From ISIZWE, Journal of the UDF. Volume 1 No 2. March 1986
The UDF achieved massive mobilisation all over South Africa in a short space of time. It confirmed the correctness of the broad strategy, that the struggle to end all forms of oppression and inequality is most effective and most speedily advanced by the broadest popular front. We call this a strategy of national democratic struggle.
This broad strategy is, however, sometimes labeled 'populist' by some people. We are told that our use of the term 'the people' in our slogans (Forward to People's Power! The People shall Govern!) proves that we are populist. These accusations are in fact false. Let us understand this issue more clearly.
Popular but not populist
First, it is important to understand how we use the term 'the people'.
We use this term to distinguish between the two major camps in society -the
enemy camp and the people's camp. The people's camp is made up of the overwhelming
majority of South Africans - the black working class, the rural masses, the
black petty bourgeoisie, and middle strata (clerks, teachers, nurses, intellectuals).
The people's camp also includes several thousand whites who stand shoulder to
shoulder in struggle with the majority.
The main common goal that unite the people's camp are
In this popular struggle, we identify the working class as the leading class. The capitalist system, benefiting from apartheid colonialism removed black workers from the countryside and left them with noting to lose -no land, no private wealth, no individual professional skills.
It has put the workers, millions strong, into the power-house of our country. It is there together, down the mines, on the large white farms, in the factories and in the big shops, that workers make most of the wealth of the country. And all the time, this great productive army, the working class is being exploited by the bosses,
You have only to list these things to see why we say that workers must play the leading role in the national democratic struggle. They are the key to victory for the whole people's camp. Everyday of their lives, workers learn the great lesson of democratic struggle - that as individuals they are weak, but collectively they are strong.
Populism hides differences
Populism is an ideology that fails to understand (it often deliberately hides) the class and other differences within the ranks of the people. In the people's camp in South Africa there are common unifying interests, for instance, the opposition to apartheid. But within this unity there are differences. A black shopkeeper may oppose apartheid mainly because of Group Areas and racist trading restrictions. A migrant worker may oppose apartheid because of pass laws and low wages. A black teacher may oppose it mainly because of bantu education. A white democrat may oppose apartheid for moral, ideological reasons.
These are just examples and things are not quite so simple in reality, of course. But these examples give us some idea of the need to understand the differences within the unity of the people's camp.
In fact, in order to develop this unity we must have a clear, scientific understanding of these differences. This is what we mean when we speak of the need to understand the differences in our unity in our differences. We must not expect to mobilize and organise all sectors of the people for exactly the same reasons. A black trader and a black worker may have different reasons for joining the same broad ranks of popular struggle.
This is the first major difference between our line and the line of populism. Populism speaks of the people as if the unity within the people's camp was based on completely the same interests.
Let us give an example. In South Africa, Africanist and Black Consciousness ideologists have often had strong populist tendencies. The claim that 'all Africans are socialists' or talk of a single 'African personality' or 'black soul', are all varieties of populism.
These examples of populism all show an unscientific grasp of reality. While they correctly understand the need for a maximum unity in the people's camp, they have a vague understanding of the basis of that unity.
Progressive and reactionary populism
Despite its populist weaknesses, it is important to note that an ideology like black consciousness (BC) played a broadly progressive role in South Africa. In particular in the 1970s, BC played a big role in mobilizing tens of thousands of our youths. The majority of these youths have since gone beyond the limitations of black consciousness.
But not all populism is broadly progressive. The case of Afrikaner Nationalism can be mentioned. This ideology also has a strong populist character. It speaks of a single 'people' (die volk), with its own 'special soul' and historical calling ('roeping'). In speaking of the volk, Afrikaner Nationalism hides the class differences between Afrikaans bosses, the petty bourgeoisie and workers. This brand of populism tends to be based on a very reactionary, racist idea of the superiority of the volk.
The fact that populism can be broadly progressive, or extremely reactionary is important to remember. Not all forms of populism must be handled in the same way. In its most reactionary forms, populism is an enemy ideology, and it must be treated as such. But those who hold a more progressive brand of populism must be educated and developed. Elements of their outlook can be built upon, and their understanding and practice can be made more scientific.
Understanding workers' interests
Populism speaks about the people's camp as if there were no differences within it. But in practice it often advances the interests of one group or class within that camp. It pushes these particular interests as if they were equally everyone's interests.
Let us take the example of black consciousness in the 1970s. Using populism, BC ideologists spoke of a single 'Black Soul'. But in fact they concerned themselves mainly with issues of central concern to 'black soul', blinded them to differences within the camp of the oppressed. In this way they often failed to address the issues of major concern to black workers, or to the rural masses. When such issues like passes or low wages were raised, they were not given enough importance.
Populism downplays organisation
We have said that populism, even progressive populism, has an unscientific understanding of the unity of the people's camp. It tends to base this unity on 'consciousness' or on 'feelings'. For this reason populism often relies on charismatic leaders - that is people who can sway the masses with fine speeches, but with very little content. Such 'leaders' often speak without organizational mandate. For them the possession of a black skin, for instance, or some 'special insight' into the 'black soul' is sufficient as a mandate.
While we must not forget the crucial importance of mobilizing, and of strong fighting talk, the need for organization and democratic participation must also not be omitted. If we are blind to the objective differences within the people's camp, the task of solid organization is impossible. Without a clear understanding of these differences we will not be able to organize the different classes and sectors into a united fighting force. We will also not be able to understand what is of major importance, and what is of secondary importance. Not all groups within the people's camp have the same potential.
Conclusion We have seen that to talk about 'the people' does not mean that one is populist. We are absolutely correct in our broad national democratic movement, to struggle for people's power, and to demand that the people shall govern.
But for this strategy to work we have to ensure that we do not ignore the objective differences within the unity of the broad people's camp. We must avoid both the dangers of ultra-leftism and of populism. Ultra-leftism speaks only of the working class and neglects the task of uniting the broadest popular unity in the national democratic struggle. Populism tends to neglect the crucial leading role of the working class within that popular unity.
[Contents]