From Uprising to Soft Power: How 1976 Shaped South Africa's Struggle and Its Co-option

IOL News

16-06-2025

June 16 has been memorialised in state ceremonies and school textbooks, but often stripped of its radical potential, writes Gillian Schutte.
On the morning of June 16, 1976, thousands of Black schoolchildren in Soweto marched peacefully against the apartheid government's decree that Afrikaans be used as a language of instruction in schools.
It was not just a protest about language - it was a refusal to be culturally colonised, a rebellion against the daily indignities of Bantu Education and systemic dehumanisation.
The apartheid police responded with gunfire. The murder of children in broad daylight - most iconically captured in the image of Hector Pieterson's body being carried through the streets - shocked the world and shattered any illusion of the regime's legitimacy.
The uprising quickly spread beyond Soweto. Within days, townships across the country were in revolt - Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban and others echoed with the chants of youth refusing to bow to white rule. The state responded with tear gas, batons, bullets, and mass detentions.
Apartheid officials reported 500 people, many of them teenagers, were killed in the unrest that year. The number of deaths is said to be much higher than official records. Teenagers were thrown into solitary confinement for months at a time, and many were brutally tortured.
The regime was exposed as not only racist but murderous. And the youth, once dismissed by apartheid authorities as controllable, had become an ungovernable force. Many fled into exile to join liberation movements such as the ANC and PAC, swelling the ranks of the armed struggle and political education.
The brutality of the crackdown was widely condemned. Media coverage and public outcry surged across Europe, the Americas, and the Global South. For the first time, liberal democracies that had tolerated apartheid for decades found themselves under immense pressure from civil society and student movements to divest, boycott, and speak out.
Pretoria's image abroad was in tatters. Even its staunchest allies in the West realised that the optics of slaughtering children was unsustainable.
This moment triggered a significant tactical shift in how the apartheid state - and its Western sponsors - would manage opposition going forward. The gun had failed. Repression had bred rebellion. The next phase of the counterinsurgency would not rely solely on force, but on persuasion. The terrain of struggle moved from the battlefield to the hearts and minds of South Africans.
This pivot mirrored broader global strategies of Cold War soft power, particularly those employed by the United States. Where outright military suppression was too costly or controversial, the West deployed cultural, educational, and economic tools to manage political outcomes in the Global South. South Africa became a laboratory for these experiments.
USAID, established under the Kennedy administration, began to reframe its activities in South Africa. Rather than just economic development, its mission included 'democracy promotion' and 'civil society strengthening' - innocuous phrases that masked deep ideological work.
Under these programs, Black youth were recruited into leadership workshops, community development initiatives, and training schemes that promoted liberal, non-violent values over revolutionary consciousness. Vocational education replaced political education. Human rights replaced collective liberation.
Similarly, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US government-funded proxy for the CIA, started operating in South Africa during the 1980s. Its funding flowed to media platforms, electoral reform initiatives, and NGOs that framed their work in donor-friendly, non-confrontational language. These organisations criticised apartheid - enough to appear progressive - but avoided challenging capitalism, white wealth, or US imperialism.
German political foundations followed suit. The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (aligned with Germany's Christian Democrats) and Friedrich Naumann Stiftung (aligned with the Free Democrats) poured money into South African civil society, shaping liberal intellectual discourse, funding legal reform NGOs, and sponsoring dialogue platforms. Their aim was not to destroy apartheid's economic architecture, but to transition South Africa into a post-apartheid dispensation that would retain capitalist order and white economic dominance under the veil of multiracial democracy.
These interventions marked the birth of a soft coup - the gradual neutralisation of radical resistance through donor influence, media manipulation, and ideological infiltration. This was the counter-revolution wrapped in NGO language. It was no longer tanks and tear gas. It was television studios, grants, scholarships, and training programs. The new foot soldiers were consultants, not soldiers.
Silencing the language of radical change
A similar fate would later befall the students of the #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall movements. These were the children of June 1976's legacy - once again standing up against institutional racism, Eurocentric curricula, and economic exclusion. But as with their predecessors, their revolt was gradually professionalised.
Donor-funded NGOs and foreign-backed think tanks began to absorb key leaders, offering them fellowships, internships, and platforms that steered them away from revolutionary demands. What began as fierce critiques of structural violence and colonial legacies was quickly reframed into career-building exercises in 'policy reform' and 'youth dialogue.'
The language of radical change was replaced with 'stakeholder engagement,' and a new class of young Black professionals emerged - not to dismantle the system, but to manage it.
By 1994, the foundations of the neoliberal South Africa were already cemented. Liberation had been negotiated, but the terms were not drawn up by the oppressed. The economy remained in white hands. The land remained dispossessed. The ANC, now transformed from liberation movement to ruling party, was encircled by donor logic, Western debt traps, and a civil society already restructured by decades of soft power.
The irony is bitter. The blood of the youth in 1976 forced the world to see apartheid for what it was - a murderous regime bent on white domination. But that same uprising also accelerated the global regime's adaptation. It taught them that guns alone would not suffice. They would need to shape the minds of South Africans - to raise a generation of Black liberals rather than revolutionaries.
June 16 has since been memorialised in state ceremonies and school textbooks, but often stripped of its radical potential. The children who marched did not ask to be co-opted into donor-funded development programs. They demanded dignity, land, justice, and power. Their rebellion should not be remembered as the beginning of reconciliation, but as the signal that the time for half-measures was over.
Today, as South Africa confronts deepening inequality, youth unemployment, and the hollowing out of liberation promises, it becomes increasingly clear that the struggle never ended - it was only rerouted.
To reclaim the spirit of 1976 is to see through the tactics of soft power, to resist the seductive language of donor dependency, and to once again place African sovereignty at the centre of liberation.
*Gillian Schutte is a well-known social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
IOL Opinion