Journal of Asian and African Studies http://jas.sagepub.com/ Understanding Marikana Through The Mpondo Revolts Sarah Bruchhausen Journal of Asian and African Studies published online 13 May 2014 DOI: 10.1177/0021909614531892 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jas.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/12/0021909614531892 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Journal of Asian and African Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jas.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jas.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/12/0021909614531892.refs.html >> OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 13, 2014 What is This? DDoowwnnllooaaddeedd ffrroomm jjaass..ssaaggeeppuubb..ccoomm aatt RRhhooddeess UUnniivveerrssiittyy LLiibbrraarryy oonn JJuunnee 1111,, 22001144 531892 research-article2014 JAS0010.1177/0021909614531892Journal of Asian and African StudiesBruchhausen J A A S Article Journal of Asian and African Studies Understanding Marikana Through 1 –15 © The Author(s) 2014 The Mpondo Revolts Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0021909614531892 jas.sagepub.com Sarah Bruchhausen Department of History and Unit for the Humanities, Rhodes University, South Africa Abstract The purpose of this article is to demonstrate some of the ways in which rural histories can enhance our understanding of both rural and urban resistance, both past and present, in contemporary South Africa. In order to do so, it explores two books in conversation with each other, Thembela Kepe and Lungisile Ntsebeza’s edited volume Rural Resistance in South Africa: The Mpondo Revolts after Fifty Years as well as Peter Alexander, Thapelo Lekgowa, Botsang Mmope, Luke Sinwell and Bongani Xezwi’s Marikana: A View from the Mountain and a Case to Answer. These two books provide a useful platform from which to engage in a re-examination of rurally based protest and repression in order to locate some of the suggestive links, particularly in regard to the transmission of repertoires of struggle, between the Marikana strike and the Mpondo revolts, as well as the on-going struggles of the organised poor in some of South Africa’s urban centres. Keywords History, marginalisation, Marikana, Mpondo Revolts, rural resistance The Mpondo revolts in the late 1950s and early 1960s have been widely recognised as the foremost example of rural resistance during the apartheid period in South African history (Kepe and Ntsebeza, 2012: 1). The Ngquza Hill massacre of 6 June 1960 took place at the height of the revolts, during which thousands of people attending a scheduled meeting were gunned down by apartheid security forces, killing at least eleven people and injuring dozens more.1 In the aftermath of the massacre, thirty people were taken to Pretoria and hanged. Although focused on Bantu Authorities and Betterment Planning, the Mpondo revolts were part of a broader wave of major protests by the marginalised against an autocratic and repressive apartheid regime, including the urban-based marches of Langa and Sharpeville in March 1960. Just like at Ngquza Hill, protestors at Langa and Sharpeville were massacred or arrested by the state. However, unlike Langa and Sharpeville, the history of the Mpondo revolts has largely been neglected and excluded from the dominant nationalist narrative of ‘the Struggle’ in South African history. As a result, there are very few South African scholars attempting to draw insights from, or comparisons with, the Mpondo Corresponding author: Sarah Bruchhausen, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa. Email: [email protected] Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Rhodes University Library on June 11, 2014 2 Journal of Asian and African Studies revolts and other rural histories of resistance. This can clearly be seen in the literature on South Africa’s most recent, and first post-apartheid, massacre at Marikana on 16 August 2012. Although some scholars have drawn connections between Sharpeville and Marikana, none have attempted to draw the connections between Marikana and Ngquza Hill, or any other instance of rural resistance for that matter (Gevisser, 2012: 6). The purpose of this article is to demonstrate some of the ways in which rural histories can enhance our understanding of both rural and urban resistance in contemporary South Africa. In order to do so, I will explore two books in conversation with each other, Thembela Kepe and Lungisile Ntsebeza’s edited volume Rural Resistance in South Africa: The Mpondo Revolts after Fifty Years (Kepe and Ntsebeza, 2012) as well as Peter Alexander, Thapelo Lekgowa, Botsang Mmope, Luke Sinwell and Bongani Xezwi’s Marikana: A View from the Mountain and a Case to Answer (Alexander et al., 2012). Perhaps the most important insight that can be gained from bring- ing the rural areas and their histories back into the discussion of urban-based instances of resistance in contemporary South Africa is of the capacity of ordinary people to collectively organize them- selves against oppressive authorities and, in so doing, create the possibility for an emancipatory political project conducted at a distance from the state and other spheres of elite politics. At first glance the two books may seem largely unrelated. Although both books deal with the topics of resistance and massacre, they do so from different perspectives and with different subject matters. Rural Resistance in South Africa: The Mpondo Revolts After Fifty Years is an edited vol- ume of 13 chapters written by scholars from a wide range of disciplines (geography, history, politi- cal science and anthropology) who engage with the revolts from multiple theoretical angles and provide a broad spectrum of perspectives covering the nature and meaning of the Mpondo revolts within the broader context of South African resistance both past and present, urban and rural. Alexander et al.’s Marikana: A View from the Mountain and a Case to Answer, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with labour issues and details the Marikana strike and massacre. Based on workers’ testimonies, it is largely concerned with providing a ‘history from below’ and uses the language of class struggle and workers’ rights to counter-balance the various narratives of the mas- sacre espoused by mainstream media outlets, which tend to demonise workers in favour of the state and big business (Alexander et al., 2012: 11). This article addresses two key questions. The first is, how can we justifiably draw on insights from the Mpondo revolts, a historically and geographically distant event of rural resistance, in order to better understand the Marikana strike, an urban-based instance of resistance that took place in post-apartheid South Africa? Second, how does placing Rural Resistance in South Africa: The Mpondo Revolts After Fifty Years in conversation with Marikana: A View from the Mountain and a Case to Answer allow us to think afresh about resist- ance in contemporary South Africa? Marikana as a Workplace Struggle The town of Marikana is situated in the North West Province of South Africa. On the outskirts of the town are the three Lonmin-owned mines (Karee, West and East Platinum) and alongside two of these mines is the eNkanini shack settlement where a large portion of the mineworkers reside while working on the Lonmin mines (Legassick, 2012). The massacre of 34 people, as well as the injury of at least 80 more, at the foot of a rocky hillock outside the eNkanini shack settlement on 16 August 2012 by the South African police has become famously known as the Marikana massacre. Many intellectuals and scholars have argued that the event could prove to be a decisive turning- point in South Africa’s post-apartheid history (Legassick, 2012). The massacre was the state’s repressive reaction to what had been declared an illegal ‘wildcat strike’ in which thousands of Lonmin workers downed their tools and collectively demanded to negotiate issues of wages with Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Rhodes University Library on June 11, 2014 Bruchhausen 3 the Lonmin management directly. The strike was initially led and organised by migrant Mpondo Rock Drill Operators (RDOs) who were later joined in their protest by workers from across the mining occupational categories as well as many members of the eNkanini community (mostly unemployed men) on what became referred to by the protesters themselves as ‘the mountain’. The strike action at Marikana took place in the same year in which South Africa had experienced a higher national level of community protests and continuing urban unrest than ever before (Alexander et al., 2012: 189). In the months following the massacre in 2012 a leading socialist and labour historian from the University of Johannesburg (UJ), Peter Alexander, as well as Thapelo Lekgowa, Botsang Mmope, Luke Sinwell and Bongani Xezwi, published Marikana: A View from the Mountain in an attempt to provide the first academic account of the massacre. As previously stated, the official media coverage demonstrated widespread bias in favour of government and business interests over those of the striking mineworkers; presenting the latter as frenzied, violent and criminal (Alexander et al., 2012: 171). Marikana: A View from the Mountain draws directly on the testimonies of the workers involved in the strike and has proven a popular and invaluable alternative account of the events, for which the authors should be credited. However, Alexander et al. maintain a narrow focus on workplace issues and a rigid usage of class, and the book cannot easily be considered a social history, or history from below, in the true sense. In this way, Alexander et al.’s book raises important historiographical questions about the relationship between narrowly focused labour history and ‘new’ labour history or social history, especially of the Thompsonian variety.2 Essentially the book takes the form of a case study and, true to its labour history leanings, the subject of its inquiry is the strike that took place in the mining industry. At the core of the book are ten interviews with mineworkers in the days immediately following the massacre. Although a positive contribution as one of the very few texts produced that actually takes into account the striking mineworkers’ perspective, the book is limited by its adherence to a relatively narrow language of class and class struggle. The authors take their primary subject mat- ter as the ‘striking mineworkers’ and pay little if any attention to other people involved in the resist- ance at Marikana. Thus, the authors seem to imply that the unemployed people and members of the eNkanini, who are not mineworkers, but who were directly involved in the resistance forged on the mountain, are not part of the working class and are, as a result, left out of the narrative. For exam- ple, Thembinkosi Gwelani from Lusikisiki in eastern Pondoland was just one of the hundreds of unemployed men and women from the Eastern Cape who were actively involved in the strike at Marikana by providing assistance and solidarity to those on the mountain (Fuzile, 2012). Gwelani was shot and killed during the massacre while failing to escape police bullets after bringing food to the strikers and, as he was not a full-time Lonmin employee, his family has been left back in Pondoland without any prospect of compensation (Fuzile, 2012). Zitha Soni from Ngqeleni, another unemployed man who was involved in the strike, commented that ‘[t]his is just a struggle for us here. We were there when these miners were killed, we were there in the meetings they held in Wonderkop Stadium…. Now we are just forgotten heroes’ (Fuzile, 2012). In a troubling formu- lation, the authors interpret the events at Marikana as an example of ‘raw working-class power – unhindered by the tenets of existing collective bargaining and middle-class politics’ (Alexander et al., 2012: 9), meaning that the nexus between community and workers’ struggles is not addressed, and the very nature of the struggle at Marikana is associated with some kind of ‘raw’ power as opposed to a disciplined political praxis of the poor. Of greater importance is the way in which Alexander et al. manage the rural. It is only in the final 10 pages of Marikana: A View from the Mountain that the authors acknowledge that the majority of people involved in the strike were oscillating male migrant RDOs from Pondoland, and they offer no serious engagement with the significance of these known rural connections in influ- encing the resistance at Marikana (Alexander et al., 2012: 190). Aside from this fleeting sentence Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Rhodes University Library on June 11, 2014 4 Journal of Asian and African Studies at the end of the book, the rural areas are marginalised throughout. In almost every interview pre- sented in the book, the striking mineworkers stress the importance of life and the conditions ‘back home’ (both positively and negatively) in the rural areas of the Eastern Cape. However, the authors do not substantively engage in a meaningful discussion regarding the influences of these rural con- nections on the motivations and actions of migrant Mpondo mineworkers at Marikana. In spite of a rich body of literature dealing with migrants and their political and workplace traditions, the authors do not discuss the complex relationship between urban and rural influences and the way in which the entanglement of both were significant in shaping the resistance at Marikana, or in the platinum industry more generally. As rural influences or connections are not considered to be of any importance, the rural becomes marginalised. Perhaps the most notable example of this marginalization is found in Alexander et al.’s expla- nation of the ‘five madodas’ (Alexander et al., 2012: 31) and their role in representing the protest- ers on the mountain in negotiations with police and trade union representatives. The authors make a special effort to mould our understanding of this term ‘five madodas’ to its literal meaning of ‘five men’ so as to prevent any association of this group of representatives with ‘self-selected or traditional leadership’ as they insist that this would imply ‘a certain “backwardness”, in contrast to trade unions’ (Alexander et al., 2012: 31). The authors appear to support a grand narrative of modernisation that relegates anything associated with the rural to the realm of the pre-modern and particular. This is not to suggest that the ‘five madodas’ should be associated with the system of traditional leadership found in the rural countryside of South Africa. Instead, what is being sug- gested is that the authors’ effort to disassociate the form of leadership that emerged at Marikana with any connection to rural modes of collective organisation and self-selected representation is problematic. Just as was the case with Alexander et al.’s account of the massacre itself, the historical contex- tualization of Marikana is based on using dead bodies, and their spatial and temporal contexts, as the primary reference points for making historical comparisons. This is done in order to ultimately prove the event’s exceptionalism within the South African context. Alexander et al. begin their analysis by claiming that the Marikana massacre was ‘an exceptional event, at least for South Africa’ (Alexander et al., 2012: 169). Citing the examples of the 28 anti-apartheid activists killed by the Ciskei Defence Force in Bhisho in 1992, as well as the ‘celebrated strikes by black mine- workers that occurred in 1920, 1946 and 1987’, Alexander et al. highlight that there were signifi- cantly fewer fatalities in these instances compared to Marikana (Alexander et al., 2012: 169). The 40 deaths at Boipatong in 1992 are explained as being different to those at Marikana because the ‘main culprit’ in that case was the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and not the state. The Rand revolt in 1922 is identified as the last time that so large a number of striking workers had been killed. However, the authors stress Marikana’s difference as a ‘massacre’ and not a ‘revolt’, hence main- taining their stance that Marikana is somehow exceptional (Alexander et al., 2012: 169). This has been a dominant and lasting trend within South African historiography: to explain events in an ultimately isolated way by claiming their ‘exceptional’ character. The negative consequence of this is that the book has inadvertently provided an analysis that acts so as to prevent further discussion and investigation into the past connections and potential future influences of Marikana that go beyond the scope of the urban workplace. In regard to discussions about working conditions, wage disputes, union rivalries, state repres- sion and the labour relations regime, Marikana: A View from the Mountain is a fundamental con- tribution. However, it is in no way a definitive study of the events at Marikana and, as has been discussed above, there are significant limitations to the scope of the text and the understanding of the events and meanings of Marikana that it provides us. In order to overcome these shortcomings and enrich our historical understanding of Marikana this article turns once again to the edited Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Rhodes University Library on June 11, 2014 Bruchhausen 5 volume Rural Resistance in South Africa. As an in-depth exploration of the context, character, actors, ideology and political practices of the Mpondo revolts, Rural Resistance in South Africa has provided us with the conceptual tools with which to draw parallels between historical and contem- porary forms of power and resistance. Much more research still needs to be done – and is in the process of being conducted. But the re-examination of rurally based protest and repression assists us in identifying some of the suggestive links, particularly in regard to the transmission of reper- toires of struggle, between the Marikana strike and the Mpondo revolts, and more specifically the Marikana massacre and the Ngquza Hill massacre. Contesting the Marginalization of the Rural The failure to take rural areas seriously, which is largely a product of the politics of knowledge production in South Africa, is entirely divorced from the lived reality of over fifty per cent of the South African population who continue to hold their regular homes in the rural countryside (Kepe and Ntsebeza, 2012: 5). And as such, the editors of Rural Resistance in South Africa, Kepe and Ntsebeza, argue that ‘conditions in the rural areas are not insignificant and should be told again and again, as well as from multiple angles where possible’ (Kepe and Ntsebeza, 2012: 5). The useful- ness of this insight is that it invites us to consider the direct and indirect influences of rural experi- ences and histories of resistance on the actions of migrant workers in urban areas. This has particular significance for Marikana. It was, after all, the migrant Mpondo RDOs at Marikana who were the driving force behind the strike action. With this in mind it becomes even more apparent that inves- tigating the nature and significance of the Mpondo revolts would be extremely helpful in nuancing our understanding of what happened at Marikana. Kepe and Ntsebeza remind us that there is a strong tendency within a significant amount of South African scholarship to dismiss the importance of the rural imprint in urban struggles, as well as to ignore the on-going importance of migrancy. A primary reason for the current lack of scholarly engagement with the rural areas must be attributed to the perceived division between the urban and the rural that has been embedded within many of the various schools of South African thought. Scholars, such as James Ferguson, have argued that this is no doubt in part a persisting consequence of the liberal school of Southern African historians, who knowingly choose not to explore the rele- vance of urban workers’ rural influences and sustained linkages to the rural areas in an attempt to take what they see as a ‘necessary political positioning… within the terms of the modernist grand narrative’ (Ferguson, 1990: 619). Ferguson argues that a characteristic feature of the liberal school was its commitment to ‘a grand narrative of progress, according to which the native population was moving rapidly along an avenue leading to “civilisation”, later styled “Westernisation” or “moderni- sation”’ (Ferguson, 1990: 617). As such, in writing in response to conservative, colonial historians, who maintained that black Africans were inherently ‘backward’ or ‘primitive’, liberal historians argued that whilst this conception of black Africans was not incorrect, it was in fact out of date. Instead they argued that the urban African was part of the modern ‘permanently urbanised towns- man’, no longer a ‘migrant-labouring tribesman’, and hence no longer primitive (Ferguson, 1990: 617). This same eagerness to equate the rural with backwardness and the urban with modernity is also demonstrated in a number of works belonging to the revisionist, Marxist and labour historian approaches. Understanding this ideological context is of fundamental importance to understanding why it is that so many Southern African scholars commonly recognised as ‘progressive’ have actively discouraged the study of rural attachments and connections to urban life. Having said this, it must be acknowledged that it would be an unfair generalisation to suggest that all South African labour historians, Marxists, revisionists and liberal historians are guilty of neglecting the rural areas or the significance of their influence in urban settings embodied in the Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Rhodes University Library on June 11, 2014 6 Journal of Asian and African Studies experiences of migrant labourers; in fact there can be found in each of these disciplines several scholars who have actively encouraged this line of thinking. For example, labour historians such as Breckenridge, Moodie, Bradford and van Onselen; liberal historians such as Simkins and Wilson; and revisionist scholars such as Arrighi, Bundy, Beinart, Delius, Morris, Wolpe and Legassick, have contributed to a body of literature that stressed exactly this point about the articu- lation of the rural to the urban through migrant labour. However, it can be argued that the majority of this literature is primarily concerned with demonstrating the ways in which the rural was pro- foundly affected by ‘modernisation’ and its influences emanating from the urban over and above the discussion of how the rural was, and continues to be, influential in shaping the urban. In sharp contrast to the book on Marikana, Rural Resistance in South Africa completely chal- lenges this grand narrative of modernisation and urges us to take as seriously the rural areas, their histories, and their people, as we do the urban. Two chapters in the book, the first by Dunbar Moodie (2012) and the second by Ari Sitas (2012), destroy this modernist myth by dem- onstrating the various manners in which the organisational capabilities and actions of trade unionists and activists in the urban areas of apartheid South Africa were enhanced and, to a large extent, shaped by the memory and influences of the rural-based Mpondo revolts (Kepe and Ntsebeza, 2012: 12). The work of both Moodie and Sitas are important for their stress on the entanglement of the rural and the urban, which is the key tenant of an alternative tradition in labour history and revisionist scholarship of which they are part and upon which this paper seeks to build. However, it must be noted that of all the contributing chapters to the book, these two seem to be those that have provided more questions than answers, and have thus opened the gates for future scholarship to address the issue of Mpondo resistance in trade unions and urban spaces throughout the apartheid era. Sitas demonstrates the role played by the ‘rural in the urban’ in constructing an ‘antinomic consciousness in the labour movement’ in industrial KwaZulu- Natal (Sitas, 2012: 173). Commenting on the character and role of Alfred Themba Qabula, Sitas states that: ‘The rebellion against Bantu Authorities was so deep in his bones that it affected everything, his politics and most importantly his craft’ (Sitas, 2012: 173). Sitas then goes on to quote Qabula directly, saying: I reject the idea of praising the kings and rulers because in most instances in the past the kings and chiefs proved themselves most willing to be co-opted by the colonial rulers at the expense of their subjects… (Sitas, 2012: 173). Again in contradiction to Alexander et al. on Marikana, Jimmy Pierse’s chapter, ‘Reading and writing the Mpondo revolts’, encourages us to deal with the unwitting, yet nefarious, consequences of South African exceptionalism (Pierse, 2012: 63). He notes that this exceptionalism prevents the Mpondo revolts from being examined as part and product of wider colonial patterns on the African continent, and prevents scholars from drawing connections and comparisons from other interna- tional instances of resistance and oppression (Pierse, 2012: 63). As such, Pierse’s insights are extremely helpful in understanding why it is that so many South African scholars have been eager to draw insights from and comparisons with Sharpeville, the Soweto Uprising, and a host of other urban-based instances of resistance in dealing with the events at Marikana and yet none have endeavoured to uncover the connections between Marikana and historical forms of rural resistance (Pierse, 2012: 63).3 By providing an in-depth exploration of the ideology and political practices of the Mpondo revolts, Rural Resistance in South Africa has provided us with the conceptual tools with which to draw parallels between historical and contemporary forms of power and resistance and, in so doing, it allows us to garner a better understanding of the significance of resistance of the past in shaping resistance of the present and future. Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Rhodes University Library on June 11, 2014 Bruchhausen 7 Reflections of the Mpondo Revolts at Marikana Perhaps the most striking of parallels to be drawn between the events at Marikana and the history of rural resistance culminating in the Mpondo revolts is the featuring of mountains as sites of resistance and spaces for politics to be conducted at a distance from the state. Alison Drew’s critical examination of Govan Mbeki’s The Peasants’ Revolt explains the sym- bolic and practical significance of mountains in Pondoland during times of social unrest and resistance: Mountains, spiritual places where rituals were performed, provided protection during wars and were places where people could meet undisturbed. Well before the revolt, the Mphondo met in mountains to show their dissatisfaction with decisions taken by the Bhunga, particularly those concerning the concentration of power in the hands of chiefs, who could attend mountain meetings only if they came as an equal, a commoner, not a chief. (Drew, 2012: 76; emphasis added) According to Drew the Intaba (also known as the kongo or mountain movement) became ‘an alternative site of political imagining’ that, quoting the words of Clifton Crais, ‘began to elaborate a structure of authority – polity even – that stood in opposition to the chief and, ultimately, to the apartheid state itself’ (Drew, 2012: 71). Drew explains that the first mountain meeting took place in Bizana at Mount Nonqulwana and soon after meetings proliferated to three other mountains, Nqindilili, Ndlovu and Ngquza, signalling the spread of the revolt from Bizana to Lusikisiki and Flagstaff. Class played a defining role in the movement’s social composition as the membership attending mountain meetings were the poor and working class – those who suffered most from the impact of Betterment Planning and Tribal Authorities – while wealthy individuals (such as traders) were expected to provide financial aid to the movement. Those wealthy individuals, chiefs, or local authorities who did not offer their solidarity to the mountain movement were often made the target of boycotts and in extreme cases kraal burning. Kraal and hut burning was a tactic that was employed by the mountain movement in April 1960 after the mountain committees discovered that ‘government agents’ had infiltrated their membership and needed to be dealt with. The Bizana mountain committee advised its members that, ‘we should not start burning immediately… we should first go to the chiefs, headmen and Tribal Authority Councillors and invite them to the mountain’; only those people who refused after being asked twice would have their kraals burnt (Drew, 2012: 78). Drew claims that: Mbeki describes the mountain committee as disciplined and moving systematically from one method of struggle to the next… seeing armed struggle as a means, rather than as an end in itself. Mbeki emphasises the avoidance of random terror: ‘even at the height of the hut-burning campaign, those who waged the struggle against Bantu Authorities did not shed their humanity… On the whole the burning of huts was a warning, if harsh, that the owners should mend their ways… This is the difference between a people’s organized force and a band of thugs collected for the sole purpose of sustaining a tyranny that lives in perpetual fear of its own failure’ (Drew, 2012: 78). Chapter 10 by Liana Muller goes on to use the idea of the ‘art of memory’ to explore the role of the Ngquza Hill massacre in influencing how the Mpondo revolts are remembered. Muller places her focus on the biophysical environment and the ways in which meanings and values are attrib- uted to certain landscapes by a particular community or society (Muller, 2012: 210). As such, these socially derived meanings and values can often be hidden to ‘outsiders’ who do not have the con- ceptual tools with which to understand the social importance of a certain landscape. She explains how the choice of Ngquza Hill as the location for the meeting of the mountain movement was both strategic and symbolic. On the strategic level, the Hill geographically represented the centre of Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Rhodes University Library on June 11, 2014 8 Journal of Asian and African Studies Pondoland. Symbolically, the Hill held numerous cultural and ritual meanings for the Mpondo, who believed that their ancestors, who inhabited the Hill, would provide protection to them while they fought against what was understood as a worthy cause (Muller, 2012: 220). Thus, while Alexander et al. seek to associate the type of leadership and collective organisation that emerged on the mountain at Marikana solely with trade unions, a reading of Rural Resistance in South Africa allows us to explore that which suggests a much broader association between the rural and urban political resistance, especially with regards to the form of the Intaba and the politi- cal praxes of the mountain movement in Eastern Pondoland. Sitas and Moodie have explored the direct relationship between those involved in the Mpondo revolts and trade union struggles of the 1970s and early 1980s. We can extend this analysis and ask: are there any linkages between the memory of the Mpondo revolts and massacre and working-class struggles today? Evidence sug- gests that the average age of the Mpondo RDOs who were the initial driving force behind the strike action at Marikana was between 45 and 55 years old (Hartford, 2012). As such these people would have formed part of the generation whose parents were either directly or indirectly involved in the Mpondo revolts. Was this generation schooled in rural traditions of resistance established during the Mpondo revolts? What were they told by their parents and teachers? Did the practices and les- sons drawn from the Mpondo revolts influence their actions at Marikana? Was the relatively egali- tarian practices centred on the mountain in Marikana in any way a reflection of, or an extension of, the strategies developed during the Mpondo revolts? A second important parallel that can be drawn between the Marikana strike and the Mpondo revolts pertains to the featuring of massacre in both instances. Diana Wylie’s chapter notes that the violent act of a massacre has the power to both destroy and to galvanize (Wylie, 2012: 205). In the case of Ngquza, what were destroyed were the lives of at least 11 people who were killed by gov- ernment forces as well as ‘the traces of trust that had once characterised the paternalistic form of colonial government in the Transkei’ (Wylie, 2012: 205). What was gained was a sense of collec- tive pride in their ability, as ordinary Mpondo people, to ‘defy fiats from above’ (Wylie, 2012: 205). This gain was due to the fact that the Ngquza massacre was in no way an event that signalled an end to the struggle, instead it ‘strengthened and broadened resistance’ throughout Pondoland (Drew, 2012: 77). Similar observations can be made of the Marikana massacre. It can be argued that the shock felt by the striking mineworkers after witnessing the killing of their co-workers by The Nation Union of Mineworkers (NUM) officials and the police destroyed the, somewhat ironic, paternalistic relation- ship that has come to exist between the bulk of the working class and the trade unions. The relation- ship is ironic because while trade unions during the apartheid era, such as NUM, were by definition against any form of paternalism, in the post-apartheid era trade unions have taken on the paternalis- tic role of trying to further the interests of the state and big business while keeping the working class in line and at bay (Figlan, 2013). The data observed in this paper suggests that it was after the NUM shootings on 11 August that ordinary people adopted modes of protest and organisation strikingly similar to those seen in the Mpondo revolts and ‘decided to stand together and resist [ukwayo] gov- ernment, to take a step so that government would listen to our grievances, not to have anything to do with laws of government, to go to the hills like people without homes’ (Wylie, 2012: 203). In other words, in the contemporary era, NUM has fallen into a mode of corrupt representational poli- tics that fails to act on behalf of the will of its membership. This argument is supported by a recent article written by Lindela ‘Mashumi’ Figlan, the Vice-President of Abahlali baseMjondolo, a shack dwellers movement, which states that, ‘[t]he time when NUM was on the side of the workers has passed… NUM aligned itself with the bosses and with imperialism. NUM was oppressing the work- ers. It was NUM that started the violence in Marikana’ (Figlan, 2013). Thus, one of the most impor- tant meanings to be attributed to Marikana should be that of ordinary peoples’ ability to collectively Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Rhodes University Library on June 11, 2014 Bruchhausen 9 organise themselves and take command of their lives at a distance from, and in opposition to, both the state and trade unions, such as NUM, that have become corrupted. Significantly, there are traces of a continued commitment to this egalitarian and democratic political praxis associated with the mountain in some of the mineworkers’ testimonies detailed in Marikana. According to the testimonies of Mineworkers 1 and 104, a re-occurring theme was the refusal of those protesting on the mountain to negotiate with authority figures who did not engage with them as equals. This was most evident when the president of NUM, Senzeni Zokwana, failed to show the protesters the respect they felt they deserved when he refused to step outside the armoured police vehicle he had arrived in and address the crowd face-to-face. Mineworker 1 explained that, ‘He [Zokwana] was not in a right place to talk to us as a leader, as our president, this thing of him talking to us while he is in a Hippo. We wanted him to talk to us straight if he wanted to’ (Alexander et al., 2012: 32). This is reiterated by the testimony of Mineworker 10, which states that ‘[h]e was supposed to get off the Hippo, come down and address the people’ (Alexander et al., 2012: 164). Just as was the case with the Mpondo revolts, the protesters on the mountain at Marikana demo- cratically elected a mountain committee to represent them and maintain ‘peace and order’ during times of resistance; displaying a strong commitment to the avoidance of random terror and the fostering of strong collective solidarity in the face of increasing threats of force from the state (Alexander et al., 2012: 22). This refusal to be subjected to fiats from above and the accompanying demand to be treated as equals, especially in the space of the mountain, needs further exploration and research. What does this political praxis in the case of Marikana mean? Can we see this as part of a longer history of egalitarian and democratic politics of resistance rooted in the rural areas of South Africa? In Fidelity with Marikana Just as the Ngquza Hill massacre led to a strengthening and broadening of resistance throughout Pondoland in the 1960s, so too did the Marikana massacre result in an intensification of resistance that spread throughout the mining sector, into other South African industries, and areas beyond Rustenburg. Alexander et al. explain that after the events at Marikana, strike action ‘spread like wild fire, raising new possibilities for workers’ (Alexander et al., 2012: 191). Interestingly, it does not appear to be academics or politicians (socialist or otherwise) who are making the connections between Marikana and the broader struggle for social justice in South Africa, as Alexander et al. contend (2012: 191). Rather, it is the marginalised and poor who continue to fight for the realisa- tion of their basic human dignity who are making these connections by creating facts on the ground by associating their struggles with the events of Marikana. The first example of this was in October 2012 when thousands of farmworkers in the Western Cape, inspired by events at Marikana, col- lectively went on strike demanding increases in their wages from roughly R 69.00 a day to almost double that figure – which remains nowhere near the amount required for a living wage (Gerson, 2013). Mazibuko Jara of the Democratic Left Front believes that at the core of the farmworkers’ strike is a problem within the South African state’s agricultural policy (Gerson, 2013). However, the farmworkers themselves have demonstrated, by making frequent reference to the struggle for a living wage at Marikana that, although some of the immediate problems may be different, the struggle they were fighting was the same as that fought at Marikana. A further example can be found in the less well-known resistance carried out by shack dwellers in the Western Cape during May 2013. eNews Channel Africa (eNCA) reported on the struggle being waged between law enforcement officers and shack dwellers in the township of Phillipi, showing video footage of shacks being destroyed by anti-land invasion units from Cape Town and Downloaded from jas.sagepub.com at Rhodes University Library on June 11, 2014