From Alliance to Independence: The SACP's Path Forward to Reclaim Revolutionary Integrity
Image: WALTER DHLADHLA / AFP
Dr. Reneva Fourie
The South African Communist Party's celebration of its 104th anniversary, from 30 July to 1 August, occurs at a groundbreaking moment in its history. Its decision to contest elections independently is not merely a tactical adjustment. This decision reflects a sober assessment of the country's political realities and is a necessary response to the multiple crises affecting it.
The original basis of the Alliance – currently comprised of the ANC, SACP, COSATU and SANCO – rested on the shared understanding that racial oppression, patriarchy and class exploitation were intertwined. National liberation, as envisaged in the Freedom Charter, was viewed as a prerequisite for the socialist transformation of society. The Alliance was a strategic vehicle for mass mobilisation towards this shared vision. But alliances, as Lenin reminded us, are historical constructs that must serve a revolutionary purpose and require constant re-evaluation.
Since 1994, South Africa has undergone a political transition without an economic transformation. The commanding heights of the economy remain in the hands of monopoly capital. The post-apartheid state inherited the formal architecture of democracy while leaving the structures of capitalist accumulation intact.
The ANC-led government primarily embraced neoliberal macroeconomic policies that prioritised global capital over national interests, limiting the state's ability to effectively promote development for the benefit of South Africans. The result has been the reproduction of mass poverty, unemployment, inequality and crime. These structural failures have fuelled disillusionment with the liberation movement. The working class, once a leading force for change, is now largely excluded from real political influence.
Within the Alliance, the SACP's influence has diminished as the ANC has come to be dominated by opportunist strata, many of whom entered the movement after 1990 to pursue private enrichment. This process has weakened the ANC's historical identity and transformed it into an increasingly bourgeois formation.
Joe Slovo warned of such a development. In his essay Has Socialism Failed?, he highlighted the danger of bureaucratisation and class compromise in liberation movements that enter state power without altering the material foundations of oppression. The rise of patronage, corruption and internal factionalism within the ANC has vindicated this analysis. The dissolution of the National Party and absorption of its members, along with those of apartheid-era institutions, further diluted the ANC's progressive character.
The working class has borne the brunt of this degeneration. Local government has become a site of elite contestation rather than a means of popular empowerment. Service delivery failures and corruption have alienated communities, while the voices of the poor are increasingly marginalised in national policy discourse.
Electoral politics have shifted in favour of well-financed capitalist parties, many of which receive external support from Western-aligned foundations and donors. Much of the media, aligned with elite interests, has played a key role in shaping narratives that delegitimise the liberation movement while promoting the opposition.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad Loading
The 2024 general election confirmed this trend. Although the ANC retained the largest share of votes, it fell below 50 per cent and entered a Government of National Unity with the Democratic Alliance. This decision was not the result of democratic will, but rather a response to pressure from capital and foreign interests.
The DA's connection to imperialist institutions and its role in advancing neoliberal orthodoxy are well documented. The GNU represents a class project aimed at restoring the full dominance of capital and undermining the last remnants of transformative policy within the state.
Faced with this reality, the SACP cannot remain confined to a subordinate role within the Alliance. The decision to contest elections independently is rooted in Leninist strategy. For Lenin, participation in bourgeois institutions was a method for revolutionary agitation and exposure, not an endorsement of the system.
The Party's presence in elections is, therefore, a means to assert working-class interests, build political clarity, and offer an alternative pole of power. It is not an abandonment of the ANC, but a necessary correction to restore the movement's revolutionary integrity.
The SACP has also advanced the idea of a Left Popular Front. This formation, rooted in the Marxist concept of the united front, seeks to bring together trade unions, community movements and progressive organisations around a common minimum programme. The goal is to build a mass-based movement capable of resisting neoliberalism and advancing a socialist alternative.
At the same time, the SACP continues to support the reconfiguration of the Alliance. This reconfiguration must involve democratic engagement, strategic coordination and mutual accountability. It cannot remain an informal arrangement in which the ANC monopolises decision-making.
The Alliance must be restructured to reflect the balance of forces within society and the need for a socialist orientation to the National Democratic Revolution. The SACP's role within the Alliance must be recognised not only symbolically, but in the structural transformation of the economy.
The pursuit of electoral independence and the building of a Left Popular Front are not contradictory. Both are responses to the changing material conditions of post-apartheid South Africa. The class character of the state has not shifted adequately. Racism, patriarchy and tribalism remain embedded in society. The transition to political democracy was a moment of historical importance, but without economic liberation, it remains incomplete. The second, more radical phase of the revolution demands bold and decisive leadership.
The SACP has the historical legitimacy, ideological clarity and organisational roots to lead this phase. Its tradition of struggle, rooted in the working class, positions it to reclaim the revolutionary mandate of the liberation movement. The Party must now deepen its presence in communities, expand its cadre base, and develop the organisational capacity required to contest and exercise power. The ultimate aim is not merely parliamentary presence, but the creation of a socialist society in which all South Africans benefit from the country's wealth.
The working class cannot afford further delay. The crisis of capitalism is sharpening. Forces opposed to economic justice are advancing ideologically and institutionally. The SACP must step forward as a unifying agent for the working-class struggle. In asserting its independence, the SACP is laying the foundations for a new phase of revolutionary advancement.
* Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
10 minutes ago
- IOL News
'The Short End of the Stick': A Bikoian Rejection of Freedom Charter Nostalgia
The Congress of the People was organised by the National Action Council, a multi-racial organisation that later became known as the Congress Alliance. It was held in Kliptown on June 26, 1955, to lay out the vision of the South African people. Swaminathan Gounden was one of the Natal delegates who attended the Congress under the leadership of Archie Gumede. Image: Swaminathan Gounden Collection There is a dangerous return to nostalgia in post-apartheid South Africa. The Freedom Charter, long treated as a sacred relic of liberation, is again being celebrated by figures like Ronnie Kasrils, who now serve as gatekeepers of Struggle memory. This reverence is not a harmless sentiment. It masks the failures of elite transition and conceals the betrayals of the democratic settlement. The Freedom Charter did not chart a path to Black liberation. It opened the door for a managed transfer of power that preserved the material base of colonial capital while installing a comprador elite to manage the contradictions. Steve Biko warned against precisely this ideological trap. No matter what modifications are made to the status quo, the Black man will always have the short end of the stick. What must be called for is not reform, but a true reallocation of land and wealth. In Biko's framing, political freedom without material redistribution is meaningless. There is no justice where the land remains stolen and the economy remains in settler hands. Voting rights cannot substitute for sovereignty. The Freedom Charter's ambiguity on the land question was deliberate. Its proclamation that 'the land shall be shared among those who work it' collapses the historical reality of conquest into a neutral discourse of labour and cooperation. Nowhere does it acknowledge the settler. Nowhere does it confront the theft. It fails to call for the return of land to the African majority. Instead of articulating a programme for decolonial redress, it adopts a conciliatory tone that prioritises harmony over justice. In effect, what is framed as a liberation mandate operates as a grammar of pacification, designed to absorb resistance rather than advance revolution. That ambiguity carried through to the 1996 Constitution. Patrick Bond, in Elite Transition, makes the point that the constitutional settlement was a product of a class compromise. It was designed to pacify international investors, preserve white capital and neutralise the revolutionary impulse. The negotiated settlement did not emerge from the will of the masses but from a triangulation between the African National Congress leadership, global capital and white economic power. The result was a Constitution that promises equality but enshrines ownership. As Bond argues, the Constitution operates as 'a myth-making meme,' built to deradicalise struggle by offering symbolic rights in place of structural change. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading This is why land reform remains stalled. Section 25, the so-called property clause, protects private ownership even when that ownership is the direct result of theft and conquest. It couches restitution in the language of reasonableness and affordability, deferring justice to bureaucratic paralysis. This legal framework reflects the ideological DNA of the Freedom Charter, a text that never sought to overthrow the economic system but to moralise it. Biko understood the danger of this kind of liberal substitution. Freedom without land and without independent means of livelihood is meaningless. For Biko, Black liberation was not about removing apartheid's legal codes. It was about removing the very conditions that made white power possible. 'It is not enough to remove the white man from power. We must remove the conditions that made his power possible.' That project remains unfulfilled. Black consciousness leader Steve Biko's philosophy and ideology has stood the test of time. Image: Independent Media Archives The contemporary consequences are blatant. The mining belt still delivers billions in profit to multinational corporations while leaking acid into rivers and lungs. Rural communities are poisoned and abandoned. Urban centres swell with unemployed Black youth, structurally excluded from ownership in a society that defines success through capital accumulation. The banks, insurance houses, farms and media corporations remain in the hands of a racial oligarchy. Even the new sectors such as renewable energy, climate funding and global NGOism have been captured by former struggle stalwarts and their descendants who now form a class of managerial elites enriching themselves through donor money, Foundations and PR projects while the majority go hungry. None of this can be explained without naming the ideological function of the Freedom Charter. It is not a neutral historical artefact. It is the founding myth of a liberal transition that demanded compromise from the dispossessed and reconciliation with the profiteers of genocide. It is the script from which the Constitution was adapted and it continues to function as the moral cover for structural betrayal. For the younger generation, landless, jobless and criminalised, being told to look to Kliptown is a form of political insult. The Charter never spoke to their reality. It is a document that offered peace to power and slogans to the oppressed. It evaded the core contradiction of settler colonialism. There is no coexistence until land is returned, power is redistributed and the entire economic foundation of white supremacy is dismantled. This is why Black Consciousness remains relevant. Steve Biko never asked the settler to share. He never asked for a seat at the table. He rejected liberalism, both white and black. He believed that Black people must define their own future, control their own institutions and return to the land that was stolen. Blacks must no longer be content to be on the receiving end but must be the architects of their own destiny. This simply cannot be reconciled with the logic of the Charter. The Charter imagines a common future built on a shared investment in the nation. Biko called for sovereignty. The Charter offered inclusion into colonial modernity. Biko called for its destruction. The Charter deferred revolution in favour of negotiation. Biko rejected negotiation with thieves. There is no middle ground between these two positions. The Freedom Charter was not sacred in 1955 and it is not sacred now. Its myth has been used to sedate political thought, justify class betrayal and deliver the masses into the hands of consultants, capital and false prophets. Ronnie Kasrils reinvoking it as a sacred text is emblematic of the liberalism that Biko warned about. That formations such as the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) celebrate the Freedom Charter in the current conjuncture signals the extent to which emancipatory politics in South Africa have been diluted and depoliticised. What was once a militant voice of class struggle has become entangled in the sentimental recitation of a document that failed to name the enemy. The echo chamber of Charterist nostalgia - amplified by a hybrid class of empty political commentators who mimic Kasrils and perform struggle rhetoric devoid of class analysis or historical accountability, reflects the ideological decay of a post-apartheid order collapsing under its own contradictions. In this postmodern liberal wasteland, recycled slogans masquerade as politics, and no pathway toward genuine liberation is offered. We rose against the system in 1976 and we must do it again. By any means necessary we must rise, expose, dismantle and overthrow the system that has kept us in a permanent prison in our own land. There will be no redemption without land. There will be no healing without the destruction of settler systems. There will be no justice where the economic base remains unchanged. And there will be no dignity for the African majority until the struggle is re-centred on material return. We were not dispossessed through metaphor. We will not be liberated through myth. The Charter must fall. The Constitution must be rewritten. The land must be returned. Until that happens, the real betrayal will not be those who critique the Freedom Charter, but those who continue to protect it. * Sipho Singiswa is a political analyst, filmmaker and Native rights activist. A 1976 student leader and former Robben Island prisoner, he has rejected the post-apartheid elite project and continues to organise around land and economic justice and the liberation of the African majority. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
IOL News
10 minutes ago
- IOL News
Jeffery's Red Scare: The NDR, Manufactured Panic, and the Defence of Racial Capital
Anthea Jeffery warns of a covert socialist agenda in South Africa, framing the National Democratic Revolution as a Marxist threat. This article critically examines her claims, revealing the ideological warfare at play and the implications for democracy and capitalism. Image: IOL Anthea Jeffery has spent much of her career warning that South Africa is on a covert march to socialism. Her vehicle of choice is the so-called National Democratic Revolution — a theoretical construct she treats as hard evidence of an unfolding Marxist programme hidden inside government policy. The ANC's reform proposals, however diluted, are presented as proof of a long-haul conspiracy to unravel capitalism, property rights, and democracy. This isn't analysis. It's ideological warfare crafted for a constituency anxious about redistribution. The National Democratic Revolution in its original conception was a phase-based process towards liberation: political rights first, economic reorganisation later. But what Jeffery refuses to acknowledge is that the ANC never implemented its second phase. The so-called revolution halted at the moment of elite pacting. The language remained. The politics shifted. The ANC's alignment with the SACP and COSATU allowed it to maintain liberation credentials, while its actual policies became increasingly orthodox. By the mid-1990s, the alliance had internalised market logic. Redistribution gave way to stabilisation. GEAR formalised this. Privatisation followed. State entities were corporatised. Public services were costed and commodified. Jeffery omits this history. Or she wilfully misrepresents it. She uses the NDR as a container for all post-apartheid policy that inconveniences capital. Land reform, healthcare expansion, employment equity — these are treated as dangerous incursions into free enterprise. She isolates phrases from ANC conferences or SACP newsletters and holds them up as definitive proof of a creeping totalitarian project, while ignoring the decades-long collapse of anything resembling a radical economic agenda. Her institutional base — the Institute of Race Relations — supports this position through a stream of publications designed to conflate moderate state intervention with revolutionary intent. It claims to stand for classical liberalism. In practice, it operates as a cultural and economic firewall for the beneficiaries of apartheid's economic structure. Its function is not to analyse power, but to secure it. Jeffery's periodic references to 1976 are calculated. She acknowledges the significance of the uprising, but removes it from the insurgent currents that animated it. The student protests were not simply a spontaneous reaction to Afrikaans in schools. They were a political rupture. They revived Black Consciousness, anti-capitalist critique, and a pan-African worldview. Many students were detained, tortured, or killed. Others went into exile and carried their radicalism with them. Some joined the ANC. Others looked elsewhere — to the PAC, to newer formations, or to community organising beyond party structures. The UDF, which emerged in the 1980s, institutionalised much of this activism. But its formation marked a shift away from the militancy of 1976. It embraced the Freedom Charter and sought to build broad-based alliances under its framework. It functioned as a civic force rather than a revolutionary front. COSATU, too, while initially militant in worker organising, had by the mid-1980s begun engaging foreign donors and adopting development project language. USAID funding flowed into union education and policy platforms. The edges of resistance were being managed. The revolutionary demands were being absorbed into programmes. The SACP followed a similar trajectory. From its exile-era anti-capitalist declarations to its post-1994 parliamentary positions, the shift was clear. It offered ideological cover to the ANC's pragmatic manoeuvring, describing every compromise as a tactical delay. But the delays became permanent. The economic structure of apartheid remained intact, with new faces at the table. Jeffery does not mention these shifts, because her narrative relies on exaggeration. She needs the ANC to be a radical actor so she can frame even the mildest policy adjustment as evidence of Marxist capture. Her entire thesis depends on mischaracterisation. Redistribution becomes dispossession. Affirmative action becomes racial engineering. Healthcare equity becomes state control. She constructs an ANC that no longer exists and warns against an agenda that has already been abandoned. Her real objective is to delegitimise any challenge to racialised wealth. She is not defending democratic values. She is defending historical advantage. This is evident in the way she treats land. Expropriation without compensation, a policy with strict constitutional limits and very narrow application, is presented as the first step toward Zimbabwe-style collapse. This ignores decades of failed restitution, government inertia, and the market-driven nature of land policy since 1994. The threat, for Jeffery, lies not in the reality of land injustice, but in the idea that it might one day be resolved. AfriForum echoes this approach. Its spokespeople describe land reform as an attack on white farmers and frame any social policy as a threat to white survival. Their version is more racialised, more openly defensive, but the logic is aligned. Both formations reject historical responsibility. Both see equity as a threat. Both amplify fear to protect capital. Other institutions mirror these concerns in more bureaucratic language. Security think tanks publish briefings about instability. Business forums call for restraint. Liberal columnists urge balance. The message is consistent: do nothing that might disrupt the ownership patterns of the last century. Jeffery's argument about the NDR gives this position an intellectual cover. By citing speeches, strategy documents, and ideological jargon, she creates the appearance of serious critique. But it is a formula. She substitutes policy analysis with ideological projection. She avoids the fact that economic transformation has not taken place. She avoids the structural continuity between apartheid and post-apartheid capital. She avoids the reality that Black suffering in South Africa today is largely the result of state capitulation to business interests — interests that she and her institutional network continue to defend. There is no NDR in motion. There is a collapsed developmental state, a political class aligned with private capital, and a society in which poverty and violence have become structural conditions. The state has outsourced its duty to govern. The mines still poison water. The banks foreclose on homes built on land stolen a century ago. And the IRR tells us to be afraid of communism. The youth of 1976 would not recognise this landscape. They would not recognise the bureaucratised opposition that now speaks in their name. Their courage did not come with conditions. Their rejection of the apartheid order was rooted in the knowledge that legal inclusion without material justice is a performance. Their politics, forged in struggle and sharpened by violence, called for redistribution, for accountability, for dignity grounded in structural change. Jeffery does not engage this legacy. She instrumentalises it. She cites it when useful, silences it when it exposes her distortions. Her entire body of work is premised on protecting a system that never addressed the foundational crimes of this country. To suggest that the ANC, in its current form, represents a threat to private capital is absurd. It has managed capital's interests with discipline. It has sacrificed its own popular base to maintain investor credibility. Its ministers tour the world reassuring markets. Its budgets mirror austerity regimes elsewhere. It has enacted neoliberalism while speaking of revolution. The NDR functions now only as a symbolic reference. It is evoked at party conferences, in commemorative speeches, in SACP resolutions that never materialise. On the ground, it has no programme. What exists is a vacuum — filled by private sector partnerships, donor-driven governance, and a mass population structurally locked out. Jeffery chooses to see danger in the symbolism. She ignores the vacuum. She warns of an ideology whose time has passed, while legitimising the system that replaced it. Her contribution is not neutral. It fortifies the walls around wealth. It tells those who suffer to be patient — or to be silent. History did not vindicate the ANC. Nor did it vindicate the defenders of capital. It left the struggle incomplete. The question remains open — who will finish it, and how? Jeffery offers no answer. She only repeats the warnings of old men who saw equality as chaos. * 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.
TimesLIVE
10 minutes ago
- TimesLIVE
How can the state protect witnesses who testify in the Mkhwanazi commission of inquiry?
Hearings for the commission of inquiry into KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's allegations are expected to begin in August, according to acting deputy chief justice and commission chair Mbuyiseli Madlanga. The commission, established by President Cyril Ramaphosa, will look into allegations of criminality, political interference and corruption in the criminal justice system. Interim reports are expected after three and six months, with a final report later. Briefing the media on Monday, Madlanga confirmed they had scheduled a consultation with Mkhwanazi to get the process under way. 'We assure South Africans the work of the commission has commenced in earnest. Our first consultation with a witness is imminent. That consultation will help inform what further information the commission must follow up on,' he said. Concerns have been raised about the protection of witnesses who may come forward to testify. Madlanga said applications for evidence to be heard behind closed doors will not be easily granted, except for matters of state security or documents that should not be in the public domain. Witnesses will be protected. 'The commission will ensure protection of potential witnesses. All proceedings may be held in public or private as the chairperson deems necessary.'
