Yonela Mlambo
The reflection on the life of KwaPhindangene Prince and Buthelezi clan chief Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi’s “legacy” reminded me of the assertions by Mabogo Percy More that what constitutes a hero is subjective.
A hero to one person might not be a hero to the next. Accordingly, politicians made adulations, making their own way to KwaPhindangene, praising Buthelezi as a hero and statesman.
Politics aside, Buthelezi was and shall never be a hero. He was a divisive and deceitful propagandist of note and a self-centred politician willing to sacrifice his own people for self-glory.
Buthelezi’s rise to power was built on slaying his own people; therefore, nothing about his life resembles or reflects that of a statesman.
For instance, after his suspension from Fort Hare University for participating in protests, he went back to KwaZulu and promised the government of the day to be loyal to it; thus, in 1953, he was awarded the chieftaincy of the Buthelezi clan.
Buthelezi managed to pose as the defender of the Zulu crown; however, he became a defender of the Zulu crown when it was beneficial to him.
For instance, the apartheid government’s intentions through the 1970 Territorial Act were to declare the then-so-called KwaZulu State an independent State, with the king being the head of the State and of the government. Buthelezi, invoking pseudo-nationalism and patriotism, vehemently rejected the plans of the apartheid regime and publicly criticised them.
His rejection of the declaration of independence of the then-so-called KwaZulu State caused conflict with him and the Zulu royal house.
To further cement his pseudo-patriotism, Buthelezi went further to publicly criticise Chief Matanzima for accepting Transkei independence, and reminded him of the 1973 Mtata meeting, decrying Chief Matanzima reneging on his commitments made in that meeting.
He further criticised the ANC for taking up arms against apartheid, yet on the margins was claiming he was furthering the Struggle and had the blessing of the ANC leader to establish Inkatha and participate in the Bantustan. He nevertheless participated in Bantustan governance to further his interests. When it became clear his participation in Bantustans was a collaboration with the apartheid regime, and that it contradicted the claims he was making to have ANC blessings to participate in a Bantustan and form Inkatha, he made new claims.
He argued he was a hereditary “traditional” leader. His claims that he was a hereditary leader who led its own “tribe” prior to the formalisation of apartheid signifies a justification for his participation in and embrace of the apartheid regime – ie that the apartheid regime was nothing new to him.
It is important to mention that even the IFP was not established by Buthelezi. He doesn’t have a history of establishing anything; however, he was good at appropriating and branding everything of value to be his and shadowing himself in the legacy of others. Without digressing, Buthelezi essentialised that he was born of Princess Magogo, and therefore entitled to be referred to as Prince, and took the Inkatha kaZulu cultural organisation established by King Solomon and re-branded it the Inkatha Freedom Party on July 14, 1990, at uLundi.
The IFP, and to a greater extent, the late King Zwelithini, became a potent weapon to Buthelezi. He used the IFP to cause division and terrorise black people who dared to differ with him and as an institution to unleash patronage and garner support. For example, to be a member of the then-so-called KwaZulu Assembly, one had to be a member of the IFP. The IFP preached Zulu ethnonationalism and the independence of the then-so-called KwaZulu State.
Don’t forget that it was the very same Buthelezi, in the 1970s, who rejected the independence of the so-called KwaZulu State. When he was calling for the independence of KwaZulu or the “secession” of KwaZulu, he was not informed by Zulu patriotism.
It was nevertheless a call for him to continue to remain in power and rule the then-so-called KwaZulu State and ignorant Zulus; thus, he revived federalism and multinational state of South Africa talk during the democratic negotiations and went further to work with renowned white supremacists from Italy to draft a federal “constitution”.
Buthelezi was obsessed with power and wanted to remain in power for as long as he lived. He “resigned” as the IFP president but came up with a dubious political term, President Emeritus of the IFP, and was subtle to establish his fiefdom and imaginary State, thus retaining the insignificant and irrelevant office of the prime minister of the Zulu nation in a democratic unitary and parliamentary state.
Buthelezi managed to nudge the late King Zwelithini, through the KwaZulu Legislator, to kowtow to him and the IFP; thus, he would boldly make “ethnic”, decisive public statements, calling all the Zulus to support the IFP. He prioritised being a Zulu over being an African or South African.
Accordingly, Buthelezi manipulated the hostel dwellers to garner the support of ignorant Zulus.
For instance, to curb violence in the hostels, the then-government banned carrying traditional weapons.
He claimed this was a direct attack on the Zulus. However, Buthelezi was wedging divisions and frustrating democratic negotiations.
KZN townships, such as uMlazi and KwaMashu, bore the brunt of his senseless and irrational ethno-nationalism, as did rural areas such as Ixopo, KwaDlangezwa, and surrounding areas. Typical of ethno-nationalists, Buthelezi unleashed unrelated attacks on these Zulus, who vehemently rejected the Zulu ethno-nationalism he was preaching, claiming they were influenced by the Xhosas.
The legacy of Buthelezi can be briefly described as a legacy of apartheid collaborators who, in post-apartheid were at pains to sanitise it, repackage it, and rewrote history, portraying himself as a patriotic South African and a self-portrayed victim; thus, he constantly called for IFP and ANC reconciliation. A rational person must ask themselves: What is it that IFP and ANC need to reconcile on if the IFP, as Buthelezi claims, had ANC blessing to operate in the then KwaZulu state?
The Ingonyama Trust preserved crumbs of land gifted to the Zulus by the colonial government after they were defeated in the colonial conquest.
In the 1970s, when it was convenient for him, he demanded that the apartheid government allocate more land for the Zulus beyond the 1913 Land Act and the Native Trust and Land Act quotas.
IFP and ANC reconciliation should be avoided in all possible ways, because the IFP failed to be a political party. It is a Zulu ethno-nationalist organisation.
Therefore, having the IFP reconcile with the ANC would pose a deadly threat to the ANC and would mean the triumph of Zulu ethno-nationalism.
The ANC national leadership must reject IFP’s attempts to reconcile until it cleanses itself of Zulu ethno-nationalism and becomes a political party: a pan-Africanist political party.
Mlambo is a freelance socio-political commentator
Cape Times