Why Violence?

• Explain the reasons behind the creation of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK). Do you think adopting violence as a method strengthened or weakened the anti-apartheid movement?

When Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the military branch of the ANC, was formed in the 1960’s the anti-apartheid movement was struggling. The organization had spent decades fighting for their rights through peaceful protests but the government only became more oppressive. Eventually, the ANC felt they had no choice but to resort to nonpeaceful demonstrations. In Nelson Mandela’s statement in the 1964 trial he claimed that “We were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government.” The ANC also felt that due to the severity of the oppression the people were going to turn to violence anyways, and the ANC saw the opportunity to take control of and organize the violence in order to avoid an irreconcilable racial war (As they wished to emphasize their desire for an entirely non prejudice society).

As an American, my reaction to the ANC turning to violence was very similar to the reactions of the Washington Post reporters that Mandela was interviewed by while in jail. I have been raised knowing the story of Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement, to me non violent protesting has been the common sense course of action when responding to racial tension. However, what Mandela told the accusatory reporters made complete sense to me: Africa did not have a government constrained by a constitution, their situation was entirely different from our own, they were fighting a government with no limits on how harshly they could respond. More intense opposition generally requires more intense respsonses.

When I first hear the word “violence” I instinctively assume acts performed with the intent of physically harming other people. I learned throughout the course of A Walk To Freedom that this is not always the case. While there are inexcusable exceptions, the ANC emphasized a course of action based on committing acts of violence against the state’s infrastructure, ie power sources, rather than on individual people themselves. They did not emphasize murder, in fact, they encouraged human preservation. Because of this tactic the struggle did not escalate into full fledged civil war, instead they were able to reconcile through civil negotiations.

It is entirely understandable why the ANC turned to violent means when they realized they were fighting a losing battle with their current approach. The government, in many ways, gave them no choice. It was violence or surrender, and for a freedom fighter surrender is not an option. However, they introduced violence while specifically attempting to avoid human casualties. I believe this preserved the moral standing of their movement. I also believe that had the ANC not organized the transition the country would have resorted to a much messier form of violence and a chance for peace would have been lost. Given the circumstances and the enemy they were up against, the ANC did the best they could. I believe the ANC’s addition of MK strengthened the movement physically and, for the most part, preserved it morally.