Apartheid, Capitalism and the ANC (1988)

From the August 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

It hardly needs stating that South Africa's apartheid regime imprisons, tortures and ruthlessly exploits the country's black working class, and that socialists are working for a society in which such obscene discrimination would be impossible. But does it follow that we endorse the struggle for apartheid's removal?

Nelson Mandela, arguably the best known black political figure in Africa, was seventy on 18 July. His imprisonment in South African jails since his capture and trial in 1962 on charges of treason has won him world-wide sympathy and gained international support for the African National Congress.

Such support is misplaced. It is based on the wide-spread political belief that the main problem facing workers in South Africa is apartheid and that it is in their interests to uphold the ANC's objectives:

  A democratic state based on the will of the people . . . equal status for all national groups . . . protected by law against insults to their . . . national pride . . . industry and trade shall be controlled to assist the well being of the people . . . equal rights to trade . . . the land redivided amongst those who work it. . .
   The police force and army. . . shall be the helpers and protectors of the people. . . equal pay for equal work . . . a national minimum wage . . . maternity leave on full pay . . . the right to be decently housed . . . free medical care . . . Slums shall be demolished . . . South Africa shall be a fully independent state . . .

(The Freedom Charter adopted by the ANC in 1955)

This is a thorough-going reformist platform which in parts reads like a nineteenth century tract of the kind Marx condemned in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. Decked out with superficially attractive proposals and promises, it deflects the unwary majority from pursuing their class interests. Where similar programmes have been adopted elsewhere they have demonstrably failed to alter the position of the propertyless majority.

In their frustration the ANC decided in 1961 to adopt violent minority action to achieve their aims. Originally committed to non-violence, their policy changed and they "would no longer disapprove of properly controlled violence . . .  we decided to adopt violence as part of our policy, the plan had to be one which recognised civil war as the last resort ' (Nelson Mandela, No Easy Walk to Freedom. 1966, page 170).

In order to justify such violence and bloodshed the ANC needs to use the doublespeak practised by politicians everywhere when persuading others of the need to sacrifice and suffer in causes which involve no working class interests. They must attempt to disguise their true motives and the bitter realities that others are expected to face. At a press conference given by Oliver Tambo (President of the ANC) warning was given of an escalation of ANC violence. He urged Umkhonto we Sizwe (the military wing of ANC) to "Attack, advance, give the enemy no quarter, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and acknowledged that "over-zealous" elements might attack "soft targets" (that is, human beings) (Keesing's Contemporary Archives, p. 3466b). In an interview in 1983 Tambo said he thought". . . it must be a matter of regret that civilians were injured . . . as our struggle intensifies more innocent people are going to get hurt . . .  An armed struggle embraces violence . . . We certainly must conduct our struggle in such a way that we are not seen to be taking blows and not returning them " And what are these brave words used to cover? "The answer is in the uprooting of the apartheid system . . . The problem in South Africa is the apartheid system" (Oliver Tambo. Preparing for Power, 1987, pages 164-169).

The kind of action advocated by the ANC will not bring freedom to the workers of South Africa, black or white. They might talk of being "committed to bringing about fundamental change to the entire socio-economic and political formation which constitutes the South Africa of today" (Tambo. page 247) but all the workers will get. even with full implementation of the Freedom Charter, is a change of rulers or, more likely, the absorption into the ruling class of some new rulers whose skins are black.

The leadership of the ANC appear ready and willing to murder their way to the thieves table, not in order to abolish capitalism but to stake their claim to a share in the exploitation of the workers. We have the declaration of Mandela himself:

  Under the Freedom Charter, nationalisation would take place in an economy based on private enterprise . . . (this) would open up fresh fields for a prosperous African population of all classes, including the middle class. The ANC has never at any period of its history advocated a revolutionary change . . . nor has it. . . ever condemned capitalist society. (Mandela, page 179)

When asked "Are you attracted by the idea of a classless society?", Mandela replied "yes, very much so . . . I  think that a lot of evils arise out of the existence of classes, one class exploiting another [but] . . . the ANC has no policy in any shape or form on this matter" (page 84). His concept of freedom is the freedom for him and his lieutenants to join the ranks of the exploiting class. In this he is following a course laid down by previous generations of black African "freedom fighters" who now vie with one another to attract investments from international capital. They may rid the country of the odious system of apartheid but they will be left with the problems of running capitalism. Class rule and exploitation would continue and a free society of abundance and equality would be no nearer. Indeed, in their efforts to get rid of apartheid they may well find support from within the ranks of the capitalist class, who are finding it an increasingly intolerable block to the most efficient exploitation of black labour power. For example Sir Albert Robinson. Chairman of Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Company, told shareholders back in 1974:

  It is essential to engender in the minds of all South Africans a far greater enthusiasm for . . . the elimination of restrictive employment barriers . . . The ultimate goal is a uniform wage scale for all employees, irrespective of race, based on objective criteria. (Daily Telegraph. 19 November 1974)

Or as a recent academic study more bluntly put it:

  . . .  a stage has now been reached in South Africa at which for important sectors of local capital the costs of apartheid exclusion outweigh the benefits. For the first time capitalists are rebelling . . . they worry about calm labour relations: and they dislike operating in a siege economy . . . (Herbert Adam and Kogila Moodley, South Africa without Apartheid.,1986. page 22).

If the ANC come to power they will have to take on the task of controlling and disciplining the majority when it becomes clear that capitalism run by blacks is little different to the white-dominated variety. They will have to ensure "calm labour relations", which will bring them into inevitable conflict with "All who work shall be free . . . to make wage agreements with their employers" (Freedom Charter). Potential investors need not worry however. The ANC Director of Information Thabo Mbeki assured reporters at a four day conference of the ANC and Afrikaner businessmen at Dakar in July 1987 that "the feeling of common South-Africaness between us all was very strong . . .” (Keesing's page 35362). A new twist to the old "We are all in the same boat" fraud under which black workers will find that they will still be doing all the rowing.

Another problem which will face an ANC dominated government is what to do about opposition groups. Such is the effectiveness of their propaganda that many who sympathise with the ANC cause assume them to be the only political organisation seeking to represent black opposition in South Africa. While there is evidence that they have much support in the townships, there are other groups such as Inkatha Yenkululeke ye Sizwe ("Freedom of the Nation"), the Pan Africanist Congress and the Azanian People's Organisation. The last of these “. . . incorporated a class analysis into their policy. . [but thought] . . . there was no material basis for united class action by whites and blacks . . . the black petty bourgeoisie . . . have joined the Black liberation struggle. The leadership of the Black liberation struggle is provided largely by this class'" (Tom Lodge, Black Politics in South Africa since 1945, 1987. page 345). It is unlikely that groups such as these will easily give up their political objectives. How are they to be treated? In her 1986 biography Mandela, Mary Benson describes how . . . Mandela and other young nationalists clashed with the organisers, broke up [opposition] meetings . . (page 38). which does not auger well for the opponents of ANC in power. And the horrific "necklace" killings of supposed "collaborators" have been enthusiastically endorsed by Winnie Mandela, herself a powerful figure in the ANC (Anthony Sampson, Black and Gold, 1987. page 232).

The ideology of Mandela, Tambo and the ANC "is, and always has been, the creed of African Nationalism" (Mandela), chasing the shadow of harmonisation of class distinctions. We urge all workers to reject their outmoded ideas and join with us in building a strong world movement to establish the only society worth working for, socialism.

Gwynn Thomas

Rear View: Poor People’s (ongoing) Campaign (2018)

The Rear View Column from the May 2018 issue of the Socialist Standard

Poor People’s (ongoing) Campaign
The 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination was covered widely in mainstream media last month. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 for combating racial equality through non-violent resistance. For the last five years of his life, King was subject to scrutiny by the FBI. J Edgar Hoover was concerned about ‘communist’ infiltration of civil rights groups and unions but proof proved elusive. Baptist minister King had apparently read some of Marx’s writings and did not like his materialism, but such influences can be seen here: ‘the profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system, encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that inspires men to be making a living than making a life.’ He even stated ‘the fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor – both black and white, both here and abroad,’ yet rather than seeking to replace capitalism with socialism he campaigned for reforms to restructure it – e.g. he strived for a universal basic income as well as end to ‘overpopulation’. Days after his death Congress passed the Fair Housing Act, which prohibited discrimination in housing basis of race, religion, or national origin. Decades later, Obama’s ‘change’ meant business as usual. Today, racism is waxing not waning, 40 million Americans live in poverty, the top 1 percent has more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and ‘just 1 in 10 black Americans believe civil rights movement’s goals have been achieved in the 50 years since Martin Luther King Jr was killed’ (theindependent.co.uk, 31 March). And this, from Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer winning historian, says it all (probably unwittingly) : ‘all the issues that he raised toward the end of his life are as contemporary now as they were then’ (nytimes.com, 4 April). Dr. King focused famously on the ‘Triple Evils’ of poverty, racism and militarism, i.e., symptoms rather than the underlying disease.


Poverty without end
Winnie Madikizela-Mandela died the same week as the anniversary of King’s death. Media reaction was, unlike to that of Dr. King, very mixed. ‘Winnie was working as a hospital social worker when she realized the abject poverty under which most people were forced to live in, created by the inequalities of the system. It is from this point that she strived to bring change and equality’ (standardmedia.co.ke, 3 April). She married Nelson Mandela several years prior to the Sharpeville massacre of 1960 (289 murdered). Established in 1912, the African National Congress had employed largely non-violent means in its campaign to secure voting rights for non-white Africans, but this changed in 1961 with the formation of an armed wing. When Nelson was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964, the South African state punished Winnie too. She was beaten, tortured and held in solitary confinement. Andrew Malone writes as if she deserved such treatment, describing her as ‘an odious, toxic individual who continued to preach hatred rather than reconciliation right up to the end of her life’ (dailymail.co.uk, 3 April). Yet for a woman accused of murder, fraud, kidnapping and theft, comments from the South African Human Rights Commission in an article titled A tribute to Madikizela-Mandela: ‘A true revolutionary is guided by great love’ (thetimeslive.co.za, 3 April) seem equally over the top. No, the most apposite remarks were made earlier by another and anti-apartheid activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu: ‘They stopped the gravy train just long enough to get on themselves.’ He went on to say that Zuma’s administration is ‘worse than the apartheid government’ and that he would ‘pray for the downfall of the ANC.’ ‘More than two decades after South Africa ousted a racist apartheid system that trapped the vast majority of South Africans in poverty, more than half the country still lives below the national poverty line and most of the nation’s wealth remains in the hands of a small elite’ (npr.org, 2 April).


One world, one people
'Nothing should be allowed to obscure working class unity nor to hamper its struggle to set up the new social order. We know enough of racism, and of what it does to human beings, to reject it as a destructive, anti-social force. There is a better way; we have a world to win and little time to lose’ (Racist myths, Socialist Standard, June 1988).

Where is South Africa going? (1993)

From the June 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

There was a time when the battle-cries of the ANC were “Black Majority Rule" and “Sanctions Now”. But that was when Nelson Mandela was still a political prisoner— in the days when “communism” was seen as a threat to those governments which advocated free-market policies.

We live, however, in unpredictable times. The last 4-5 years have been momentous in shattering illusions, beliefs, notions of what had hitherto been taken for granted. The impossible became possible. There were great shifts in public opinion. Governments have been toppled and national boundaries have moved overnight as if blown by a breeze.

Many believed the breeze reached South Africa when Mandela was released from 27 years of imprisonment on 11 February 1990. Headlines praising the release and eulogizing F.W. De Klerk were flashed around the world, and the 78-year struggle of the ANC seemed finally about to be vindicated.

The dreams of South Africa’s black majority appeared to have been realized in mid-1991, when the parliament in Cape Town repealed the Population Registration Act, and when De Klerk announced to a joint sitting of the country's tricameral parliament that “Apartheid now belongs to history”. Brave words, indeed, from a ruling National Party that had held power and practised institutionalized racism since 1948.

By September De Klerk was seen to be pushing South Africa towards democracy, by unveiling further constitutional proposals for a new non-racial South Africa. The scheme was lambasted by opponents as an underhand move, designed to allow the white minority to keep the “accumulated privileges of apartheid" (Guardian, 4 September 1991). Although the new proposals would extend the franchise to all adult South Africans, it would in effect, it was argued, give the whites and other minorities the right to veto important policy decisions.

It is hardly a coincidence that De Klerk s decision to free Mandela, legalize the ANC and the South African Communist Party, and begin constitutional negotiations should coincide with the discrediting of international “communism” in the wake of the end of the cold war. The South African government knew full well that any change in the constitution would not upset the country’s economic status quo. Under apartheid the black majority had laboured as wage-slaves, or rather volatile wage-slaves; enfranchised, they would still be wage-slaves but this time a little more contented. Besides, a South Africa seen to be getting its act together would be an incentive for foreign investment.

In February last year De Klerk announced that white voters would be asked in a referendum to answer “yes” or "no” to the question: “Do you support the continuation of the reform process . . . which is aimed at a new constitution through negotiations?” One month later the white voting population returned an impressive 68.6 percent "yes" vote. It is a fair guess, however, that many voters, voting either way, had their minds set when violence surrounding the campaign left 25 dead.

Massacre

The entire reform process ground to a halt on 17 June 1992, when Inkatha warriors, with the assistance of the security forces massacred 42 in the Transvaal township of Boipatong. The ANC abandoned constitutional talks and Mandela was "convinced that his [President De Klerk’s] method of bringing about a solution to this country is war" (Guardian, 22 June). All sides were in agreement on the suspending of talks and within a week tit-for-tat killings had left another 70 dead.

Within three months it was the turn of the South Africa’s defence forces to have themselves a massacre, opening fire on a demonstration by 70,000 ANC supporters at Ciskei, killing 28 and leaving another 200 injured.The government, who were accused of complicity with the defence forces, awaited an ANC-led backlash, it never came. Instead, in a surprising act of volte-face, the ANC, three days later, agreed to hold peace talks with the De Klerk government.

In September Mandela signed a “record of understanding" with De Klerk, agreeing that a new South African constitution could only be shaped by an elected constituent assembly, and that there would be a non-racial interim government in the future. For good measure, and probably as way of compensation for the recent massacres. De Klerk agreed on the immediate release of 150 political prisoners. Two months later De Klerk was calling for further negotiation to be re-started by the end of March 1993 with a view to holding South Africa's first non-racial general election by April 1994.

On 4 February this year the ANC again met with the government for a further round of bilateral talks. In a meeting a month previous both sides had agreed there should be an “interim government of national unity”, though no agreement had been reached on the timescale for a new constitution. Nevertheless, it was understood that an “interim government of national unity”, consisting of parties that had secured a minimum percentage of the vote in elections, would hold power for five years following an agreement by a constitutional assembly on a final constitution.

Many in the ANC, however, objected any set-up which would give a disproportionate share of power to Chief Buthelezi, the Inkatha leader. Disagreement also remained on the suggested devolved regional plan. The ANC had pushed for a centralized authority, be it within a federal framework, while De Klerk pressed for regional autonomy on such issues as health and education.

On 1 April delegates from 26 political organizations, extreme left as well as right wing, attended a round of multi-party negotiations. The talks ended a day sooner than scheduled, with many surprised that negotiations were back on track and to continue at a lower level. A day later secret negotiations began to reincorporate the "independent" homelands back into South Africa. Matters appeared to be going smoothly.

Assassination

No-one could have anticipated what would happen eight days later, when a member of the neo-nazi AWB assassinated Chris Hani, a leading ANC politicians as well as the leader of the South African Communist Party. This had been the first political assassination in almost 30 years, and many believed that previous mutual restraint had signalled an unwritten agreement between blacks and whites not to target one-another s leaders.

The ANC urged restraint on its members, hoping that something fruitful could emerge out of the death of Hani, that his death would at least induce some kind of urgency into negotiations. Meanwhile ANC Youth leaders rejected peace calls. One speaker announced to a rally in Pretoria: "It is time we told the leadership that enough is enough . . . now is the time to hit back” (Times, 13 April). In a country where peaceful demonstration has been met with violence and force, and where the black majority has for so long been denied the right of the ballot box to voice their wishes, it is little wonder that many still feel that violence can be the only tool of reform.

Hani's murder has a deadly logic for those in South Africa who hope to gain by it. those who are attempting to upset reform and derail negotiations at any cost, who will deny the black majority any rights, even if it means civil war. Thankfully their numbers are few. They include the likes of Eugene Terrcblanche, the AWB leader whose hypocritical view of the death of Nani was of an “atrocious deed". But whatever the latent motives were for the death of Hani, his assassination does not seem to have dowsed the flame of reform. On 15 April the South African government reacted to the current crisis by tentatively promising to hurry along constitutional reform.

It looks likely that in the near future an electorate with enfranchised blacks in the majority will have voted in a new constituent assembly and a power-sharing government of national unity holding power for five years, headed, probably by Nelson Mandela. The ANC are in favour of a government of national unity of limited duration. but have opposed a five-year power-sharing plan. De Klerk, however, appears to be in the better bargaining position. How smaller factions within South Africa will react remains to be seen. The extreme right-wing AWB will never be placated, neither will comfort be found in the Inkatha camp where Chief Buthelezi has warned of civil war should the ANC and De Klerks National Party reach an agreement to share power on their own. In any event, a future South Africa will probably be a highly devolved federation, with local and regional rights entrenched.

The negotiations have been taking place against the background of a South African economy in turmoil. Employment between 1991 and mid-1992 contracted by five percent and there is a continuance of capital flight—six billion Rand last year and 40 billion Rand since 1985. It is only a matter of time before the finger of blame is pointed. Should the economy continue to collapse Mandela will be blamed as much as De Klerk.

George Meddemmen.

Courting capitalism

Much has been compromised by the ANC since Mandela was released. Black majority rule has been sacrificed for a share in an interim government of national unity, in which parties with a minimum percentage of support will be given representation. Similarly, the ANC ultimate goal of a “socialist society” has been sacrificed for a share in a government with a proven track record of capitalist management.

There are now claims that the ANC elite are the new South African free marketeers, courting white businessmen and aspiring to their lifestyle. Recently the Johannesburg Weekly Mail ran a piece by a disillusioned ANC supporter, who questioned the contrasting lifestyles of the ANC elite and the black majority they represent: Mandela lives in a lavish suburb of Houghton; Zini Mandela’s honeymoon was financed by a wealthy white businessman; Allan Boesak now enjoys an extravagant lifestyle. “Are there gifts from the South African white economic elite?” asked the ANC member, “is our human suffering under apartheid rule so cheap to be bought by gifts from the white racists?”

Professor Heribert Adam, noted South African observer, commented:

On the part of the ANC/SACP, socialism has been reduced to anti-trust legislation and affirmative action. Lenin may still be quoted, but the World Bank, it seems, exerts a stronger pull . . . The more far-sighted sections of the business elite ingratiate themselves with any political leadership. (Guardian. 17 April)

The legalization of the ANC has much to do with this. Once legalized, given legitimacy, they struggled for acceptability, and were easily discredited when Winnie Mandela was indicted on charges of kidnapping and murder, and when news broke about ANC detention and torture camps. The government could even use the Inkatha movement and their own defence forces against the ANC in acts of intimidation, knowing that any backlash would damage the new moderate image of the ANC. The only way the ANC could gain acceptability in the eyes of the white minority was by sacrificing some of their long-held views and recognizing the economic system, as run by the white capitalist elite.

For the ANC there is no going back now, only forward, forward with a perspective tainted by the capitalist economic values of the white minority. The ANC now want sanctions lifted, condemn acts of violence and aggression, and frown upon the kind of demonstrations they backed only six months ago at Ciskei.

"Our ideal is a socialist society”, said Chris Hani a few months before his assassination. “socialism is the best and most cohesive system for South Africa” (Guardian, 15 February). Ironic words, true socialists will agree, in light of recent events. Socialism (not the state capitalism Hani had in mind) is indeed a "most cohesive system”, but only on a world scale. Socialists, however, will not fail to welcome recent developments in South Africa. A South Africa with universal suffrage can only bring the realization of world socialism a step closer when the chains of capitalism begin to rust through and the world’s working class begin to voice objection through the ballot box.

John Bissett

Sting in the Tail: Having their cake (1994)

The Sting in the Tail Column from the December 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Having their cake
When Scorpion was a child and cried because he had scoffed all his goodies, his mother would tell him "you can't have your cake and eat it".

This simple truth had obviously eluded those taking part in a discussion on "community values" in A Week In Politics (Channel 4, 22 October).

They were Labour MP Tony Wright, Tory MP Alan Howarth and a repentant Thatcherite, Professor John Gray. Wright pointed out that even the word "community" has been debased through its use as a cover for such unpalatable Tory policies as the poll-tax (Community charge) and the turning of mentally-ill people onto the streets (Care In The Community).

Howarth, a "One Nation" Tory, thought an excess of Thatcherite policies had brought about a decline in community values while Gray instanced how these policies had wiped out many mining communities.

So they were unanimous on the need to retain community values, but they were also unanimous in their support for capitalism's market economy, the very thing which destroys the concept of community, and you can't have your cake and eat it, can you?

God and Mammon
In feudal times the Church had immense power. It was the most wealthy institution in society. It had its hand in government, military and social affairs.

The advent of capitalism saw the gradual decline of its influence. Today other than the mock ceremonies that attend deaths, marriages and christenings it is a shadow of the giant it once was.

Ignored by most of the working class and looked upon with cynical tolerance by the capitalist class it has little part to play in society compared with its once dominant role.

This probably explains the following outburst of medieval nonsense as reported in the Guardian (9 November):

"The Church of England should invent special prayers for business people because they suffer spiritual hunger and wealth creation is part of God's plan, George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said yesterday."

Worried by falling congregations and, of course, empty collecting plates he was telling the Manchester Business School that the Church saw bankers and brokers as carrying out God's work:

"Defending the role of financial markets, he said it was a cosy myth that 'real work is making things whereas the really questionable activity is financial wheeler dealing'."

So, come on, you financial wheeler dealers, dig deep and keep the Archbishop and his cronies in the style they have been accustomed to.

News from South Africa
Remember all that left-wing rhetoric we used to hear from the ANC in the days before it got power? They play a different tune now:

"Instead of the sweeping campaign of nationalisation that the South African private sector once feared from a Mandela-led government, Mr Mbeki (Deputy President) said plans were afoot to sell off some of the family silver. State assets and enterprises such as government-owned land and South African Airways will be privatised." (Daily Telegraph, 31 October)

On top of this the government has been accused by its own supporters of "riding the gravy train". President Nelson Mandela answered these malcontents by cutting his salary from 115,000 to a mere 92,000 while Mr Mbeki's 20 percent cut means he will have to struggle along on only 80,000.

Sing a song of capitalism
In Glasgow and Edinburgh pubs on a Saturday evening you may hear some workers, under the influence of a couple of drinks, giving voice to sentimental patriotic songs. "Scotland I Adore Thee" and "Hail, Caledonia" may be aired until the bartender or some other music lover puts a stop to the proceedings.

But what is the truth behind all this patriotic drivel? According to the BBC2 programme Whose Country is it Anyway? (26 October) Scotland, like every other country, is owned by a handful of people:

"Sixty per cent of the land in Scotland, with a population of over 5 million is owned by only 1,500 people."

So next Saturday evening when you feel moved to imitate Kenneth McKellar with a version of "My Granny's Hielan' Hovel", remember who really owns Scotland - the capitalist class.

You may well "Belong to Glasgow", but Glasgow like every city in the world belongs to them.

From Liberator To Exploiter - Comrade Capitalist

From the Socialist Banner blog

Mosima Gabriel ("Tokyo") Sexwale - former South African liberation fighter turned business tycoon. He was recruited to the ANC underground by Winnie Madikizela-Mandela in the early 1970s, went for military training in the former Soviet Union and was infiltrated back into the country in the aftermath of the Soweto youth uprising in June 1976. Sexwale inflicted the first injuries on government forces when he threw a hand grenade at police while entering South Africa from Swaziland. He was caught, went on trial. He was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment and dispatched to join Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners on Robben Island.

Released from prison in 1990, he rose to prominence in the ANC, becoming chairman of the party in Gauteng province and then in 1994, the first premier of Gauteng.

A newspaper last year listed his investments as worth R978 million (U.S.$143 million), but informal estimates place it at as much as R6 billion. Sexwale founded Mvelaphanda Holdings , a company of which he is still executive chairman. Mvelaphanda is primarily focused on the mining, energy and related sectors. Some of Sexwale's main interests are oil and diamond mining, for which he has been granted concessions across Africa and Russia; these interests are controlled by a subsidiary of Mvelaphanda Holdings called Mvelaphanda Resources, of which he is chairman. Sexwale holds positions in many international organizations, such as President of the South African/Russian Business, Technological and Cultural Association and Vice President of the South African/Japanese Business Forum. He is also an Honorary Consul General of Finland in South Africa.

How was his cash made? - Black Economic Empowerment (BEE)

Designed to put more of the economy in black hands, in part by forcing the country's largest industries to set targets for training more black workers, promoting more black managers, using more black-owned suppliers and - - this is where the controversy comes in - - selling ownership stakes to black capitalists. Big firms that want to do business with the state must now file a BEE scorecard to prove they are promoting "previously disadvantaged individuals," including blacks, mixed-race "coloreds" and Indians. Since government spending is some $20 billion a year, or about 20% of GDP, it's a deal not many companies can afford to pass up.

A handful of prominent and well-connected black South Africans - - Macozoma, Motsepe, Ramaphosa and Sexwale among them - - recognized the opportunity that presented. As South Africa's biggest companies rushed to meet their BEE requirements, they often turned to the same small group of black capitalists, offering to sell or grant equity stakes at favorable terms, often financed by the companies themselves, in return for connections, expertise and links to the black marketplace.

"You need to be palatable and acceptable to your white business, because white business still holds the purse strings, and Tokyo Sexwale is extremely palatable," says Alec Hogg, South Africa's leading financial analyst and broadcaster. "I think he found the right people to back him. He found one of the leading banks in South Africa, which has virtually given him an open checkbook. And as a consequence of that, he's been able to put together a number of deals - many, many deals in many different areas of the economy."

Tsediso Phofu, another political prisoner on Robben Island, who was in the same cellblock as Sexwale, founded a school for the mentally disabled, but still makes less than $500 a month, and lives in this one-room apartment with his wife and daughter. He says Black Empowerment hasn't benefited him one bit.

"I feel I've been abandoned. I feel somehow you even regret that what it is that we fought for. Why were you fighting the struggle, for the nation, or for certain individuals to be rich? Meanwhile, you remain in poverty," says Phofu.

Now Tokyo Sexwale is lobbying for the leadership of the ANC and effectively the presidency of South Africa.

Alan Johnstone