The Conditions for Freedom

The release of Nelson Mandela from prison after more than 27 years has unleashed a process that can ultimately only lead to majority rule in South Africa. There is freedom in the air! "The genie is already out of the bottle, and there is no way of putting it back," observed U.S. congressional delegate Walter Fauntroy (D-D.C.) on the eve of Mandela's release.

The release of Nelson Mandela is a historic moment that is likely to be celebrated for generations to come as the beginning of the end of white domination in South Africa. It is an event that nevertheless needs to be carefully assessed so that its full potential may be realized.

At the height of the U.S. civil rights campaign, Martin Luther King Jr. drew on the words of an American slave to place the struggle of black Americans in perspective. "We ain't what we ought to be, we ain't what we want to be, and we ain't what we are going to be," he said. "But thank God we ain't what we was!"

The struggle in South Africa has entered a qualitatively new phase. Theologian Karl Barth would suggest that South Africans are "living between the times." Political economist Antonio Gramsci once spoke of such crucial periods of history as those decisive moments within which "the old is dying and the new cannot [yet] be born."

The words of South Africa's Kairos Document are even more descriptive of the present situation than they were of the difficult days in 1985 when it was first published. It describes the kairos as "a dangerous time. " It recognizes that "if this opportunity is missed and allowed to pass by, the loss...will be immeasurable."

South Africa has entered such a phase of its history. It is probably closer to resolving its centuries-old conflict than ever before. But the end is not yet!

How South Africans respond to the present crisis will have far-reaching implications. These responses will not only influence the form that the inevitable political transition is likely to take, but also shape the character of the society to which it gives birth.

The responsibility of oppressed people and those who are concerned about the well-being of black South Africans is, in turn, frightening. Christians who have in recent years stood in solidarity with the oppressed in South Africa are among those who share this responsibility. What Christians do or fail to do at this time is important.

There is today an opportunity for a qualitatively new South Africa to emerge. There is a chance, too, that the political gains that have been made over the past years will be lost as the country is plunged into chaos by reactionary forces. And it would be most unlikely if some, through political and spiritual subterfuge, did not try to prevent real change from taking place—while cleverly claiming to promote political and economic reconstruction.

With each of these possibilities in mind, analysis must be clear, all political responses carefully weighed, and the options for genuine peace both facilitated and nurtured. In so doing, we need to locate the most recent developments in South Africa within the context of what has happened during the past few years.

STATE PRESIDENT F.W. DE KLERK has responded to the enduring crisis in South Africa with more creativity than any other leader in South African history. "Give him credit, man. Do give him credit. I do," said Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

De Klerk has acted boldly and deserves recognition. But he has also been thrust into the leadership of the white regime at a time when it is under more pressure than at any other time in history. Internal and international pressure has slowly but effectively taken its toll and is in the process of wearing down the accumulated recalcitrance of successive apartheid governments.

This pressure has taken many forms, including political isolation, sports and cultural isolation, academic boycotts, massive media exposure, and a variety of related activities. But three major ingredients within this larger package require comment—if only because these are among the issues that dominate the current debate about South Africa.

The first is the sustained effect of international sanctions (although not always imposed to maximum effect), which have brought the South African economy to a crisis point. Government officials, business people, and financiers today openly concede that without major political reforms, the South African economy is likely to remain locked in an ever-intensifying downsward spiral.

Second, the armed struggle by Umkhonto We Siswe, the military wing of the African National Congress (ANC), was never seen, even by its most zealous supporters, as capable of single-handedly defeating the might of the South African military machine. But it has, nevertheless, effectively struck at strategic, military, and on occasion, civilian targets, taking its toll on the morale (and economy) of the country and the resources of the police and military.

Third, there has been the stubborn, enduring, and escalating internal resistance of the masses—the most important and effective weapon against the Pretoria regime. It has incorporated people from every sphere of South African life. It has shut down industry, produced consumer boycotts, closed schools, disrupted transport, resulted in huge protest and resistance marches, stretched the police force to its limits, and thrust the country's black townships into a state of indefinite ungovernability.

Needless to say, these are pressures that the South African government would like to see come to an end as a result of the de Klerk concessions. And before long, demands to this effect are likely to be high on the agenda of any preliminary "talks about talks" between the different political players in South Africa.

But to expect anti-apartheid forces to call off economic sanctions is to ask that the most effective nonviolent form of pressure on white South Africa be suspended. To expect the ANC, in turn, to lay down arms without a commitment by the Pretoria regime to end its aggression against the opponents of apartheid is to ask more than any liberation army has ever been prepared to deliver.

Above all, even to think that internal resistance can be controlled prior to certain further unequivocal moves by de Klerk is to fail to understand the prevailing political climate in the country. It is unlikely that this resistance will completely end before a firm commitment on the part of whites to majority rule. Indeed, acts of civil disobedience are likely to intensify in the months ahead.

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT all the requirements conducive for negotiations, as spelled out in the Harare Declaration of the Organization of African Unity, have not been met by the de Klerk concessions. Even though there may well be some flexibility in the response of black leaders in this regard, certain obstacles constitute major barriers in the way of serious negotiations.

The state of emergency must be lifted. All political prisoners, not only those imprisoned "merely because they were members" of a formerly banned organization, need to be released from prison—the foot soldiers of the revolution must be released from prison in the same way as their military commanders and political leaders. Clarity must be reached on amnesty for all political exiles.

Perhaps most difficult is the need to repeal, or at the very least suspend, repressive legislation designed to circumscribe political activity (itself constituting what amounts to a permanent state of emergency). And the police, who still ruthlessly crush what are sometimes minor violations of these laws, need to be withdrawn from the townships. It is in relation to these factors that debate, conflict, civil disobedience, and further violence in South Africa are likely to continue in the immediate future.

De Klerk is not likely to meet all the demands made in relation to these issues, and he is probably not in a political position to do so. ANC leaders probably could not, even if they wanted to (and there is no indication that this is the case), convince some of the militant youth, trade unions, and others to support serious negotiations before these outstanding issues are addressed.

Prudent political response seems therefore to suggest that the kind of pressure that has forced the Pretoria regime to make the concessions that it has already made needs to be maintained in one form or another. Realism suggests that pressure may even need to be intensified. This, at least, seems to be the only reasonable response for oppressed people in South Africa, and those who support them, to make at this point in time.

"We have waited too long for our freedom," said Nelson Mandela in his first speech after his release from prison. "We can no longer wait. Now is the time to intensify the struggle on all fronts. To relax our efforts now would be a mistake which generations to come will not be able to forgive."

THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE church in the struggle for a new South Africa is well known. It has often been a passive observer, but some within the church have courageously shared in the struggle for a new South Africa.

This has notably been the case during the time that political organizations were banned and the leaders of the people detained, restricted, imprisoned, and driven into exile. Some church leaders were swept into national and international prominence as a result of their involvement, while the most perceptive among them repeatedly insisted that their leadership was that of "caretakers," awaiting the return of the true leaders of the people. That moment has now come.

Christians, like any other constituency in South Africa, have an important contribution to make to the creation of a new society. Their contribution, however, will need to be through participation in the democratic process alongside other groups and constituencies.

Sometimes Christians, and especially leaders within the Christian community, find this very difficult. Yet to discern the liberating event within the broader social and political context of oppression is the most basic lesson of the scriptures. It is a lesson that tells of God's gift to God's people that occurs in the midst of their history. If the church fails to respond to the opportunity for this freedom to reign in South Africa here and now, it is simply not the church.

Charles Villa-Vicencio was professor of religion and society at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. He was on sabbatical at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., when this article appeared.