South Africa: Who Will Lead This Divided Nation?

By Scott MacLeod/Johannesburg

When Nelson Mandela gathers his followers next week for their first conference inside the country in 30 years, they should be able to review their achievements with pride. The African National Congress, established in 1912, is nearer than ever to its goal of replacing apartheid with democracy for all races. Last week the last legal pillar of segregation tumbled when the Parliament revoked the Population Registration Act of 1950, fulfilling President F.W. de Klerk's promise to abolish South Africa's major discrimination laws.

These are not particularly good days, however, for the A.N.C. The meeting in the Natal province capital of Durban is expected to elevate Mandela to the movement's presidency, but his stature has been trimmed by the conviction of his wife Winnie on kidnapping and assault charges two months ago. The challenge for the 2,000 delegates is how to retake the political initiative that the A.N.C. has lost to De Klerk in the past year. Thanks to his democratic advances, Pretoria's international isolation seems ever closer to an end. Even in the U.S., where antiapartheid sentiment is strong, pressure is building to end the five-year-old economic boycott.

The A.N.C. was doomed to fall short of the absurdly high hopes inspired by Mandela's release from prison in February 1990. But the organization has genuinely dismayed many South Africans with its increasingly strident demands, its role in township violence, its muddled ideas about nationalizing parts of the economy and its maddening bureaucratic sluggishness. Not long ago, A.N.C. leaders could be heard arguing that the government should simply hand over power. Now it is reasonable to wonder if the organization, even with its large number of sympathizers, could win a democratic election when one is finally held. And if the A.N.C. did come to power, would it be fit to govern?

During the same period, De Klerk has shown impressive skill at outmaneuvering Mandela and maintaining control of the transition process. He enjoys strong support from whites and blacks alike. "This is not a regime that is collapsing," says Lawrence Schlemmer, director of Johannesburg's Center for Policy Studies. The government's competency has frustrated the A.N.C. Most galling of all has been the success that De Klerk has had in being welcomed by black African leaders the congress considers close allies.

Some congress officials charge that De Klerk is also actively building up the rival Inkatha Freedom Party, the mainly Zulu organization headed by Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. Opinion polls indicate that the A.N.C. has the support of more than 60% of blacks, in contrast to 10% for Inkatha. But congress officials fear that De Klerk's ruling National Party will eventually form a coalition with Inkatha to keep the A.N.C. out of any government.

In a press conference arranged by the congress last month, retired Major Nico Basson accused the South African Defense Force of arming Inkatha to stir up tribal hostility. While the army and Inkatha denied the charges, eyewitnesses have seen white policemen escorting Inkatha impis (armed Zulus) from the scene of recent bloody attacks.

But not all the A.N.C.'s troubles can be blamed on others. While most members recognize the need for negotiations, some of its leaders are still caught up in dreams of revolution. "The very notion of revolutionary politics excludes any idea of give and take," says John Kane-Berman, executive director of the South African Institute of Race Relations in Johannesburg. "But that's the game the A.N.C. has been pushed into playing." The desire to remain a liberation movement until white domination ends may be understandable, but in such a delicate period, confrontational tactics discourage the climate for negotiations that the A.N.C. itself is demanding.

The movement has also bungled its relations with Inkatha, which may have as many as 1 million members. While congress leaders consider the Zulu chief a sellout for serving as chief minister of the Pretoria-created KwaZulu homeland, Mandela indicated that he wished to meet with Buthelezi. He was apparently overruled by hard-liners. Last August, as Buthelezi's followers sought to expand their influence beyond Inkatha's stronghold of Natal, fierce clashes erupted in the black townships around Johannesburg. By the time Mandela finally sat down in an attempt to make peace with Buthelezi last January, more than 1,000 people had been killed -- for which both sides bear responsibility.

Only recently has the A.N.C. begun to recognize its sagging popularity. A campaign to increase its membership by 1 million has failed by half. Following Mandela's release, A.N.C. members disparaged smaller rival organizations such as the Pan Africanist Congress and the Azanian People's Organization. Now, seeing the danger of fragmenting the antiapartheid camp, the A.N.C. has sought to bring the others into a "patriotic front." But the congress's performance has scared off those whites who were generally sympathetic. "Many have decided to remain aloof," says Jan van Eck, a Member of Parliament for the liberal Democratic Party, "because they are unsure exactly what the A.N.C. offers."

Divisions are growing within the congress on tactical as well as ideological matters. In general, moderates trust the government's commitment to a process that could result in the A.N.C.'s accession to power, while hard-liners feel De Klerk is perpetrating a sophisticated ruse. Both are struggling to dominate the new 100-member National Executive Committee that is scheduled to be elected next week; its primary responsibility will be to chart the movement's course to negotiations.

If the Durban gathering turns into a factional face-off, the hard-liners will probably come out on top. Growing increasingly shrill, the A.N.C. issued demands last April that De Klerk was certain to refuse, such as the firing of Defense Minister Magnus Malan and Law and Order Minister Adriaan Vlok. Though himself a moderate and the movement's peacemaker, Mandela last week sided with hard-liners by flatly declaring as nonnegotiable the A.N.C.'s requirement that an elected constituent assembly, rather than leaders of political parties, draw up a new constitution.

One test of the A.N.C.'s future direction will come when the committee decides how to answer calls to step up "mass action" campaigns of strikes, boycotts and marches. De Klerk charges that these inspire violence and intimidation, poisoning the atmosphere for talks. But A.N.C. hard-liners feel that mass action, like international sanctions, is a vital weapon. "If you look at how the East European countries changed," says Peter Mokaba, leader of the A.N.C. Youth League, "it was mass action that actually pushed the undemocratic regimes out of power."

Fearful of giving way on any of its long-standing demands, the A.N.C. could come to be seen as blocking progress toward a political settlement. Last week De Klerk told Parliament that a multiparty conference could be convened within a matter of months to decide exactly who would negotiate a new political system and how they would go about doing it. The A.N.C. has vowed to boycott any constitutional discussions until the government fulfills an agreement to free all political prisoners and allow exiles to return home. De Klerk has not yet extended a formal invitation to the gathering. When he does, the A.N.C.'s response will help decide not only the fate of the liberation movement but of South Africa as well.

With reporting by Mark Suzman/Johannesburg