, the whole world watched with admiration the magnificent ceremony of King Misuzulu kaZwelithini’s “ukungena esibayeni”, which many people strangely called his “coronation”. But that was a culmination of a number of cultural rites performed by him after the passing of his mother, Queen Mantfombi Shiyiwe Dlamini-Zulu while he was on the throne already.
It became clear how Buthelezi’s presence, as a sage, became a cog in these matters.
This has cemented my long-held conviction that every institution needs sages or grey hairs in order to sail through tempestuous moments in different phases of its history. The absence of political party identities simply sealed the beauty of that ceremony.
But Buthelezi’s role and contribution goes beyond his impactful participation in matters of the Zulu kingdom. In many decades, he played a very critical role in the political history of this country, particularly during the days of the struggle against apartheid. A friend places Mangosuthu in a triad or trilogy of influential leaders in this country: OR Tambo (exile), Nelson Mandela (imprisoned) and Mangosuthu Buthelezi (within the country).
I therefore share Moss Mashamaite’s assertion that “sadly at the ripe age of (94), the story of Prince Buthelezi is still grounded in historical fiction and myth”. I further argue that the ambivalence and obfuscation around the story of Buthelezi lies in instances where a generation or two grows under the dominant narrative, especially in black communities, that portrays him in a particular manner. Vilification! In the process, the truth becomes a casualty.
I must admit that I was conscientised in a politically charged pre-1994 University of the North environment which boasted great student leaders such as Prince Mafojane, Bucs Mahlangu, Chikane Chikane, Moeti Mpuru, Nozipho Phambuka, Goodman Socikwa and Mike Koyana.
This is the type of student cohort that played a big role in politicising most students. Most of those leaders were of course from Azanian Students Organisation or Azaso (a precursor to the then Sansco which later metamorphosed into the present-day Sasco).
Thus, it shouldn’t be surprising that our perception of Buthelezi would be framed in a very negative way.
For instance, the imbibition of the anti-Buthelezi narratives of Jabulani Nobleman Nxumalo (Mzala), and very polemic statements of a number of our leaders describing Buthelezi as “a snake” that needed to be hit on the head.
Here are examples: John Nkadimeng said, “Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi is a snake that poisons South Africa, which must be hit on the head”, Francis Meli said, “the ANC would necklace Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi and would use a tractor tyre to do so”, while in December 1990, Harry Gwala said, “negotiations with Inkatha is an adventure” and pointed out that Inkatha must be dealt with by other means”.
Ironically, the founders of the liberation movement, ANC, were clearly inspired by pan-Afrikanism and had done so on the premise or formula of unity of Afrikan people as the avenue towards true liberation of Afrikan people from colonial bondage and oppression.
It is well-known that Buthelezi became a member of the ANC while a student at Fort Hare University. I don’t know how many people know that Buthelezi was advised by the ANC particularly former president OR Tambo to be the Chief Minister of KwaZulu in 1976, that he assisted the founder of the ANC, Pixley kaIsaka Seme, who was his uncle, to write his letters and other ANC correspondences after struggling with his impaired sight.
It should also be known that he, together with JK Ngubane, played a major role in Inkosi Albert Luthuli’s journey towards his leadership position as President General of the ANC in 1952, and that he (Buthelezi) was mentored by Luthuli. People should indeed know that Inkatha was formed with the blessing of the ANC leadership led by OR Tambo and that it was Kenneth Kaunda who advised that it should be a membership-based organisation.
The fallout between the ANC and Inkatha resulted from the difference in principle whereby Buthelezi (Inkatha) had rejected the armed struggle and sanctions/divestment against South Africa after what seemed a cordial meeting of the ANC and Inkatha delegations in London in 1979.
Despite these differences, Buthelezi campaigned vigorously against the apartheid regime and vehemently refused to enter into any negotiations with the National Party government to discuss the future of South Africa “unless all political prisoners were released unconditionally”.
In fact, the IFP had specifically stated, even as late as 9 January, 1989, that for true negotiations to sustain, Mandela and all political prisoners should be released, and all political parties should be unbanned.
Mandela later acknowledged all this and specifically thanked Buthelezi; which was contrary to the “popular narrative” that painted Buthelezi as a traitor or a snake, as I have said earlier.
Coming back to the issue of traditional leadership, I argue that our discourse on this matter should not be influenced by colonialism. Quite frequently, we distort the Afrikan governance system with European constructs of democracy, for instance.
I have, on a number of occasions, stated that democracy, as a European construct, is extremely overrated. So is our Constitution. The pillar of Afrikan people’s existence prior colonisation was culture and traditional governance system, premised on the notion of the leader (king or queen?) as inseparable from the land and the people.
In other words, there is no king without the people and the land. Like a lion, which derives its relevance in the jungle by marking its territory (land), so does the king. I would like to believe this is the logic behind the establishment of the Ingonyama Trust.
It was Buthelezi who, towards the very end of the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly, in 1994, passed a piece of legislation, the Ingonyama Trust Act No. 3KZ of 1994, through which he transferred the land that constituted what used to be called the KwaZulu homeland to a Trust under the King of the Zulu people as the sole Trustee.
I certainly agree with the view that, from the dispossessed people’s perspective, this step should have been highly commended. A friend actually asserts that “The Trust itself ought to be applauded as a work of genius”. We can all but wish that all other homelands had taken a similar step.
Of course, this should be understood from the Afrikan view that, and as correctly stipulated in the Act, “the Trust is established as an entity to administer the land traditionally owned by the Zulu people, represented by their king, for the benefit, material welfare and social well-being of the Zulu nation who continue to occupy the land as they historically have done”.
The king does not own the land, the people do! It is very important to note that in such circumstances the Trust (in partnership with Amakhosi), manages the land and ensures that it does not exchange hands and that it stays under the Trust. Can you imagine the scenario where people, out of desperation, sell the land to whoever (just like how RDP houses are sold) to whoever, including foreigners, our oppressors and “investors”?
While the post-1994 government is still pusillanimous on the fundamental issue of repossessing the land from our invaders, it becomes a folly matter to be making noise and setting up commissions on the land that has been protected for the Zulu people.
In fact, black people across the political spectrum should instead logically be exerting more effort on the reclamation of the land that constitutes what still remains white South Africa. I am not sure whether there is a corresponding noise and/or commissions on the question of Orania. Anyway, the failure of the Section 25 Amendment efforts is still fresh in our minds. What a disappointing story of cowardice!
I am only citing the Ingonyama Trust initiative, at this juncture, because there is a lot of undying noise about it even as we speak, particularly because it relates to the land. I am sure there are examples of other achievements attributable to Buthelezi that we can talk about as we acknowledge him on his 94th birthday.
However, the issue of how the members of the Board of Trustees manage the affairs of the Trust and the land, is something that needs to be vigilantly looked into. Allegations of corruption, gender discrimination, abuse of power and so forth need to be addressed with respect to the law and customs of the Zulu people.
This is the man that, despite the narrative that ordinary black folks in the ANC have been fed, was trusted by their leaders in government to serve as Cabinet Minister in the three administrations (of presidents Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki) from 1994 to 2004, and in the process, further asked to serve as Acting President of the country in no less than 22 times! It’s no wonder that Buthelezi holds the two former presidents in highest regard.
But, for me, this story just shows how possible it is for black people to work together. It’s the colours of the T-shirts of our political parties that the enemy is leveraging on to divide us and further delay our true liberation. Happy 94th birthday to Umntwana Wa KwaPhindangene. Shenge!
David Letsoalo is a Sankarist, an activist and Law academic