THE CLEANSING THAT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE

The ANC’s cleansing ceremony at the Solomon Mahlangu Square in Mamelodi, supported by the Mahlangu family, raises fundamental questions about the liberation struggle legacy ownership. The gallantry and moral high ground that continues to characterise the South African liberation struggle has arguably made its legacy the most sought-after political asset of our time. Towering this legacy, like any historical narrative, is the contribution of individuals at historical points. The national discourse that emerged after the ANC closed its 2009 national election campaign with a Nelson Mandela-attended siyanqoba rally sent a signal that struggles heroes are gradually becoming heroes of the whole nation.

As a person born in Mamelodi, I grew up knowing Solomon Mahlangu as an equivalent of the many national liberation heroes decorating national monuments around the globe. I wish that one day, he would be inscribed in the annals of South African History in the same way we see General Louis Botha at the Union Buildings. I have learnt to accept General Botha’s statue as a symbol of the Afrikaner triumph against British imperialism and colonisation and, therefore, deserving of my support for his continued display at the seat of government buildings. My weekly visits to my hometown for both worship and pilgrimage find their completeness as I pass the Solomon Mahlangu Square, for it stands as a symbol of how Apartheid could not suppress the human spirit’s yearning forfreedom.

The statue of Solomon Mahlangu stands, therefore, instead, at least in my mind, for all other statues of South African heroes who not only repudiated colonialism and imperialism but also repudiated Apartheid. These monuments remain in the minds of South Africans as reminders of how humanity can be at conflict with itself purely based on preserving some form of superiority complex over other beings. First it was British Imperialism that saw every South African as a subject of the Queen, and then came Apartheid colonialism that wanted to entrench ‘amabhunu’ (white) supremacy. The above states of affairs yielded for this country guerrilla warfare groomed generals and martyrs that are today the subject of analysis in the study of South African heroism.

The passion for freedom that Mahlangu displayed when he told his mother to tell his people, and he meant South Africans, that he loves them. They must continue the struggle, and that his blood will nourish the tree that will bear the fruits of freedom has earned him a space in the heart of all freedom-loving South Africans. As a symbol of youth resolve against any form of injustice, the Solomon Mahlangu name has now become a footnote in many a discourse about youth sacrifice because he was hanged for his commitment to the ideal of his people, enjoying the fruits of the freedom nourished by his blood.

The freedom that Mahlangu’s blood nourished came through a negotiated settlement. The current South African Constitution codifies the settlement into law, thus making its interpretation a subject of legal interpretation. The constitution equalises all South Africans before the law, thus legitimising their claim to citizen's claims and rights. In this context, these claims include the entire originative historical background of the country; in short, all of South Africa’s history and legacies belong to its citizens, regardless of what role they played in it. As much as Nelson Mandela, Solomon Mahlangu and Stanza Bopape are my heroes, so are General Smuts, Anton Rupert, Pik Botha and FW de Klerk.
I thus have as much a right and claim to the Voortrekker Monument as I have to the Freedom Park. The outstanding renaming of street names and towns in South Africa will only complete a process by which I and many other South Africans will say all these monuments reflect us. Our inability to celebrate all heroes of the struggle and the national holidays that constitute the memory of our past remains the most visible indicator of the history-defined divide characterising the South African nation, if any. In the embrace of these heroes and those reaching out to historically out-of-reach heroes, our national holidays and Freedom Day celebrations mean something to all of us.

The history of societies is incomplete if it does not create an embrace of past heroes by all that profess to be part of that nation. The significance of Mahlangu to the required national psyche for nation-building has become one of the few narratives South Africa should pride itself on. With his ‘dhubulu ibhunu’ zeal, Mahlangu became a monument of bravery at critically defining moments of the liberation struggle narrative. The ANC and the Solomon Mahlangu Foundation have successfully positioned Mahlangu as the most significant symbol of selflessness by a South African youth. This selflessness has become a national asset built and curated by the national revenue fund.

The claim, therefore, of Solomon Mahlangu, the Kliptown Grounds and lately the Freedom Charter by Helen Zille’s DA is one of the surest signs that social cohesion is foregrounded, albeit with vote-farming intentions. The irreversibility of the DA’s Freedom Day celebrations at the square and paying respects to the Freedom Park shrines can not be dismissed by ‘vote farming’ gimmicks that reduce the national hero status of Kalushi. The DA has, legitimately or otherwise, positioned itself as a party committed to wrestling the strategic initiative of building a South African nation from the ANC. Although within the race liability that the DA still carries, the ethnically soft appeal of its leader is a growing asset.

The cleansing ceremony attended by senior leaders of the ANC in the province and government will receive an unfriendly judgement by history; it was incorrect and represented the highest form of political opportunism at the altar of our fragile nation-building priorities. The questions that need to be asked are to what extent are the people who cleansed the Mahlangu statue ready to bequeath the struggle history to South Africa, thus releasing energies towards the substantive issues of party politicking. Pretoria, as the Capital City and Mamelodi, its former anchor township, has a geopolitical responsibility to lead South Africa on the nation-building assignment. The celebration of South Africans should be best experienced in Tshwane as a concentrate of what South Africa should be.

Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the ANC, particularly in Mamelodi, to create a nation-building theme in the Solomon Mahlangu narrative, with Mama Mahlangu being its champion. The hurt of losing a loved one is indeed difficult to forget, but the ability to diffuse such into new focus is the greatest sign of forgiveness. Mama Mahlangu’s house is now a national monument because of her now ‘nationalised’ son. In agreeing to move out of their house to give the nation a glimpse of who their Solly was, the Mahlangus were also handing over their son to a South Africa that belongs to all who live in it. Tourists, some of whom are DA members, may want an assurance that visiting the Solomon Mahlangu home will not attract a publicised cleansing ceremony because they were there.
Whist Solomon Mahlangu is a visible monument of the ANC that could be easily cleansed once ‘erstwhile enemies’ have visited, the question is how many the same people visit other non-visible monuments of the ANC and cannot be cleansed. Is it not time that we dialogue about what memories of the future we have as a society? The rush to remove the effigy of HF Verwoerd by the DA in Midvaal indicates yet another episode of the Mamelodi cleansing. The renaming of Leningrad to St Pietersburg should provide valuable lessons on how future generations can celebrate what would otherwise have been regarded as an enemy by a ‘victory’ drunk generation.

The call by the ANC to have national holidays celebrated by all South Africans has been dealt a serious blow by the cleansing ceremony. How do the leaders who attended the ceremony expect DA members to attend the June 16 Youth Day celebrations if they know their seats will be ‘politically handy andied’? Given that the elections are now gone, the ANC needs a dialogue with itself on how it handles the centrality of its legacy in being South African. The political history of South Africa and national heroism will, for a long time, be footnoted by the ANC and its immediate past enemy, the national party, which in some instances seems to have been a proxy to ‘white domination’.

The debates about national monuments should not be plastered. Humans identify with what is first familiar before migrating to new territories. The growing support for ‘pigeonholed’ white privilege in the Western Cape by South Africa’s establishment media should be seen as a manifestation of how humans can easily embrace familiarity at all costs. The ‘white doll’ mentality that seems to be doing wonders for Madam Zille should not be discounted as a factor in her growing influence amongst black middle-class women. The rejectionist attitude that was displayed at the cleansing ceremony can only entrench the Madam’s new claims to the non-racial flag when Western Cape racism greets you as you fly in. What needs to be cleansed is the ANC’s preoccupation with owning its past to release its pre-1994 non-racialist zeal, which, by the way, groomed Madam Zille when she was part of the Black Sash.