Theme 4 – The Freedom Charter and Ideology:
Evaluate the different interpretations of the Freedom Charter’s meaning. How did different ideological viewpoints (Marxist, Liberal, etc.) influence the document’s development and eventual supporters.
Marxists
Liberal
African/Tribal Nationalist
Mandela's interpretation of the charter
click to edit
click to edit
click to edit
The Marxists were weary of the "Christian approach," and the "struggle in class terms." However, that did not outweigh the demand for the creation of a freedom charter.
In 1956, as part of an important article for Liberation, Mandela and the editors tried to dispell the notion that the Charter was “the embryo of a socialist state” (95).
Communisim
South African liberals and many Western sympathisers would depict the freedom Charter as a typical communist ploy aimed at discreetly achieving influence through a popular front with carefully organised demonstrations, using ANC leaders as gullible figureheads to promote their propaganda. But that view was distorted by the magnifying glasses of the Cold War.
However, he also claimed that an end to segregation would allow all peoples to engage in private enterprise, harrowing an age where free markets would “flourish as never before” (95). These words, which Mandela defended his whole life, show that his was not exclusively a communist lens of the Charter.
He was mostly in line with a Marxist reading. For instace, his claim that “financial and gold-mining monopolies [...] have for centuries plundered the country and condemned its people to servitude” (95) has a very obviously Trotskyist ring to it.
click to edit
The originator of the Freedom Charter was neither a communist nor a militant, but the conservative elder statesman of the ANC, Z. K. Matthews, Mandela's mentor at Fort Hare.
click to edit
The style of the document itself stems from a Liberal tradition; it is very similar to the proclamation of rights of the French and American revolution, as well as the United Nations declaration of human rights [92]. A large reason for this similarity was that, rather than outline policy, it exclaimed principles “like a political psalm” (92). The opening is also very reminscent of these documents, and has a very Liberal and democratic focus, rather than a Marxist one: “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and [...] no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of the people” (92).
But the eventual Freedom Charter was very far from being a communist manifesto. Long after, Mandela remained convinced that "it was a document born of the people." It was not something that was imposed from the top. And that is why it is still relevant even today. He was impressed by "how far ahead of the politicians the masses were, in several respects." The people realised that political power was essential, but also that it would be meaningless without economic power. He was struck too by their lack of extreme nationalism, and their acceptance of the principle that South Africa belonged to all its people. In other words people started to become more open to the freedom charter and less judgmental of it.
"The mineral wealth beneath the soil, the banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole." This "promise " indicated that it was largely a Marxist document on the surface however, it turned out to align well with the interests of the ANC.
click to edit
click to edit
The first draft of the Freedom Charter was created by the communist architect Rusty Bernstein, who rather casually added a rhetorical beginning and ending-which he later thought overblown.
The Liberal party was not involved in the creation of the Charter. In fact, they withdrew at the last moment, chiefly for fear that they were being lured into an alliance controlled by Communists [90]. It is, however, important to note that many of their members would come to regret their refusal.
It was frequently condemned as a Marxist document, with its bold promise: "The mineral wealth beneath the soil, the banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole." But in fact it was carefully designed to be all things to all men
The Africanists complained that the conference had been packed by the Charterists, and attacked the idea that the land belonged to everyone, implicit in the phrase "South Africa belongs to all who live in it," which suggested public ownership.
The Africanists complained that the conference had been packed by the Charterists, and attacked the idea that the land belonged to everyone, implicit in the phrase "South Africa belongs to all who live in it," which suggested public ownership. This sounded very communist to some and was a point of attack.
click to edit
click to edit
The nationalists, who by this time called themselves “Africanists,” were very opposed to cooperation with other races. Peter Mda, Mandela's former mentor, claimed: “No white Man has ever impressed us” (94). This certainly put them at odds with the very concept of the freedom Charter, which was remarkable antiracial rather than pro-Black, especially at a time where the government was affirming its white supremacy more than ever.
Mandela assured him that the ANC was not communist, though the government was driving it in that direction: "There was little time left for there to be a possibility of real co-operation between black and white." The ANC invited another newly formed white organisation as well as the Congress of Democrats to cosponsor the Congress of the People.