I must admit at the outset that when we first met in this hall six years ago, we and our people, who looked spell-bound at Convention, were full of great hopes for the future of this Assembly. In the midst of the onslaught then being made upon our people, and fully realising the hazardous task before us in staving off this onslaught, we were still confident. Little did we think then that six years later we should have to admit that not only have we failed to achieve any positive results in the struggle for the liberation of our people, but that we meet today in conditions far worse than at that time. We have not been able to avert the defeat. The Bills have become law. Instead of advancing on the road to political rights and consequently economic betterment, instead of acquiring the vote for our people in the North, instead of extending this vote to our women, instead of lightening the chains tying down the African —the Colour Bar Laws, the Pass Laws and the Poll tax—we have been driven back to a position of being completely without rights. From what they termed political minors, we have become political outcasts in our own country, tolerated only as servants who accept unconditionally the "divine" rights of the white masters to rule over us.
Six years ago, on the eve of the Convention, its secretary, Selby Msimang, published what can be termed a declaration of faith to which every African man and woman, young and old, subscribed. "Unless Bantudom realises this danger ... the inevitable destiny of her children and posterity will be one of perpetual slavery." But today we must admit that nothing has been done by the Convention to implement this declaration of deeds. Is it surprising that while six years ago the whole Bantu race looked with hope and expectation, fixed its eyes and ears on the deliberations of the Convention, breathlessly waiting for guidance and for a lead, today hardly a stir is produced by the Convention meeting? Is it because the people have become resigned to the conditions of serfdom? Is it because the people have become reconciled to the old master and servant relationship, and are satisfied with the lot of a serf and with the working of the new segregation laws? Is it because the people have lost all interest in their liberation? Is it because our people have no guts for the struggle, have no pride in themselves and have turned into knaves? Or is it because our people are bitterly disappointed, because they feel that once more their leaders have let them down?
It is quite probable that many people, bitterly disappointed with the results of these six years, or with the lack of results, are pinning the blame on to the Convention. Now there is one organisation quick to utilise this disappointment for its own party political aims, namely, Congress. For the outset it was lukewarm towards the Convention and reluctantly joined it. The more people become disillusioned with Convention, the bolder becomes Congress in their propaganda against it. So that today we can hear them openly shouting: "Away with Convention!" I shall deal with this question in full later.
But those who are in the struggle, who like myself are taking an active part in the Convention since its beginning, know, that the fault is not with the Convention as such, but with its leadership. It is not the organisation itself, but what we make of it! The most ideal institution with the best programme and ideas can achieve nothing if its leadership is faulty, incapable or dishonest, or even vain and selfish. In our conditions the Convention is and remains the most suitable organisation for the Africans in the struggle for liberation. To appreciate this we must return to that time when we formed the Convention and consider what was its meaning and purpose.
Before the Native Bills were introduced into Parliament, not many Africans were fully aware that they have no voice in the government of the country where they are born, where they slave and suffer and die; that they are not citizens of their country; that they have no country. They were lead to believe that some day they would become full citizens. In short they thought what the Coloured man still thinks today. They did not realise that the Government, the administration, and the Parliament, all belong to the white man who has no intention of ever giving the Africans even the least small avenue for advancement, for voicing his grievances and aspirations, and for acquiring his full and rightful place in civilisation. And that is the firm intention of the white rulers, to keep the black man in perpetual slavery. But with the introduction of the Segregation Bills by Hertzog this sinister intention was openly proclaimed for all the world to hear, and the policy of sweet promises for the future was finally discarded. It came as a terrific shock to the Black man. The African people suddenly found that from now on they had no one to rely on, except themselves. This shook, and the realisation that they had been thrown out of the community to which they thought they belonged, brought them instinctively together. Like all people in face of a catastrophe, they drew closer together. They instinctively felt that if they were not to go under and be silenced forever, they must forget the factional strife, the religious bickering, the rivalry of the chiefs, the divisions into North and South, into tribalised and detribalised, into town and country, into petty political parties and groups. They realised that they must come together and unite against a common danger.
This feeling of national unity crystallised itself in the form of a national organisation embracing the whole oppressed race. Thus the All African Convention came into being. It was to be this national, all-embracing organisation to defend the Africans against the coming onslaught and to fight for their national and political rights. The All African Convention was to be the national forum from where the voice of the African could be heard. And if the ruling classes decide that the Parliament belongs to the White man and that there is no place for the Black man, then the All African Convention will naturally become the Parliament for the Africans. When it became clear that the Africans were going to be completely disfranchised, the logical conclusion was for this Convention to become a permanent body until such time as they will obtain their full rights and a full share in the legislative, administrative and judicial institutions of their country. To the builders of Convention it was obvious that no single organisation or party can fulfil such a task, but an organisation of all organisations and parties. No single party can claim to represent all African workers, farm labourers, peasants, liberal professions, the town and the country, the Reserves and the detribalised Africans. Neither the I.C.U. nor Congress, both of whom after flourishing for a time lost all influence and broke up into small groups and cliques, could claim for a moment such a place. In fact they did not. But all organisations were invited to come together, and did come together, to build the All African Convention—the African Parliament, to fight for African rights and freedom, land and decent living.
This meaning and this purpose still remain the same, and will remain until the goal of African liberation is achieved.
When we now look back at these six years of disappointments and failures, setbacks and outright defeats, we can in each case trace the cause of them. The fault was not with the masses. Wherever it was in their power they gave unmistakable proof of their militancy. Almost all mass meetings held by government officials, or the Native Affairs Department, were a failure for the oppressors. Neither with threats nor with sweet promises could they break the hostility and non-confidence of the masses. Look at the people and the question of the war, for instance. All war meetings were a flop. The masses did not wait for Convention to decide that it is not their war. From the first moment they made it unmistakably clear to the government officials that the time when the rulers could bluff them with promises is over. And they don't care two straws if the N.R.C. crawls on its belly begging the government to include the Africans in the after-war schemes and it magnanimously agrees to consider the question. The masses will have nothing to do with the war, because they know by experience what this democracy is, for which South Africa is fighting. As for the threat of fascism, rightly or wrongly they think that no terror can be greater than the present terror under which they are living. Vereeniging, Black Maria, the Pass Laws, the police raids—there is no security from these terrors day or night. An African can consider himself extremely lucky if he gets out with his limbs intact from any police station. And however peaceful, law-abiding and careful he may be, he is never safe from not getting in the way of a white man and consequently of the police. And so long as he remains an outcast in the country of his birth, hunted down like an animal, and is conscious of it, no threat of fascist terrors, forced labour, concentration camps, can hold any terror for him. Similarly no babble about Atlantic charters or new deals can be a bait for him any more. He knows well, too well, the meaning of their fair play!
Therefore it is not the masses who can be blamed for these six years of defeats, but the leaders. Whenever anything depended on the spontaneous action of the masses it was all right. Whenever anything depended on the "wise" deliberation of the leaders, it was all wrong. Even in those few cases when the Convention did the right thing, this was due to the pressure of the masses upon the leaders and not to the lead given by the leaders....
Throughout these six years we can see two distinct traits in the Convention; knavish submission to the ruling classes and fear for their own people. In order to retain the goodwill of the authorities the leaders must see to it that the people do nothing that will really improve their lot, or challenge the status quo. For it is their political task to bring about conciliation between the oppressed and the oppressor, not conflict. It is their task to bring about the acceptance of oppression, not the determination to overthrow it.
Their submission is obvious. The second point, fear as far as their own people are concerned, deserves particular consideration. They, the leaders, knew that only by becoming a mass organisation, i.e. rooted in the masses, can the Convention become a real Convention, an African Parliament. But that is precisely what they, the leaders, didn't want it to become. They thought of the Convention as a manoeuvre, even as a threat, but when they discovered that it was something real, something big, they became frightened. The ruling class took notice of the Convention. There were free railway passes, negotiations with the Prime Minister, and quite a lot of publicity of a national forum. This was going too far. And they silently worked during six years to kill the Convention, or at least to make it harmless and innocuous. They failed to kill, they have succeeded on the second point, to emasculate Convention. The same General Secretary, Mr. Msimang, who came out so boldly with the pamphlet, "The Crisis''—"Rather death than slavery!''—later tried to place the Convention under the tutelage of the N.R.C.
It was not only the Congress leaders who sabotaged and tried to wreck the Convention from inside and outside. (I shall come to this later.) All the leaders were afraid of its becoming a mass organisation. They advocated no branches, a Federal constitution, meetings every three years. And when Convention adopted a resolution that didn't suit the leaders, it was simply brushed aside, and repudiated, like the 1935 resolution by Xuma, or conveniently buried in the archives by the secretaries, like the one about approaching the Trade Unions last year. Add to this the dictatorial manner of running the Convention meetings, the bureaucratically imposed agenda, the stifling of any criticism from the floor by the chair. Add .ill these factors together and you will understand why today, not only is there not a word about the Convention in the press of the ruling class, but not even in our own Bantu press. You will understand why there are not 400 delegates as in the first session, why the people don't talk Convention, and why they have lost faith in it....
Can anyone who advocated giving the legislation a trial, come forward and say that conditions in the Reserves have improved, or that the people have received more land as they were so lavishly promised, or that the ban on the export of cattle has been lifted and irrigation schemes carried through and soil erosion eliminated? Can they point to an improvement in the miserable lot of squatters, labour tenants or farm Labourers as a result of the new representation in Parliament and the N.R.C.? Are they able to say that our people are receiving more sympathetic consideration in the law courts or at the hands of the police? Can they point to better schools and improved education? Can they claim that life is easier in any way or that there is one ray of hope for the future?
You have had five years of this experiment. What have your representatives in Parliament done for the people they are supposed to represent? They did plead for the Africans, admitted. But how did they plead? In the same way that any White liberal, churchman or Joint Council man pleads. The African is your greatest asset, so it is not wise to waste it so recklessly and kill the hen that lays the golden eggs. That is their plea. We hear the same arguments about the gold mines, the forests, the rain-waters and other natural assets used and exploited by man. As if the African was brought into the world by Providence (also the monopoly of the White man) to serve the needs of the White man like any other natural asset. Not that I have anything against Mrs. Ballinger or Mr. Molteno. They are only members of their class. They are liberals and as such they are unable to see the African really as an equal. They are not better nor worse than their leader, Hofmeyr, who would like to see the African treated more humanely, again of course from the point of view of their greatest asset. He indignantly repudiated in Parliament any idea of equality between White and Black, maliciously attributed to him by the Nationalists. What an impudence, equality for the Africans!
I maintain that one has first to be in the skin of the oppressed and feel and suffer as an African does, if he wants to represent him. This representation therefore is a farce. Even if there were, not three White Representatives of six and a half million Africans, but thirty, it would still be a sham representation. If today I bring up this question of Parliamentary representation, it is not because I have any illusions or have changed my opinion about this fraud which is called Representation, but because I want the Convention to expose this fraud and tell the African people the truth! I want the Convention to tell the people that they have nothing to expect from this sham representation and whether they elect these three members or other three, they will not get higher wages or land or houses or education, but they will remain slaves as long as they accept and submit to this slavery legislation.
If you cannot agree to the idea of the boycott of the elections (and such a boycott today would be less effective than five years ago) at least do something to enhance the prestige of the Convention and show unmistakable African unity to the oppressors. Let Convention agree on the nominations, if nominations there must be, in the name of all Africans and not only of the Cape. Our people in the North have just as much right to representation as those in the Cape. If we demand equal representation for all citizens of the Union, it is because we believe in democratic rights for all. White, Black or Brown, North, South, East or West. Today we Africans are deprived of democratic rights. Let us show the oppressor that we shall struggle for them as a united people and that we have more sense of democracy and solidarity than they think. They are intentionally trying to divide us in order the more easily to break our resistance to oppression. Therefore it is all the more imperative for us to unite and even in this sham representation nominate as a united people.
In a still greater degree this applies to the N.R.C. If Parliamentary representation is a sham, the N.R.C. is worse. It is a complete dud. It is neither Native nor Representative nor Council. And besides, it presents such a sorry spectacle, that it is today the most humiliating insult for the Africans. They robbed us of our land and of our rights. They shouldn't mock us by forcing twelve men to play the role of jesters who kiss the whip that is lashing us. It is simply disgusting to read the proceedings of the Council once a year, the meek, humiliating language in which the Native Representatives speak, and the way the ruling class treat their deliberations and resolutions. Did Parliament ever discuss them? Of course not. It is just a farce at the expense of the Africans, providing many jokes for the oppressors: the Pondo Chief asking for an aeroplane ride, or Quamata seconding the vote of thanks, saying; "I am sure we have all enjoyed this session." (A session, by the way, when Clause 4 of the Land Bill was proclaimed, increasing servitude from 90 to 180 days.) Or A.M. Jabavu showing his appreciation at sitting in the Pretoria City Hall where "no Native has ever put his foot." A still greater joke was provided by Thema this year when he humbly begged the Minister for Native Affairs to include the Africans in the Government post war schemes. Surely they will be included—as usual. As cheap Native labour, as hewers of wood and drawers of water. The African is always in the Government schemes. That is what White South Africa is fighting for. You will tell me that the Convention is now powerless to do anything about it. That may be so. But there is still one thing the Convention can do. Tell our people the truth about the N.R.C. Tell them what it is and what it stands for. In exposing deception it can do the greatest service to our people.
You are all aware of the agitation going on in the country concerning Convention and Congress. Everywhere Congress officials are busy putting forward their propaganda for scrapping the Convention. Wherever necessary influential leaders are approached privately and won over to Congress by means of promises and baits. It was clear already to me during the last session of Convention that some underground propaganda was being carried on in the Convention itself. The silent rivalry extending over six years expressed itself in various ways. Although Congress was given a very prominent place in the leadership, the executive and all other committees of the Convention, they were never satisfied, because they did not want Convention to exist at all. Their position was more important than national unity. No wonder, then, that they are not satisfied today with their work of emasculating the Convention. They are out to kill it. Then, so they think, they will hold the position they held 23 years before the beginning of Convention. Today they come out openly: Congress or Convention. On the other hand Convention seems to do nothing to counteract the pernicious propaganda.
To me it is clear that this propaganda is playing right into the hands of our oppressors. Nothing would please them better than the end of Convention. For even if today it is weak and harmless, it forms a potential threat to become some day a real African Parliament. Congress is no threat to them at all. For 29 years they have dealt with Congress and are pleased with the results. Its whole history, with its corruptions and embezzlement of funds, its petty feuds of little leaders—all feared this is a sufficient guarantee to the ruling class that nothing is to be feared from that quarter. In the Cape alone there are three organisations each pretending to be the National Congress. Outside Johannesburg, its influence is nil. I am convinced that it can never become a national organisation, able to replace Convention.
It may succeed by fifth column methods to kill the Convention, which is still very weak as a result of the wrong leadership and a faulty constitution, but it can never replace it and become an all-embracing organisation. In political practice, an organisation which has once proved bankrupt, cannot hope to flourish again and win the confidence of the people. But even if Congress could achieve the impossible and reach its former heights, it can never be more than a political party that practises fishing in the political backwash, full of petty intrigues and above all guilty of reaction.
Congress belongs to the past. Convention is a national organisation of all parties and stands for the future! In the Convention there is a place for all organisations; in the Congress for none. Convention wants to unite all in the struggle for the liberation of all Non-Europeans.