Yonela Mlambo
THE supposition that epistemic knowledge production is neutral and not biased have been rigorously debunked and further critically engaged.
Epistemic knowledge production is situated and has locality, and the knower situation is evident in the known.
The same is true and can be said about the South African negotiation discourse; it is situated and has locality.
The public discourse about the South Africa negotiation is situated in polarising the “ethnic” violence between AmaZulu and AmaXhosa.
The violence that erupted in KwaZulu-Natal and Johannesburg during the negotiations for a democratic South Africa, our media has largely portrayed the IFP and ANC political conflict as if it was ethnic violence between AmaZulu and AmaXhosa instead of it being political war between the IFP and the ANC.
To understand that the political war was between the IFP and the ANC, and that the IFP was never the mouthpiece of AmaZulu, we have to understand the establishment of the IFP, and how the IFP appropriated upon itself an exclusive position to be the voice of AmaZulu.
Firstly, Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi (IFP Emeritus President) appropriated the late Zulu King’s cultural organisation called Inkatha ka Zulu to reach his own political ends and to fulfil his power mongering desires. His Majesty King Solomon established Inkatha ka Zulu to revive the AmaZulu culture which Prince Buthelezi appropriated for his political ends’ ambitions.
That is why IFP became largely associated with the voice of AmaZulu.
Prince Buthelezi invented his own history in which he is of the family that is traditionally responsible for providing AmaZulu nation with traditional Prime Ministers.
However, history disputes Prince Buthelezi’s claims that his family is traditionally responsible for providing AmaZulu Kings with traditional Prime Ministers.
For instance, King Shaka kaSenzangakhona’s Prime Minister was Ngomane who was from the Mthethwa tribe, King Dingane’s Prime Minister was Ndlela kaSompisi from the Ntuli tribe, King Mpande’s Prime Minister was Masiphula kaMamba whose surname was Ntshangase, King Cetshwayo’s Prime Minister was Chief Mnyamana Prince Buthelezi’s great-grandfather, and King Dinizulu’s Prime Minister was Mankulumana.
Even if Prince Buthelezi’s family is traditionally responsible for providing the AmaZulu Kings with traditional Prime Ministers he is not the rightful heir to be the AmaZulu traditional Prime Minister.
Therefore, the assertions that Prince Mangosuthu’s family is traditionally responsible for providing the AmaZulu nation with traditional Prime Ministers are not true.
If they were true Prince Buthelezi would not have been excluded from the Zulu royal family affairs from 1968-1970.
Nonetheless, had it been true that Prince Buthelezi’s family is traditionally responsible for providing the Zulu nation with its prime minister, his older half-brother Prince Mceleli would have been the AmaZulu traditional Prime Minister.
In the 1980s the then KwaZulu territory was not spared from the popular political unrest against the apartheid regime.
For instance, students from the townships of KwaMashu and Umlazi joined the popular nationwide protests against the apartheid regime and the Bantustan states and their collaborator leaders.
Prince Buthelezi intervened urging the students to end the protest, but little did he know that the students were not going to take heed to his plea and unequivocally rejected the indoctrinating Inkatha course.
Prince Buthelezi then had to re-strategise to claim the ground that it seemed like he was gradually losing, i.e. self-proclaimed AmaZulu leader.
The Indians in Durban were at the receiving end of Prince Buthelezi accusations that they had influenced AmaZulu to protest thus he warned the Indians to stop interfering with KwaZulu schools or face the consequences.
Prince Mangosuthu is notorious for shifting the blame to outside influence whenever AmaZulu challenged him. For instance, Prince Mangosuthu is on record of accusing Rev Mcebisi Xundu as a Xhosa misleading AmaZulu.
Alas, to the AmaZulu to have a leader who has appropriated the authority to be their voice yet publicly undermined their intelligence to think for themselves and to decide what they deem to be right or wrong.
It was rather shocking for a person whose ancestors’ settlement in Zululand can be located to a certain historical period to make bold claims about what behaviour is a pure constitutive feature of a Zulu person and/or a behaviour.
Nonetheless, we must not allow the previous statement to detain us here. Prince Buthelezi is further on record for being hyper -cognizant when his power is waning and mastered the art of making allegations about claims of being a political target.
In the 1970s Prince Buthelezi once made accusations that King Zwelithini involved himself in political activities.
Such allegations warranted Prince Buthelezi censoring the King and threatened a reduction in the late King’s salary.
History informs us that Prince Buthelezi was willing to stoop to any level to run a smear campaign against his political opponents that sought to challenge his self-appropriated position of being AmaZulu voice thus the Inala Party and the Umkhonto ka Shaka political party did not live long enough and the IFP and its vigilantes emerged as mouthpiece for AmaZulu.
Mlambo is a UCT Sociology PostGrad student