Hertzog and Pirow’ Bills were putting the Africans more and more into a state of slavery’. Gumede, April 1930.

INTRODUCTION

In 1930 Gumede had taken the initiative to call for a fighting policy in South Africa. All over the country protest meetings were broken up and militants harassed by the police, imprisoned or banished to remote rural areas. Yet it is striking that Gumede was allowed to voice his protests at numerous political rallies. This phenomenon calls for closer investigation. One of the bitterest moments in Gumede’s political life was in 1930 when he had to recognise that he had lost the presidency of both the LAR and the ANC. My concern in this chapter is to focus specifically on the historical developments and events that led to his ousting from these two organisations. Gumede’s subsequent public and private career until 1946 is also investigated.

‘ONLY A MILITANT POLICY WILL BRING US LIBERATION’

For Gumede the year 1930 started on an unfortunate note. The tragedy, was that under his leadership the rift between the two wings within Congress had widened. The reasons for this division were manifold, the main one being the accusations by the old guard that Gumede was more concerned with “Communism than with the actual affairs of the ANC”.661 Another complaint was that since he had taken office there had been no improvement in the weak financial position of the organisation. It is true that Gumede was not an effective administrator. Matters reached a crisis at the first executive committee meeting on 5 January 1930 when the conservative members resigned en bloc. They charged Gumede with Communistic tendencies and negligence in the execution of his presidential duties. Furthermore they objected against the ANC’s affiliation to the Communist backed League Against Imperialism.

Gumede put up a futile fight and challenged “anyone to prove that he is a Communist”. Nevertheless, he was prepared to defend the cause of the CPSA. Congress had worked with the CPSA in 1919 and again in 1927, accepted financial assistance from it in Johannesburg, and never had any trouble from those of its members who belonged to the ANC. The decision to affiliate to the LAI had been taken openly by the Congress leadership. As regards the LAR, it was no more than the reincarnation of the old Funa Ma Lungelo - we seek our rights - movement. I am in sympathy with the CPSA, who alone pleaded the cause of the Black proletariat.

Undoubtedly, Gumede’s dream of ‘creating mutual understanding within Congress’, lay shattered. The White press laid the blame for the “ANC Crisis” at his door.663 Communists, like Bunting and Eddie Roux, appeared reluctant to turn their backs on Gumede. They invited him to an All-in Conference on 26 January in Johannesburg. The only Whites present, apart from Communists, were members of the Garment Workers’ Union and the Jewish Workers’ Club. The aim of the meeting was to consider ways and means of defeating the new batch of racial laws of the Hertzog Government. The conference adopted a strongly worded resolution, calling for mass demonstrations, strikes, passive resistance and refusal to pay taxes. The militants called for a general strike, knowing very well that it might encounter the same kind of police harassment experienced at Durban and Potchefstroom. Still unaware of the latest ECCI resolutions on the re-organisation of the LAR, a large majority of the delegates wished the LAR to lead the strike campaign.

The call for a general strike was largely ignored by the Black proletariat. Selby Msimang was proved correct when he warned that “the masses were not prepared to sacrifice lives without prospect of gain”.665 There were isolated cases of African strikes despite severe police harassment. Despite the lack of the Africans’ support for mass action, Gumede had no intention of abandoning his militant line. In March 1930 a conference of delegates from the CPSA, Transvaal ANC, the Ballinger and Kadalie sections of the ICU and the SA Federation of Non-European Trade Unions proposed that a mass campaign be launched against Pirow and Hertzog’s Native Bills.666 Gumede remained hopeful that his comrades in the Transvaal ANC would move closer to the adoption of his fighting policy. The ANC and ICU delegates were prepared to listen to what the Communists said about the struggle for a Native Republic, but in political practice they went their own way. This was demonstrated most clearly when the ANC and ICU delegates had to vote on the issue of participation in strike and mass actions. The leaders of the Transvaal ANC hesitated to align themselves with the CPSA. Wary of Communist infiltration in their branch, the leaders renounced any further dealings with the CPSA.

The CPSA openly embraced Gumede and declared a verbal war against the reactionary policy of his Transvaal comrades “who instead of championing the cause of the bottom dog, rather supports the capitalists on earth”.

THE ANC CONFERENCE, APRIL 1930

On the eve of the April Conference, Gumede launched yet another attack against the Government’s Native Policy:

The general feeling is that South Africa has failed to rule the Native and there is a desire for appeal to the courts of justice or to decide on passive resistance as an answer to this anti-Native legislation. The Natives are alarmed. In fact there exists a sort of scare among all classes, due to the Riotous Assemblies Act Amendment Bill, and the Masters and Servants Act Amendment Bill. The latter seeks to impose a tax of five pounds on Natives who do not work in rural areas. Then there are the Native Administration Act Amendment Bill and the Native Urban Areas Act Amendment Bill.

Any opposition to these measures on the party (sic) of Native leaders is attributed to the work of agitators, because they are outspoken in their protest against bad laws which breathe oppression and depression. The fact was that the conditions which now obtained had existed in the Free State during its Republican days. What was now intended was an extension of the old Republican laws through the country. Gumede stressed that agitation against this impossible condition existed and was growing every day and would remain till the rights of the Africans had been duly restored. Furthermore, Gumede argued that Communism had nothing to do with the present discontent:

The government and Parliament are alone responsible, for these anti-Native laws that have caused much strong feeling against the rulers. There can be no doubt, that it is human nature to follow anyone who is kindly and sympathetically disposed. The Communist has undoubtedly taken up the Native cause and he states the Native case better than the Native would himself.

In conclusion, Gumede pointed out that the African question had assumed international importance:

Nearly all the European nations were now taking an interest in Native affairs. The League of Nations had also, in a way, been discussing the Native question of South Africa and so had other international bodies, including the League against Imperialism. Even Russia had discussed the matter. For Gumede, the April congress started on a low note. A few days before the meeting, The Friend reported that prominent African leaders whom they had interviewed, who did not have the courage to disclose their identities, had indicated their reluctance to support Gumede’s re-election. They were in favour of electing a new leader, ... “an able man, who would command the respect of both the Europeans and his fellow-Bantu”.670 The man would be required to visit the various provinces, and in keeping touch with the aspirations of these, dictate a suitable policy. One is tempted to link these reports with Gumede’s decision to step down as President-General.671 The CPSA expressed their disappointment with Gumede’s decision to decline to stand for re-election. A reader of Abantu Batho expressed the wish that Gumede should stand for re-election.

Gumede was prepared for yet another bruising in the power struggle with the old guard. In his presidential address he disclosed the organisational weaknesses which he had inherited in 1927. He dealt exhaustively with the financial difficulties and irregularities of his organisation. He then launched an attack on the Government’s recent anti-African legislation:

Hertzog and Pirow’s Bills were putting the Africans more and more into a state of slavery. The Englishman too, had broken his word of honour to the Africans. The Natives had been termed agitators because they respectfully, constitutionally and moderately asked for the restoration of their rights. This anti-African legislation violated the existing agreement between England and the Natives of South Africa. The Bills are so intolerable that speedy and drastic measures must be adopted if we were to gain our liberty and maintain our manhood and self respect.

Gumede shared his knowledge and interpretation of world politics. He gave an in-depth analysis of some of the major revolutions against imperialism, including the impending Indian Revolution. Gumede pointed out that “a terrible economic crisis was threatening the capitalistic world, where millions of unemployed were being added to an already chronic number”. He denounced the talks about the League of Nations and naval disarmament as “smoke screens to hide the preparations for war”. In dealing with Soviet Russia, Gumede declared that nowhere in the rest of the world had he received such an enthusiastic welcome and friendly treatment as he had received from the leaders of Russia.

Soviet Russia is the only real friend of all subjected races in the world, and one of our aims should be to resist by all means possible an onslaught against our only friend. Oppressed peoples all over the world are being inspired by that ideal of emancipation expressed by the Russian revolution. Gumede warned his audience not to look upon either the British or Union Government for assistance in their struggle for freedom.

But to speak the plain truth, the British Government headed by MacDonald is trying to crush the oncoming Indian revolution. We have failed in our petitions to the British Government; our supplications to the Governor-general have been futile; of equal futility were our resolutions and petitions to the Union Government. Our appeals to the courts have only resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of money. Gumede proposed that Congress start relying on their own strength, also on the strength of the masses of colonially oppressed peoples all over the world with whom they had to work in conjunction; “on the strength of the revolutionary masses of the White workers in the countries with whom we have to join forces”.

Significantly, Gumede reiterated his call for an African republic with equal rights for all, but free from all foreign and local domination. He emphasised the need to organise and unite the industrial and farm workers into all-powerful unions; to develop the demonstration idea; to go in for strikes, to burn passes and refuse to pay taxes. Let us go back from this conference resolved to adopt the militant policy, which is the only policy which will bring us liberation in the spirit which has been exhibited by oppressed peoples all over the world. Underlying Gumede’s insightful speech, was his ability to understand clearly Africans’ growing suspicion and rejection of the Government’s anti-African legislation, hence his proposed radical steps to overcome it. Undoubtedly, Gumede’s own Executive Council shared his indifference towards the Government, but the old guard did not have the courage and determination to do something about it. Gumede realised that constitutional and peaceful extra-Parliamentary options of struggle had long ago been exhausted. Gumede was convinced that if the ANC persisted in their old tactics of struggle they would never succeed in breaking the deadlock of negotiations with the Government.677 Consequently Gumede tried to persuade the delegates to resort to a more militant policy, one of passive resistance and defiance campaigns.

For Gumede and his supporters the die was cast. Suffice it to say that Gumede’s speech evoked disorder and a uproar, “one section disclaiming any connection with the views expressed while the other loudly vented its approval”. The old guard led by Dube protested against the tone and spirit of Gumede’s address. Dube engaged in a debate with the Communists and appealed to the conservative delegates to reject the speech. He reproached Gumede for threatening the Government. He complained that the pandemonium which erupted was due largely to the action of Gumede in inviting people who were totally opposed to the principles of the ANC. Militants like Nzula, Ndobe, Tonjeni rallied behind Gumede.678 Support came also from Champion, who since the time of the Durban beer riots in 1929 was at loggerheads with Dube. Ballinger imputed honest motives to Gumede but disagreed with the latter’s radical sentiments. Following his speech, the liberal press was determined to discredit Gumede. The Friend stubbornly maintained that Gumede’s outbursts “were essentially, nothing but the crude commonplace of Communist propaganda”.679 The Friend warned the Government not to ignore those outbursts but to deal with those who, by their actions and words, were endangering the security of the State. The same newspaper expressed its support for Pirow’s proposed legislation to cope with agitators. A compromise was effected in the appointment of a committee to investigate Gumede’s address and to lay recommendations before the congress. A calmer atmosphere prevailed on the second day of the conference. The Communists came into prominence when they tabled a resolution deprecating the action of the Government for having failed to summon a round-table conference in connection with the latest Native Bills. The Rev. Mahabane condemned the autocratic action of the Government as a calculated effort to render the Representation of Natives in Parliament Bill still less acceptable to the African than ever before. Gumede and his supporters agreed to Mahabane’s resolution. B. Ndobe of Cape Town’s amendment to Mahabane’s resolution, namely that a day should be set aside for general protest, strikes and demonstrations throughout the country, was rejected by the old guard. The long awaited election of new office bearers took place at the second day of Conference. The Communists and the rank and file within the ANC campaigned hard for Gumede’s re-election. Gumede, Seme and the Rev Mahabane were nominated for the leadership of Congress. To ensure Gumede’s defeat, the old guard persuaded Mahabane to stand down as candidate.

The polls remained an important indicator of the mood and political concerns of the delegates. The first round of voting for the presidency was disallowed since the numbers of voting papers collected were found to be in excess of those issued. But Seme’s rise to power was in the making. Jeremiah Moshesh’s prediction that Gumede would be ousted in June 1929 came true. When the ballots were cast for the second time, Gumede was ousted by fourteen votes to thirty nine.682 Gumede’s support had come from the group of African Communists on the Rand, the radicals of the Western Cape branch of the ANC and Champion. Champion’s support should be seen a vote against Seme and because of family ties with Gumede since he certainly had no commitment to Communist politics.683 To add to the dismay of the rank and file, Seme not only excluded them from his new executive, but expressed his determination to counteract the effect of the radicalism and communism in Congress. The Government must have sighed with relief that Gumede had been defeated.

The most obvious question in the mind of the reader is why Gumede lost against Seme. Essentially, what is clear from the polls, is that the chiefs and delegates who favoured Seme’s election represented the established trends in ANC ideology. Central to the old guard’s political philosophy was their belief that Congress alone, and not Gumede’s LAI, should be the central co-ordinating body for national expression. Political emancipation was to be pursued by consultation rather than by mass action.684 The ambiguous position of the chiefs as salaried government officials should also be taken into account. Ironically, Gumede had himself, referred in 1904 to the appointments of outsiders and chiefs of lower repute as salaried government indunas. These chiefs knew very well that Communism held no advantages for them, hence their support for Seme.

Stripped of his political power base within Congress, Gumede devoted his energy to rebuilding Congress’s newspaper, Abantu Batho. Gumede became the sole proprietor of the newspaper in 1929. Under Gumede’s management, Abantu Batho started printing Garvey’s political ideas. Gumede not only maintained contact with his fellow-members of the Negro Commission founded in Brussels in 1927, but also participated in the activities of the African trade unions.685 On 18 May 1930 Gumede was elected as a delegate to the International Conference of Negro Workers, initially scheduled to be held in Geneva in December 1929, and which was to take place in London in July. Gumede was refused a passport to travel to England.686 The CPSA denounced the Government’s action as an intolerable slur on the African race and urged a vigorous campaign of mass meetings to air their resentment. The South African government persuaded the British Labour government to prohibit the congress from taking place on British soil. The conference eventually took place in Hamburg.

Meanwhile, the Western Cape radicals Ndobe and Tonjeni refused to support the presidency of Seme. At the May 1930 Conference of the CPNC, Gumede’s April presidential speech was repeated and received thunderous applause. Two hundred against three voted in support of Gumede’s April presidential speech. Pirow’s banning order on Kadalie, prohibiting him from attending or addressing public meetings on the Rand and in Pretoria, convinced Gumede that Seme’s advocacy of “fighting the Government constitutionally”689 was misplaced. At a meeting held in Johannesburg in June, under the auspices of the Independent ICU, CPSA and other supporting bodies, Gumede seconded a resolution which challenged the legal and moral validity of the ban on Kadalie.

The meeting resolved to embark on strike action, destruction of passes, refusal to pay taxes on a Union-wide scale. Gumede supported the militants’ call for a mass Pass Laws defiance campaign on Dingaan’s Day, 16 December 1930. During September 1930 Gumede, addressed several meetings of Kadalie’s Independent ICU on the Rand where he advocated the Pass Laws defiance campaign.691 The CPSA’s initiatives to capture the leading role in the pass defiance campaign, antagonised Kadalie. Only 50 delegates assembled at a CPSA meeting on 26 October. Gumede was shocked to learn that Kadalie had used his influence in Bloemfontein against the Pass Laws defiance campaign. Only 150 passes were burned in Johannesburg, 300 in Potchefstroom, 400 in Pretoria and 3000 in Durban. Johannes Nkosi was killed during the violent confrontation with the Durban Borough Police, an event which Iain Edwards considers as “one of the main reasons for the destruction” of the CPSA during the 1930s.693 I will return to this issue shortly.

The latter months of 1930 were crucial for Gumede’s newspaper. Although Abantu Batho was formed specifically as an ANC paper in 1912, Seme and an increasing number of his supporters were no longer concerned about its fate after Gumede’s election defeat in 1930. While Gumede was struggling to keep Abantu Batho afloat, Seme had already launched a new paper, Ikwezi le Afrika in Durban and Johannesburg in 1930. Declining circulation and financial difficulties forced Gumede to increase the number of advertisement of patent medicines. Despite his many setbacks Gumede’s editorials maintained a radical line. He supported the founding of the Independent ANC under Gomas, Tonjeni and Ndobe in the Western Cape in November 1930. As had been the case in the past, Gumede was excluded from the Government’s Native Conference - the first since 1926 - which was held in Pretoria in December 1930. The African delegates condemned the Native Service Contract Bill as “a measure aimed at the introduction of slave conditions”.695 The Government was not at all pleased with the delegates’ attitude and threatened not to convene similar Conferences in future. Gumede was again convinced that he could no longer look upon the Government for political salvation. Disillusioned with Seme’s refusal to resort to a fighting policy,696 Gumede continued to align himself with the rank and file in the CPSA. Gumede attended the historic ninth Conference of the CPSA in Johannesburg in December 1930.697 High on the agenda were the two ECCI resolutions, the one setting out the African Republic thesis and the second dealing with the organisational problems facing the CPSA. Deeply divided over policy changes emanating from the Comintern since 1928/29, as well as personality clashes, the CPSA faced an uncertain future. Douglas Wolton, a dogmatic and ultra-left comrade, was responsible for carrying out the rigid Comintern policy in South Africa.698 This policy turned out to be one of unconditional “purification” of the Party, resulting in the expulsion and resignation of many of the most valuable and loyal members. Among those expelled were Sydney Bunting, Bill Andrews and Solly Sacks. Importantly forGumede, Wolton decided to replace the LAR with Ikaka Labasebenzi - the Workers’ Shield - in January 1931. Wolton did not invite, let alone allow, Gumede to take part in the work of this organisation. Wolton later stated that the organisation failed to stimulate any widespread support amongst the African masses. The new Comintern’s policy effectively signalled the end of Gumede’s close working relationship with the CPSA. The CPSA was only able to regain strength and influence with the coming of the Second World War and the consequent expansion of South Africa’s industrial and commercial sectors.699 It was during this period that Gumede reaffirmed his admiration for the Soviet Union.

 

GUMEDE AND THE 1931 NATIVE ECONOMIC COMMISSION

In March 1931 Gumede travelled to Natal to give evidence before the Native Economic Commission. This Commission under the chairmanship of Dr Holloway was appointed in June 1930 to enquire and report on:

  • 1. the social and economic conditions of Africans especially in the larger towns of the Union.
  • 2. the application to Africans in urban areas of the existing laws relating to the regulation of wages and conditions of employment and for dealing with industrial disputes.
  • 3. the economic and social effect of the residence of Africans on the European and Coloured population.
  • 4. what proportion of the public revenue is directly or indirectly contributed by the Africans. Gumede’s comprehensive testimony provided a valuable insight into his political philosophy at that time. At the outset Gumede expressed Africans’ doubt whether they would be in a position to influence the recommendations of the Commission. He stressed the growing ill-feelings between White and Black and referred to the sporadic incidences of violent confrontations between the police and Africans protesters in Durban. He launched an attack on the Government’s administration of African affairs.

The Government destroyed our traditions, customs and usages as a people and now you come to ask us questions about the relations between the Whites and Blacks. All the conditions under which we live today are conditions which make our life unhappy. We have often made representations to the Government about our grievances. We also like to progress. The system of Government of the White man are (sic) responsible for the scattering of the Natives.

Again we see Gumede regarding himself as spokesperson for the African masses. Responding to specific economic questions, Gumede stated that Africans were at a loss as a result of the Land Act of 1913 which “shuts the door in front of them”. Overstocking of Africans’ land should be laid at the door of the Government, “because you have taken the land away from us and put up wire fences”. The soil was becoming impoverished because the Government had restricted Africans to small areas. The lack of land had resulted in Africans drifting from one place to another.

In regard to landless Natives, may we say that there are quite a number of chiefs who hold office, but who have no Native location. We would plead to the Government the desirability of areas being set aside for such chiefs. Many Natives who lack land would be grateful if the Government would start settlement schemes, where they would be permitted to acquire land and settle there to live permanently. There are no Natives worth speaking of who have farms of their own. Those who have land are principally persons who bought it in partnership with others. Gumede argued that African landowners were also handicapped in developing their land, owing to their lack of funds.

If the Government could come to their assistance in the same way as the Government towards Europeans, by allowing them to take advances from the Land Bank, it would be very helpful. The products of Native industry do not reach markets because the Natives find it difficult to manage and to get their produce to the markets. What they are able to dispose of is usually taken by traders who pay very little for it. Gumede complained that “the land which was given to our people by the Queen is no longer ours outright”, since it was held in trust for them. He protested against the leasing of trust land to Whites, especially in Zululand.

A great deal of Zululand has been taken by White people, who hold it under a 99 years’ lease. We do not know what the financial position is in regard to the Zululand Native Trust. We would earnestly ask that something be done to have the land in Zululand, it was promised to us in 1881. Gumede went on to explain their political grievances. One of the results which we have observed is that persons who had at heart the bringing to the notice of the authorities such grievances are dubbed agitators. Those persons who are called agitators were persons who supposed that they were following constitutional methods, methods which are followed by the Europeans themselves. It is painful that such consequences should have followed, and it makes us wonder whether, after all, our loyalty to the Government is to be rewarded in that way.

Gumede raised his objections against the banishment of African leaders, one being Allison Champion. He objected against Champion’s banishment from Natal. We do not know why a man should be treated in that way, when there has been no trial. We are seriously wondering whether the rights gained by the White people in the time of King Henry III through the Magna Carta are, after all, not to be extended to us natives. Gumede pointed out that the Colour Bar Act, the Masters and Servant Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Native Administration Act of 1927 had “affected almost all matters concerning the administration of Native Affairs very seriously, to our detriment”. He protested against the heavy tax burden on the African communities.

We are made to pay poll tax here, which bears very heavily upon us, and it is difficult for us to understand why that should be done, because, we pay our taxes to the Government in the same way as other people do, in indirect taxation. Everything that we buy is somehow taxed and the Government gets benefit from it. In his conclusion, Gumede focused on another burning grievance - the Pass Laws. Gumede testified that the Africans “are weary of passes and that the time for passes has passed”. Gumede argued that “passes have actually led to bloodshed”. He referred to their futile cases of representations that have been made to the effect that there should be one document only to serve all pass purposes.

That was also the recommendation of the Inter-Departmental Committee; but nothing has been done to carry out the recommendation. The Chairman of the Native Economic Commission assured the witnesses that they would consider all their grievances, except the issue of their franchise“ since they have nothing to do with it”. On his return to Johannesburg, Gumede ensured that Abantu Batho reported on Africans’ suffering as a result of, amongst others, the economic depression and the drought which scourged the country by 1931. Hundreds of African workers in the municipal and state sectors were replaced by Whites as a result of Hertzog’s “civilised labour policy” of 1926. By mid-1931, over half the residents of the Western Native Township in Johannesburg were consistently behind in their rent.

The disastrous state of Africans’ economic prospects had greatly threatened the closure of Abantu Batho in Natal and Johannesburg. Economic reasons, coupled with determined efforts by Umteteli wa Bantu and Seme’s paper, Ikwezi le Afrika “to kill Abantu Batho”704 , forced Gumede to sell his newspaper to The African and Indian Trading Company in 1931. Gumede and Mweli Skota formed this Company in 1927 in Johannesburg with a capital of £10,000.705 It appeared to be defunct in 1931.706 After the closure of Abantu Batho in 1931-32, Gumede returned to Pietermaritzburg in 1932 where he continued wrangling over African politics.707 The long-expected Report of the Native Economic Commission of 1930-32 which was published in May 1932, convinced Gumede that the Government had not “attempted to produce a tabloid solution for the Native problem”.708 One salient point emphasised by the Commission was that of the underdevelopment of the Native Reserves and Locations. Africans in Natal and elsewhere in the country were skeptical of the attitude of the Government towards the Report. “Can we have confidence that the Natives in the Reserves can get a square deal?” asked Ilanga Lase Natal. The Editor pleaded for a Round Table Conference between Africans’ representatives and the Government.

The Government’s response to the Report was the passing of the Native Service Contract Act. The Act legalised the whipping of African youths for offences against the master and servants laws, authorised African guardians to bind minor children to labour, and aimed at turning share croppers into labour tenants. In June 1932, Gumede joined a delegation of chiefs to the Native Commissioner to protest against the new Bill.

GUMEDE AND AFRICAN POLITICS, 1932-35

The Report of the Native Economic Commission in May 1932 served as an impetus for Gumede’s re-involvement with African politics in Natal. Following his return to Pietermaritzburg in 1932, Gumede set about attempting to introduce a more militant policy into the NNC, and to align the NNC more closely with the ANC. Gumede chaired a special meeting of the NNC in Pietermaritzburg on 30 June 1932 where it was resolved that all future NNC meetings were to be convened under the auspices of the Natal African Congress (NAC).711 Dube in his absence was appointed president with Gumede as chairman. Offices were to be opened in Durban and Pietermaritzburg. Much of the deliberation centered around the plight of evicted African farm labourers.

The meeting resolved to send a delegation to the Government to call for the repeal of all oppressive laws and to allow African beer brewing. Executive members were summoned to the following meeting on 1 August 1932 to formulate a new constitution for the Natal African Congress.

Gumede’s attempts to revive his old NAC failed. The main reason was Dube’s refusal either to recognise the new NAC or to take up his position as president. Executive members of the NAC expressed their disappointment at the refusal of Dube to accept his election as president of the NAC.713 The tension between Gumede and Dube surfaced clearly at a meeting of the NAC in December 1932. Gumede claimed that there was no history of when and how Dube was elected president of the NNC in Natal. The majority of the delegates resented Dube’s indifference. The meeting consequently resolved that the NNC “was dead and that the NAC was alive”. At this meeting, Gumede was elected president of the NAC.

Gumede became increasingly involved with the politics of Kadalie’s Independent ICU from 1933. He chaired one of the conferences of the Independent ICU at East London which was characterised by a growing division amongst its members.715 A minority group under J. Magade, the secretary of the Cape Province ICU refused to abide any longer by Kadalie’s leadership. Magade accused Kadalie of misappropriation of funds. Gumede was forced to vacate his position as chairman due to harassment by Magade and his supporters. The failure of the East London conference did not put an end to Kadalie’s hopes of re-unification of the several ICU branches.

Gumede also chaired the next re-unification conference of the Independent ICU in the Ebenezer Hall in Bloemfontein on 17 June 1933. The delegates representing the three surviving sections, namely the ICU of Africa, the Natal ICU and the Independent ICU, decided to bury the hatchet and to reconcile their differences. Kadalie and Gumede were elected as temporary secretaries and instructed to hold a further conference in October in Durban to ratify an agreed constitution for a united ICU.717 Unfortunately, like the East London branch, the ICU yase Natal was divided into two opposing sections. Champion, who returned to Durban in October 1933, did not support Gumede and Kadalie’s re-unification initiatives.718 Champion’s indifference towards the October Conference threatened the success of the ICU re-unification movement. When Gumede and Kadalie returned to Durban on 17 December 1932, they found that the ICU Natal had made no preparations for their scheduled Conference. Gumede claimed that Champion was informed about the meeting several months earlier and had given his approval. Tyamzashe accused Champion as being the “obstructionist” who wanted to wreck the Conference.719 Gumede too, expressed his disappointment at Champion’s recent attitude. Historians agree that Champion was an infinitely complex individual.720 Wickins ascribed Champion’s attitude to the notion that the visiting delegates were interfering in the domestic affairs of Natal. After three days of negotiations with the police, during which time the lives of the delegates were also threatened by a mob of gangsters, the Amalaitas, the Conference was opened by Kadalie on 20 December. Thereafter Gumede delivered what Tyamzashe labelled a “masterly address” which was essentially aimed at a revival of the ICU on modern lines.

The ICU before the attacks that disabled and brought it down to what it is today, was gaining power and influence. We must revive and re-organise it on modern lines so that it should appeal to workers of this country, as a thoroughly overhauled machine. Gumede issued a warning to the audience to ensure that they elect leaders capable of advancing their (workers’) cause. Turning to the leaders, Gumede pointed out:

Let me boldly say it is for you to show the country that you are prepared to get fair play for the people you represent and that restrictions imposed upon African organisations by the Government and Municipalities were uncalled for. It is difficult to ascertain whether Gumede was advancing his own prospects of getting elected. The indications are that he was not engaged with the Indepencent ICU after 1933. The Independent ICU never became a significant economic and political force, notwithstanding Gumede’s appeals in 1933.

CANDIDATE FOR THE NATIVES’ REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL

In 1935 when Hertzog presented his notorious African Bills to Parliament, Gumede was 68 and Nelson Mandela a mere 17 years old.722 The first Bill proposed to amalgamate all the existing African Trusts into a single one for the whole country. The Trust, under the Governor-General, would acquire and hold lands for the Africans. In addition to the areas scheduled by the Land Act of 1913, further areas were to be released at once. The second Bill signalled the abolition of the Cape Native Franchise. In its place the Africans obtained the right to elect three Europeans for the Assembly and two members for the Cape Provincial Council. Africans in the other three provinces also became entitled to send two Europeans to the Senate.

The Representation of Natives Bill provided for a Natives’ Representative Council - a purely advisory body - comprised of eleven European members and sixteen African members. The functions of the NRC were to consider and report to the Minister on Native Affairs on:

  • 1. proposed legislation insofar as it might affect the African population;
  • 2. any matter referred to it by the Minister; and
  • 3. any matter specially affecting the interests of Africans in general.

Following the publication of the Bills in April 1935, Jabavu drafted letters to the Black newspapers calling for a national convention and warning Africans leaders to reject the Bills at their regional conferences which were convened by the Government.725 In Natal, Gumede was one of the first to support Jabavu’s viewpoints. In a comprehensive letter to Ilanga Lase Natal, Gumede outlined his opinions about the Bills. At the outset, he regretted the intention of the Government to remove Africans from the Cape common roll, adding:

The vote was the basis of unity in the Cape and should be the basis for making laws for the rest of the Union. It would be a sad day if the Cape Vote was to be taken away. In 1865 the Africans in Natal lost their vote. No votes were taken away when the trekkers left the Cape for the Transvaal and Orange Free State. Today they even govern themselves, while the Africans are subjected to suffering. I agree with Jabavu that Africans should be given a chance to discuss the Bills. The Bills should be postponed pending the outcome of the consultation of the African people.

At the same time, Gumede expressed concern whether the Government would listen to Jabavu and other African leaders since all African laws have been passed without any consultation. All the oppressive African laws are the result of non-consultation. It is a waste of time to send deputations to the Government. Even when Select Committees are appointed, they won’t change anything. Turning to the Native Trust and Land Bill, Gumede complained that “the land allotted to the African people was insufficient”. He explained that shortage of land had led to great suffering for the Africans and loss of their live-stock to the White farmers. He referred to the unsuccessful 1913 ANC deputation to England to protest against the Land Act. With reference to the NRC, Gumede requested that the Hertzog’s Union Native Council Bill of 1926, which made provision for a council of 50 Black members should be discussed, rather than the 1935 Bills. Gumede had little, if any, faith in the mission of the forthcoming Government regional Conferences on Hertzog’s four Bills. In his conclusion, Gumede stated that he still adhered to what Congress had resolved way back in 1918, namely that the Protectorates should remain under British authority and should not be incorporated into the Union unless those people expressed such a desire.

Despite his reservations about the regional conferences, Gumede attended the first Conference held in Pietermaritzburg on 4 September 1935 where the SNA defended the Bills.727 He and his supporters raised their objections to the Bills. Consequently, the main resolution appealed to the Government “to deal only with the NRC which would give them the opportunity to discuss the other Bills with the Government”.728 Furthermore, Gumede et al stressed that they did not want European senatorial representation, as proposed in the draft Native Bills. They preferred to make direct representation to the Government. Gumede was a member of the committee, which was to report on the findings of the conference. There were signs of two conflicting schools of thought on the Hertzog Bills amongst the African leaders in Natal. Dube, Rev. A Mtimkulu and a group of chiefs were prepared to support the Bills.

Gumede, Luthuli and a minority group of younger intellectuals remained unmoved in their opposition to Hertzog’s Bills. African leaders’ opinions raised at the other regional conferences ranged from caution to uncompromising opposition against certain clauses of the Bills. A second regional conference was convened in Pietermaritzburg on 22 October 1935. Z.K. Matthews, principal of Adams College, was alarmed at the non-attendance of educated Africans. The chiefs and African leaders repeated their objections that the Bill on Native Representation was “too complicated for the lay and non-legal mind”. Gumede’s group won the day when the conference resolved to “request for an increase in the number of members of the NRC and also a delay in the bringing of such a Bill into operation”.

In December 1935 the Minister of Native Affairs called Dube and Regent Mshyeni to Pretoria in a bid to secure their support for the Native Bills. Meanwhile Gumede travelled to Bloemfontein to attend the important All-African Convention (AAC). The AAC unanimously rejected the Hertzog Franchise Bill, and instead demanded a common citizenship for all South Africans on the basis of partnership. Seme claimed that the resolutions passed by the AAC “are the best reflections of the dominating voice and all African organisations are requested to do everything to help carry them into effect”.

Not surprisingly, Dube not only differed with Seme, but took to his newspaper and raised his disappointment at the speeches and resolutions of the AAC. Speeches such as were made on the Franchise Bill could have no other effect than to alienate the sympathy of that wide and ever growing body of responsible European opinion both in Parliament and out which is desirous of seeing justice and fair play being done to the Bantu people.734

The AAC not only failed to halt the passage of the Hertzog Native Bills in April 1936, but also failed to launch any concrete program of action. African leaders were now confronted with the dilemma of whether to accept or reject the NRC with its political limitations. Gumede’s dilemma was partly addressed when the majority of the delegates of the AAC decided in favour of co-operation at their second congress in July 1936. A minority group of left-wingers were hoping to wreck the NRC from the inside. Africans’ political reaction to the Hertzog Bills had breathed new life into the ANC. The Executive of the ANC endorsed the decision of the AAC at their December conference and set about to resuscitate the organisation.

In Natal, Dube called a meeting of chiefs and African leaders with a view of nominating their European Senator. Those nominated were Messrs. Guy, Ahrends, D. Shepstone and Dr Edgar Brookes. As for the NRC, Gumede was nominated for the urban seat, thus to represent Pietermaritzburg. Nominations to the NRC were held on 24 March 1937. In order to win a nomination, each candidate had to have at least 2000 votes. It was found that no seat was contested by only one nominee, which in effect meant that candidates had to contest two elections, first the nominations, and secondly, the elections proper.737 Gumede had to compete against five candidates for the two urban seats in Natal for the NRC. His opponents were Dube, Ndlovu (Vryheid), Champion (Durban), Kambula (Ladysmith) and Ngobo. There were only two candidates for the rural seats in Natal, namely Chiefs Mini and Mbaso. Roth suggested that Gumede and Champion could perhaps be seen to represent the strength of the proletariat in the elections and that their views could be described as being more radical than those of the other candidates.

The central theme of Gumede’s election manifesto was his commitment to serve the interests of the African people. This was no idle claim. His political curriculum vitae reflected a long history of sincere devotion to address the grievances of the African people. However, his official election manifesto portrayed a clear realisation that an emphasis on radicalism would not secure him a victory over his more conservative opponent, John Dube. Consequently, Gumede omitted any written reference to his earlier involvement with the radical LAR or the CPSA. Instead he gave an honest history of the scope and significance of his European visits and negotiations with the Union Government. Gumede listed eight goals he would pursue should he be elected. Firstly, he would negotiate for the immediate repeal of all oppressive African laws, amongst others, the Land Act of 1913; Native Urban Areas Act (1924); Native Contract Service Act. Secondly, Gumede wanted to see changes to the Native Administration Act of 1927. Thirdly, the plight of the African farm labourer should be addressed. Fourthly, the Government should be asked to issue people on the Mission reserves with grants of deeds. Fifthly, the Government should be asked to grant loans from the Land Bank to assist in the economic empowerment of Africans. In the sixth place, the Natal Native Code should be brought to the NRC for discussion with a view to removing any discriminatory clauses. In the seventh place, the Native Trust should be asked to report on the land allotment as well as giving a financial report of its activities since the Bill was introduced. In the eight place, the Africans in Natal should be given a report of what happened to the £10,000 which was transferred to the Union Government by the Natal Colony. As well as pursuing his eight goals, Gumede promised to work towards the achievement of unity in Natal and called upon the Government to increase the membership of the NRC. Despite the fact that Gumede and Dube never liked each other, both men’s election manifestoes contained no criticism levelled at each other. With both men in the late sixties, their political fate was in the hands of their supporters.

When the results of the nominations to the NRC were published on 3 April 1937, Gumede finished in the fifth place with 23, 338 votes.740 Dube easily won with 172,503 votes, demonstrating that he was the undisputed African leader in Natal. Gumede and Champion’s prospects of election for the NRC were dim. The second phase of the elections for members of the NRC were held on 21 June 1937. The electoral process was a very elaborate one, due mainly to the attempts by the authorities to circumvent the fact that the vast majority of the African electorate was illiterate. Voting was by show of hands. The results of the elections in Natal were similar to that of the nominations for the NRC. As was expected, Dube (311,638) and W. Ndlovu (161,647), who worked as a team, achieved a great triumph over Champion (154,609) and Gumede. Two major factors in Dube’s winning campaign were his close ties with Regent Mshiyeni ka Dinizulu, of the Zulu Royal House and the award of a honorary doctorate by the University of South Africa in 1936.741 More important for Gumede and Champion, Africans in Natal sent their political message in unmistakable terms that they favoured less radicalism.

Gumede and Champion remained hopeful that the Government would consider appeals for an increase in the membership of the NRC. Their hopes were dashed at a meeting at Pietermaritzburg on 10 September when Smuts remained silent about that possibility. Despite his setback in the NRC elections, Gumede found himself in demand as an adviser to the chiefs, helping chiefs putting their claims for land before the Native Affairs Commission. Following the introduction of the Native Laws Amendment Act in January 1938, Gumede voiced Africans’ opposition against the Act which exposed the majority of Africans to a constant danger of being endorsed out of any town by the authorities.743 Throughout 1938-39, Gumede took up the struggle against the Natal authorities’ implementation of the Pass Laws, the liquor laws and the pick-up vans.744 He represented the Pietermaritzburg branch of the NNC at the annual ANC meeting in Durban in December 1939, and supported the resolutions appealing to the Government to fulfil its promises on improved educational facilities for the Africans, socio-economic assistance and the extension of political rights.745 At the beginning of 1942, in the midst of the Second World War, Gumede availed himself again for nomination for the second election of the NRC.746 Gumede risked his chances of election by strongly propagating the cause of the Non-European United Front, founded in Cape Town in 1938 and headed by Cissie Gool. In an interview with the Guardian, Gumede gave his reason for supporting the NEUF, claiming:

This organisation can work successfully towards the betterment of all oppressed peoples. Mindful of Hitler’s attack on Russia, Gumede, for the first time since 1930, expressed his admiration for the Russian people and Stalin in particular. To me the USSR is a new Jerusalem. I met Stalin and had a long interview with him. Stalin impressed me tremendously. He is a great man. He was full of sympathy for the oppressed throughout the world.

Omitted from Gumede’s report, was any reference or appreciation of the work of the NNC. As would be seen later, this effectively destroyed his chances of election. Bunting has argued that the entry of the USSR into the war, and more particularly the tremendous achievements of the Russian army, had dispelled much of the ignorance and some of the prejudices about Communism. Bunting’s viewpoint was endorsed by the Minister of Justice, Dr Colin Steyn, in November 1941, when he declared that a “Russian victory will mean a victory for democracy”.749 Gumede’s pro-Russian sentiments was accepted without any official repudiation by the ANC leaders in 1942.

Evidence for this claim is based on the fact that at the end of July 1942, on the brink of the nominations for the NRC, Xuma, ANC president, publicly applauded Gumede and Dube as “pioneers who were the inspiration and foundation upon which the new leaders were trying to build”. Unfortunately for Gumede, Xuma’s praises could not secure his successful bid for nomination.750 Gumede’s failure to win nomination for the NRC provided important lessons for himself and future candidates. The rapid loss of support for Gumede against Dube in particular, were the African voters’ way of telling Gumede they disapproved of his enthusiasm for the Soviet Union, Stalin and the NEUF. Evidence for this conclusion is based on the many letters which appeared in Ilanga Lase Natal in which the NEUF was interpreted as a threat to the NNC.751 Cissie Gool’s declaration in 1939 that “the weapons of the NEUF will be the strike and the boycott” was in direct conflict with Dube’s commitment to friendly negotiations with the authorities.

Furthermore, the voters heeded the warning by the Native Affairs Commission against “irresponsible African leadership”. Archie Gumede argued that his father’s campaign for nomination was also hampered by a serious lack of funds. Adding to Gumede’s dismay was the fact that he lost against Selby Msimang, with whom he waged a war of words back in 1913 over the Land Act. Accepting yet another political defeat gracefully, Gumede’s mind was still set on serving his people. In September 1943, Gumede rendered assistance to three African workers who were unfairly dismissed by their firm, Ross and Co.753

TOWARDS THE END OF GUMEDE’S LIFE’S JOURNEY, 1943-46

The highlight of Gumede’s political career was his inauguration as honorary Life President of the ANC together with Dube, Makgatho and Mahabane. This honour was bestowed on them at the annual meeting of the ANC held in Bloemfontein in December 1943. Dube was unable to attend because of illness. One of the most important resolutions passed at the Congress provided for the formation of the ANC Youth League, which was to bring to the fore, the names of men like Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela, Govan Mbeki and Walter Sisulu, all of whom would become household names in a free and liberated South Africa.755 The mood of increased radicalism displayed by the ANC youth affected Gumede, who made the following prophecy:

Congress is looking up. I see in the youthfulness and enthusiasm of the delegates a new hope. Things will certainly move in the coming year.Gumede’s trust in the African youth bore fruit. The Youth League played a vital role in influencing the direction in which the mother-body moved.

Drawing its inspiration from the surge of nationalism, which was sweeping across Africa in the post World War Two era, the Youth League placed great emphasis on indigenous leadership and national self-determination. They claimed that “Africa is a Black man’s country”.757 Gumede’s prophecy and hopes about a revival of the ANC in 1944 also came true. The year 1944 was marked by an epidemic of African strikes, the Alexandra bus boycotts, and a mass campaign against the Pass Laws. On a more personal note for the veteran Gumede was the introduction of Old Age Pensions to Africans in accordance with the Pension Laws (Amendment Act) in 1944, amidst strong opposition from conservative White MPs.758 The Government acknowledged that Africans contributed to the country’s revenue by their labour on the mines, in industry and on the farms, hence they had a right to social services.

The rates payable were one pound for Africans in the cities; 15 shillings for town-dwellers and ten shillings for Africans in rural areas. A letter Gumede wrote to Champion revealed the former’s continued interest in the work of the NRC.761 At their meeting in August 1946 the NRC called for the abolition of all discriminatory legislation affecting non-Europeans. In a dramatic move the NRC decided to adjourn in protest. This defiant mood was also evident in the ANC. Meeting in October 1946, Congress dismissed an appeal by Kadalie to organise yet another petition to Parliament. Instead Congress voted for a motion calling on Africans to struggle for full citizen rights and to boycott elections to the NRC and to Parliament.762 For Gumede, the militant tone of resolutions adopted by the ANC signaled a long awaited victory. It was Gumede who unsuccessfully tried to launch Congress onto a more militant path back in 1927. His greatest mission had been to convince the old guard in the ANC that a more radical policy offered hope towards achieving a non-racial democracy in their native country. Then he had run into fierce opposition from the old guard who were strongly committed to peaceful and constitutional methods of agitation. Undoubtedly, the 1946 ANC resolutions offered some hope for the future. The Government’s illiberal policy towards Africans had caused the turning point in the attitude of the African intellectuals, radicals and proletariat alike.

The old guard like Dube and Makgatho passed away before the significant October 1946 ANC Conference. News of Gumede’s death and funeral on 6 and 8 November appeared in the Natal press on 16 November 1946. He was 79 years. Gumede was buried at the Mountain Rise cemetery outside Pietermaritzburg. Four African pastors from the Anglican, Congregational, Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed Churches officiated at the funeral service. The ANC had lost one of its most complex, but ambigious leaders.

CONCLUSION

This chapter brings to light evidence germane to Gumede’s ousting as President of the ANC by the conservative group who refused adamently to make common cause with the doctrine and policy of the Communists. For Gumede, who had played a crucial role in shaping African elite politics, the election defeat was undoubtedly extremely hurtful. In political terms he never recovered from this blow. Evidence to this claim is based on the fact that both his attempts to secure election to the NRC in 1937 and 1942 in Natal failed. In the end, inevitably, Gumede would hit back at Congress by joining the Non-European United Front. In 1943 Xuma had moved a resolution to bestow an honourary presidency on Gumede and Dube. The rift between Gumede and the ANC executive council was removed. Tributes at the time of his death in 1946 were small in comparison with those for his political rival John Dube. Recent political changes in South Africa have seen various political leaders ranging from President Mandela and the late Oliver Tambo and Joe Slovo acknowledging the crucial role of Josiah Gumede.

Conclusion

Josiah Gumede, 1867-1946: An Historical Assessment “Gumede and John Dube are the pioneers who were the inspiration and foundation upon which the new leaders were trying to build”. These were the words of A.B. Xuma who in 1943 moved a resolution that the ANC bestow honorary life presidencies on the two veteran Natal politicians.

It is a truism that there is a group of people, whether of a political, socio-economic or religious stature, who exercise a profound influence on the course of events at some crucial point in the history of their countries. Consider past African leaders like Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyatta, Seretse Khama and Samora Machel. In a very important respect they were the makers of the African Continent on which we are living today. Biographers’ greatest challenge is neither to exaggerate nor to underestimate the influence and significance of their subjects. The truth lies between the two extremes.

Fifty years have passed since Josiah Gumede’s death in November 1946. Who was Josiah Gumede? It is no exaggeration to state that Gumede was a respected leader in Black protest politics in South Africa. Gumede lived through an age when the African tribes were not only being subjected increasingly to military conquest and political control, but the African people were being told that they were basically inferior racially and culturally. Consequently their subservient position was natural and proper.

Gumede’s socio-economic and political career spans a most remarkable and critical period in South African and World history. Among the developments most immediately pertinent to an inquiry into Gumede’s political activities were: his negotiations on behalf of Dinizulu to curb the Transvaal Boers’ land hunger; his involvement with the petition of two Sotho communities to secure their ancestral lands; his views on the Native Land Act and his subsequent visit to England in 1919-21; his partial conversion to Communism and historic participation in the Tenth Anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in Moscow; his ousting as president of the ANC in 1930; and his unsuccesful bid for election to the Native Representative Council.

That he was an intellectual is apparent in many of his moral and political activities and historiography. Significantly, Gumede was not only a participant in the making of history but also an eloquent African historian who valued the power of the pen. He was able to draw upon his extensive knowledge of the history of his native country, and, following his five extensive overseas visits, of foreign countries. He was constantly aware of successive Union governments’ attempts to suppress their voices and as Guy argues, “deeply concerned about the judgement of history”. Throughout his career Gumede had been at the forefront of his people’s struggle for liberation and had given his own interpretation of those struggles and related ideologies. Gumede’s historical writings are to be found in archives and libraries in South Africa as well as in Europe. No previous study has sought to explore the scope of his historiography. This thesis has attempted to bring Gumede out of the shadow into the light where critic and admirer can evaluate his historiographic contribution to the course of South African history. I have tried to go beyond the prejudice and ideologies of the time and reveal something of the deeper historical forces, which provided the context in which Gumede’s career unfolded.

Josiah Gumede’s courage in the face of severe adversity is legendary. None of his three ANC predecessors, Dube, Makgatho and Mahabane spoke out against the intolerable African policy of the Union government as forcefully as Gumede. To the South African government he was a highly suspect agitator who had to be kept under close surveillance. Writing about Gumede’s public speeches after his return from Moscow in 1928, Douglas Wolton of the CPSA observed that they ‘electrified’ his audiences at mass meetings. His agitation of a ‘militant and fighting policy’ against the government at the historic ANC congress in 1930 made him very unpopular with the conservatives within the ANC and led to his ousting as President.

Nothing is clearer about Gumede’s political career than the fact that he was a very complex person, possessing all the human faults and failings every human being is born with. Indeed, Gumede had his intellectual limitations and faults. In 1919, in the wake of industrial unrest and strife in Natal, and to the great satisfaction of the Natal authorities, he figured as the latter’s apologist to the extent of trying to discredit the Socialist movement in the province.

This was the same Gumede who, in 1917, had testified that his “freedom and liberty is being restricted in Natal”.764 It is against this background that one should interpret Peter Walshe’s remark that “Gumede’s speeches do not suggest that he had an outstanding or independent intellect”.765 True, Gumede and the early ANC leaders (Dube, Mahabane and Makgatho) shared a distaste for political theory which seemed to contradict their views on Christianity.

However, Walshe and others overlooked the fact that Gumede’s political consciousness was not shaped on the same principles as those of the white South African politicians. Allan Boesak claims that White South African politicians’ political consciousness was shaped mainly by public debate, open information, uncensored government reports, or by participating in a normal way in the democratic process of government. Contrary to this, Gumede’s political consciousness was shaped mainly by his constant political protests, his sustained confrontation with the Natal and later the Union governments. Having personally experienced the futility of appeals for aid from the Imperial government, Gumede absorbed the lesson that their struggle for national liberation would be fought out on South African soil.

One of the most encouraging truths about Gumede was his willingness to serve his people. This is no idle claim; it is seen nowhere more clearly than in the sacrifices and hardships he went through during the last months of his stay in England in 1921. After his election as President-General in 1927, Gumede sold his tracts of land to devote himself to politics of a full-time basis. While filling the position as Manager of Abantu Batho, he made immense personal financial sacrifices to save Congress’s newspaper, but to no avail.

An important significance of his overseas deputations was that he recognised the similarities between the struggles of colonised and oppressed groups, in particular, Africans living in Britain and France. Addressing influential audiences in Britain, Brussels, France, Germany and Russia, Gumede called on politicians, humanitarians and sympathisers to exercise pressure on the Union Government to encourage relief for the Africans from racial discrimination. Over the years Africans in South Africa have received tremendous support and encouragement from their fellow brothers and sisters in Western Europe, America as well as the Soviet Union. Presently influential ANC figures occupy ambassadorial posts in Britain, France and Washington. Hopefully those ambassadors know of Gumede’s missions during the 1920s.

During his overseas campaigns in the 1920s Gumede’s path crossed those of many well-disposed editors of prominent newspapers who took a strong stand and criticised the Union Government’s anti-African Policy. The late Oliver Tambo applauded Gumede as the first ANC president to foster closer ties with the Soviet Union, solely in an attempt to consider whether a more militant type of agitation, in particular, civil disobedience, would lead towards national liberation of the oppressed. Tambo viewed Gumede’s visit to the Soviet Union in 1927 “not only as a brave deed those days, (but) it was a pioneering act”.766 It was in this period that an ANC-CPSA alliance was born and nurtured through the work of people like Josiah and Moses Kotane. This study