Reflecting on 70 years of the Freedom Charter: a journey towards equality
Image: Cara Viereckl/African News Agency(ANA)
SEVENTY years ago, on June 26, 1955, the Freedom Charter was adopted at the Congress of the People in Kliptown. It followed Professor ZK Matthews' suggestion in 1953 to hold a "national convention" to formulate "a Freedom Charter for the democratic South Africa of the future". While not produced by the ANC, it was closely associated with the ANC.
People from different walks of life were asked what kind of South Africa they wished to live in, as an alternative to the horrors of apartheid. Their responses were stitched together to create the Freedom Charter.
After 1960, with the banning of the African National Congress (ANC) and other political movements and the suppression of protest, the Freedom Charter went out of view. It reappeared when resistance to apartheid began to grow again.
In 1980, the Sunday Post published the Freedom Charter and an article on its history. The 1981 Anti-Republic Day movement that protested the racist white republic promoted the Freedom Charter as the basis for a democratic people's republic.
The preamble of the Freedom Charter written on the holding cell that the Rivonia Trialists were kept at the Palace of Justice.
Image: Masi Losi/African News Agency (ANA)
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad Loading
On its 30th anniversary in 1985, it was widely promoted. Many anti-apartheid organisations adopted the Freedom Charter as their manifesto.
The Freedom Charter responded to white minority rule, segregation, and the white monopoly of the land, mines and economy, of professional and well-paying jobs and of educational opportunities.
It stated that South Africa belonged "to all who live in it, black and white", based "on the will of all the people". It declared that "the people shall govern", that "all national groups shall have equal rights" and all were to "enjoy equal human rights" and "be equal before the law".
It called for everyone to "share in the country's wealth", for "the land (to) be shared among those who work it" and for all to have "work and security" and be treated equitably. There was a pledge to ensure "houses, security and comfort" and provide food security and health care.
Recognising the importance of education and knowledge, there was a commitment to open "the doors of learning and of culture", ensure "free, compulsory, universal and equal" education for all and sport and recreation opportunities for everyone.
Instead of apartheid's militarism, hostility to neighbouring countries and pariah status, the Freedom Charter sought "peace and friendship", "self-determination for all" and peaceful relations with other countries.
Seventy years after the Freedom Charter was born and 30 years into democracy, South Africa is a very different and better society, especially for black and women South Africans.
Unfortunately, despite strong support and the opportunity to fundamentally remake our country and achieve the Freedom Charter's goals, the ANC squandered the opportunity.
Rather than the people governing, popular participation and a grassroots democracy, we have rule by elites focused on their interests and aloof from the people.
ANC policies have done little to eliminate inequality and poverty, redistribute land, create decent jobs and ensure effective social services. We are a long way from everyone sharing in South Africa's wealth, the land being shared equitably and 'work and security' for all.
Our "wealthiest 10% owns 85% of all household wealth"; the "wealthiest 0.1% own 25% of it". The "wealthiest 3 500 people own more than the most impoverished 32 million. Nowhere else do so few own so much. And there are few other places where that privilege is protected so fiercely to the detriment of the impoverished".
Despite considerable investment in education, the children of the impoverished largely end up in the same position as their parents. There are probably less opportunities in black communities and for black youth to play sport today than under the non-racial sports movement of the 1980s.
Chauvinists use identity politics to define who is a South African, African, and black in ever more narrow terms. By freezing identities along racial lines, they compromise building a non-racial society in which "race" eventually does not matter.
In the international arena, South Africa has won admiration for its stand on the Israeli genocide in Palestine. But commitment to self-determination for all and "peace and friendship" has been inconsistent. We allow coal exports to Israel and are muted on some issues because of material interests.
The Freedom Charter is a radical national-democratic manifesto. Neither a liberal reformist nor a socialist programme, it was a positive response to racial and national oppression. Its goal was a non-racial democracy and a unitary national democratic state.
For some, the Freedom Charter represents their goals in full. If there has been some progress towards achieving those goal, there is some way to go to achieve what the ANC calls the "national democratic revolution".
For others, the Freedom Charter represents their minimum goals. They seek to extend and deepen those goals to build a socialist South Africa that ends the rule by the wealthy and ensures greater equality.
Manifestos are important but guarantee nothing. It is struggles waged by mass organisations, the conditions under which they occur, the nature of leadership, and whether there is working class leadership that determines the outcomes of freedom struggles.
South Africa in 2025 is a shamefully unequal, unjust and unstable society. The impoverished grind out an existence, while the rich and middle classes flaunt their wealth and fortify themselves behind electric-fences and ubiquitous security companies.
It cries out for a social movement with an ethical and capable leadership that is committed to sustainable economic development, eliminating inequality and impoverishment, ensuring fair and just treatment for all and promoting greater participation and democracy.
Professor Saleem Badat
Image: Supplied
Saleem Badat is Research Professor in the Department of History at the University of Free State and the former vice-chancellor of the university currently called Rhodes.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
THE POST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
an hour ago
- TimesLIVE
'He still has not come here': Mpofu says Ramaphosa still owes Marikana families an apology
Workers and Socialist Party (WASP) and Socialist Youth Movement (SYM) are demanding justice for the Marikana massacre victims and want the alleged killers prosecuted, including President Cyril Ramaphosa and police commanders. Saturday marked the 13th anniversary of the massacre when 34 mineworkers were killed by police during a strike at Lonmin Mine in Marikana in North West. Mineworkers had downed tools and participated in unprotected wage strikes. A total of 44 people lost their lives during the strike. Police allegedly shot 34 on August 16 2012. WASP and SYM believe the massacre was not a police operation that went wrong, claiming it was a deliberate act of violence to protect the profits of Lonmin (now Sibanye-Stillwater) and the capitalist mining industry. 'In its execution, it was premeditated. The ANC government, under Jacob Zuma, deployed police to crush worker resistance, proving once and for all that the ANC is no longer a movement for liberation but a bloody instrument of mining monopoly capital,' said WASP national executive committee member Mametlwe Sebei. Sebie said WASP and SYM were demanding the nationalisation of the mines under workers' control and a living wage for all workers — a R15,000 minimum wage now and a universal basic income grant of R1,500. He said Cosatu should break away from the ANC, as should all trade unions aligned with other capitalist parties, to unite into a united working class front, and a mass workers' party to fight for socialism. 'Even today, no-one has been held accountable. Cyril Ramaphosa, then a Lonmin director who called for 'concomitant action' against the strikers, is now president — showing the ANC's true allegiance. The Farlam commission was a whitewash and the police and politicians who ordered the killings remain free,' Seabi said.
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
Striking a Balance Between Upholding Human Rights and the Rule of Law
Residents of Atteridgeville, grouped under Concern Tshwane Residents, protesting outside Kalafong Provincial Tertiary Hospital, calling for undocumented foreigners to be barred from receiving healthcare services due to the alleged strain on public resources. Image: Independent Media Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu The issue of undocumented migrants in South Africa has caused a stir across various sectors. While some call for their immediate deportation because they deplete the country's resources at the expense of the nationals, others – including some NGOs – plead on their behalf. They even invoke certain clauses of the Freedom Charter and sections of the country's constitution to strengthen their argument on why these undocumented migrants should be allowed to stay in this country. The main question that begs for attention is: where does one draw the line between addressing the challenge of undocumented migrants and upholding human rights? Another question becomes: should the rights of these undocumented migrants supersede those of South African citizens? These are very critical questions. To answer them properly, one must cogently interpret both the Freedom Charter and the Constitution. Clause five of the Freedom Charter states that 'all shall be equal before the law.' Clause 6 states that 'all shall enjoy equal human rights.' The reality is that when the Freedom Charter was adopted in Kliptown, Soweto, on June 26, 1955, it did not envision a South Africa that people from outside the country would populate. In that sense, the 'all' in both clauses did not refer to foreign nationals. Therefore, if these undocumented migrants were to be allowed to live in South Africa, it would be for other reasons, not because of the Freedom Charter. Some cite different sections of the Constitution to make a case for these undocumented migrants, especially Chapter 2 on the Bill of Rights. Sec 25 states that 'everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.' Section 27 states that everyone has the right to basic education. While these sections are relevant to the debate, it is Section 27 that has triggered a serious debate. Sub-section 1(a) states that 'everyone has the right to have access to health care services, including reproductive healthcare.' Some South Africans complain that they are unable to access health care services because they compete with undocumented migrants. It was for this reason that members of Operation Dudula were arrested for checking patients' identity documents to ascertain if they were South Africans. Others criticise these undocumented migrants for taking their jobs. Whether this is true or not varies from one case to another. This debate leads us to a broader discussion that we must focus on. In this regard, there are five questions to ruminate about. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Firstly, what role has our government played in creating this situation? For example, had they protected the country's borders like other countries do, would this problem have arisen? Secondly, to what extent are the home governments of these undocumented migrants to blame for many of the challenges South Africa is wrestling with? In other words, had these governments ensured political and economic stability in their countries, would these undocumented migrants have come to South Africa? Thirdly, what role do NGOs play in sustaining this challenge? Do they assist the government on how to address the challenge, or do they use the desperation of these undocumented migrants to make themselves relevant and score cheap points? Fourthly, how does the international community contribute to the sustenance of this challenge about undocumented migrants? Do they share their experiences with the South African government, or do they use these migrants for political expediency? Fifthly, what is the way out of this dilemma? In other words, should South Africa simply learn to live with this challenge, or should a solution be found? If the latter is the case, how should the process unfold, and who should be the role-players? On the first question, our government is to blame for the current situation. The country's borders are porous. Corruption has become 'normal'. Some argue that they were in exile in the countries where the undocumented migrants come from. While this statement is factually correct, it is analytically flawed. They lived in camps, were known to the authorities, respected the laws of those countries, and many of them did not compete for jobs with the citizens of their host countries. On the second question, the home governments of these undocumented migrants are to blame. They created economic and political conditions not conducive to their citizens. As such, some had to find their way out to look for greener pastures in South Africa. Regarding the third question, NGOs are not a homogeneous group. Some are doing a good job in filling the gaps where the government has failed. Others advance the interests of foreign governments that want to see South Africa fail. They do so under the guise of helping the needy. They take the side of undocumented migrants to paint the country in a bad light. The fourth question is related to the third one. Some foreign governments are vocal whenever South Africa acts against undocumented migrants. Ironically, they are very tough in their own countries. In that sense, the fate of these undocumented migrants is used to tarnish South Africa's global image while scoring cheap political points. The fifth question is the most important. The South African government should demonstrate leadership. This includes teaching South Africans the correct interpretation of the Freedom Charter and the Constitution. Where the constitution has loopholes, these should be filled through constitutional amendments.
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
Parliament names MPs to serve on Ad Hoc Committee to probe Mkhwanazi allegations
Mayibongwe Maqhina | Published 2 weeks ago Parliament has named the MPs that will serve on the Ad Hoc Committee tasked with investigating the serious allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner, Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. This comes almost a week after the National Assembly unanimously resolved to establish the committee after adopting the report from the portfolio committees on Police and Justice and Constitutional Development, which made the recommendation. The committee will be constituted by 11 members, with four members from the ANC, two each from the DA and the MK Party, one member from the EFF, and two representatives to be recommended by other parties. Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said on Thursday that parties have nominated MPs who will serve on the committee. The ANC has nominated its chief whip, Mdumiseni Ntuli, Khusela Sangoni-Diko, Soviet Lekganyane, Xola Nqola, as full members, with Thoko Khanyile as an alternate member. The DA has fielded Ian Cameron and Glynnis Breytenbach as full members, while Diane Kohler Barnard and Lisa Schickerling are alternate members. The MK Party is represented by Sibonelo Nomvalo and David Skosana, with Vusi Shongwe as an alternate member. EFF leader Julius Malema will represent the EFF, and Leigh-Ann Mathys is an alternate member. The small parties are represented by IFP's Albert Mncwango and Patriotic Alliance MP Ashley Sauls. Freedom Front Plus MP Wouter Wessels and ActionSA's Dereleen James are alternate members for the small parties. The committee has until October 31 to report to the National Assembly. The committee's terms of reference include the alleged unlawful decision by Police Minister Senzo Mchunu to disband the Political Killings Task Team. It will also examine the alleged unlawful removal of 121 case dockets from the Political Killings Task Team on the direction of Deputy National Commissioner Shadrack Sibiya and the alleged moratorium by Mchunu on filling vacancies within the SAPS Crime Intelligence Unit. The committee will also scrutinise the nature and the implications of the relationship between SAPS senior leadership and certain members of the public. It will also probe whether the awarding of the R360 million contract to Vusumuzi Matlala's company for the provision of healthcare services to SAPS was irregular. The alleged interference by the Investigative Directorate Against Corruption in police matters, including judicial issues, will form part of its focus, as well as consider the need for legislative policy and institutional reform to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system. [email protected]
