My problem with the Freedom Charter

Like Steven Friedman highlights correctly: “Political documents, like politicians, do not serve us best when they are worshiped rather than critically analyzed”. 

The question of whether the freedom charter should be viewed as a revolutionary document or a democratic manifest must stem from the clarity provided above. The freedom charter is not without contention if brought to close scrutiny of what it entails and how it is articulated. The charter was drafted in 1955 with the final drafting of the Freedom Charter being undertaken by a small committee, which remained anonymous.

The preamble of the charter commences with the important statement that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white…” Ten Sections follow, each headed by a specific demand:

1. The people shall govern
2. All national groups shall have equal rights
3. The people shall share in the country’s wealth
4. The land shall be shared among those who work it
5. All shall be equal before the law
6. All shall enjoy equal human rights
7. There shall be work and security
8. The doors of learning and culture shall be opened
9. There shall be houses, security and comfort
10. There shall be peace and friendship

The charter ends with the solemn pledge: “These freedoms we will fight for, side by side, throughout our lives, until we have won our liberty”. By accepting the opening statement (preamble) the Congress of the People (2 888 delegates) accepted the principle of multiracialism; this is despite the fact that, as McKinely highlights, the PAC and black consciousness thinkers, with an Africanist nationalism narrative, vehemently rejected this and is arguably why both the PAC and Black consciousness thinkers broke away from the ANC.

The view point is that such a statement advocates “that the robber and the robbed are equal owners of the loot”. The idea met with some opposition, with left-wing radicals of the ANC wishing for militant and the right-wings distrusting a multiracial campaign. Acceptance of the 3^rd and 4^th sections means that the congress accepted the principle of nationalization (this meant that the mines, banks and factories should be transferred to workers). Other demands were to some extent moderate and utopian in nature.

However the charter has no Marxist narrative (it speaks not of a class struggle), the reference to nationalization is placed in vague terms and indicates state capitalism. As such, the charter cannot be viewed as a blueprint envisaging the destruction of our present parliamentary system of government and its replacement by a peoples republic; in essence, the Charter cannot be viewed as a revolutionary document for its main purpose, as articulated by Jordan Ngubane, was “to condition the African people for the purpose of accepting communism via the back door”. A revolution is a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system; 60 years from its birth, the charter has failed to radically overhaul the system of oppression (namely the economic and political systems of the country) and serves more of a democratic manifest of false promises.

Though writers such as Nsibirwa may argue that the Freedom charter continues to inspire us when things go right but may also help to point us in the right direction when things go wrong, and in view of its adoption in part of the constitution of the republic of South Africa, the value and the Relevance of the Freedom Charter, taking into consideration the above mentioned, outside of the political climate of which it was established, has become a shadow of the past. Its definitive sections which brought hope for a revolution which never started has false hope for its implementation currently and in the future. It would take a revolution to draw us back to the ideals of the Freedom Charter; a revolution which our current political climate, both locally and internationally, provides little to no room for. For the main fact that the freedom charter is a point of reference and not a driving force arguably reiterates its notion of a democratic archive as opposed to a radical driving tool and is, today, detached from reality.

By Thabo Shingange