Prof Dirk Kotzé
Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi evokes widely different emotions amongst South Africans, ranging from adulation to anger. There is not much of a neutral middle-ground. Even the many obituaries and media reports after his passing take a specific position about him. Clearly, he occupied a position in South African politics which few can emulate.
Prince Buthelezi was politically a complex personality. His thoughts or philosophy was a combination of ostensibly diverging ideologies. They are a combination of Zulu cultural nationalism, economic liberalism, social conservatism, regional federalism for KZN but also a general South Africanism.
In the 1970s he positioned himself close to the ANC and most of the historical narratives are in agreement that the ANC was involved in Inkatha’s revival in 1975. Four years later, after a meeting between Oliver Tambo and Buthelezi in London, they parted ways on the use of the armed struggle and economic sanctions. Within the ANC a debate developed about whether they should cooperate with some leaders of homelands, like Buthelezi, as an internal front for the ANC, or isolate them.
Buthelezi embraced federalism as a constitutional design to consolidate KwaZulu as an embodiment of the Zulu kingdom and therefore he developed a close relationship with the Zulu monarchy and federalist, liberal parties such as the Progressive Federal Party (PFP) led by Van Zyl Slabbert.
It manifested in the KwaZulu Natal Indaba in 1986. Later during the constitutional negotiations, he took it further, called for a Zulu Kingdom, sided with the federalist parties and joined also the Concerned South Africans Group (COSAG). It is now part of the iconography of the 1994 elections that the IFP negotiated a peace agreement with the ANC and joined the ballot paper a week before the elections.
If we look back, only two leaders could make the transition from the homelands to the new democracy, namely Buthelezi and Gen. Bantu Holomisa (UDM). The most notable one who did not manage this feat was Chief Lucas Mangope of Bophuthatswana (with his United Christian Democratic Party). Buthelezi succeeded, because he walked a very tightrope between the Union Buildings and their funding of the homelands, and the monarchy who was premised on the notion of a Zulu kingdom. Buthelezi made sure that it was impossible to distinguish between KwaZulu homeland and the kingdom.
Throughout his life, Buthelezi played a more prominent national role than his party, given the fact that the IFP was confined mainly to KZN and parts of Gauteng. Now, Buthelezi’s visibility will wane over time, but the IFP will do their best to use his legacy in the 2024 national and provincial elections.
His passing raises the question whether the IFP will be able to continue with their new growth in electoral support. Did Buthelezi serve as a personality cult for the IFP which made him indispensable for them, even during his retirement? This is illustrated by an earlier decision that his image will be used on the IFP t-shirts at the coming election, and not that of its President, Velenkosini Hlabisa. A feature of the leadership situation in the IFP is that the transfer of the leadership from Buthelezi to Hlabisa has been slow and very gradual and it will not yet be consolidated by the time of the election.
At the same time, the IFP has also seen a gradual generational change. Most prominent is the chairperson of Parliament’s Select Committed on Public Accounts (SCOPA), Mkhuleko Hlengwa. The change happened partly in response to the internal rebellion by Zanele kaMagwaza-Msibi to form the National Freedom Party (NFP) in 2011. They criticized Buthelezi for not renewing the IFP.
The relationship between the IFP and the ANC has dominated its entire history. The political war between them (the UDF was seen as the ANC’s presence in the province) during the 1980s and its escalation between 1990 and 1994 in KZN and areas in the current Gauteng, has left deep scars for both parties. One development which captured these controversies was the publication of the book, Gatsha Buthelezi: Chief with a Double Agenda by the SACP’s Comrade Mzala in 1988.
The IFP was not only the third party in the Government of National Unity in 1994 but the ANC invited them to continue with a second term after the 1999 elections. In the process, Buthelezi managed to present the IFP as a party far more prominent than its electoral support. But in 2011, it experienced a serious setback with the break-away of the NFP. This represented a short-term challenge for Buthelezi’s dominance of the IFP, while the ANC used the opportunity to embrace the NFP with a cabinet position.
The 2024 election will be a decisive moment for the IFP. It forms now an integral part of local coalition governments together with the DA, ACDP, FF+ and ActionSA. It is poised to increase its support in KZN but the absence of Buthelezi as an elder figure in the party, will require of the younger leadership to present a party which can appeal to both its older supporters and the younger urban generation. How they will create a “presence” for Buthelezi in the election campaign, will be very interesting to watch.
Buthelezi’s passing will also have an impact on the Zulu monarchy. He constituted a stabilising presence during the time of the king’s succession, especially when challenges by members of the family were taken to court. Buthelezi insisted on his status of Traditional Prime Minister to the Zulu Monarch and Nation also for the new Zulu king Misuzulu and therefore served as the person who could be the continuation between the late king Zwelithini and the new one. Differences between Buthelezi and the new king about who should manage the Ingonyama Trust muddied the water until the end. Now, however, the Zulu king can identify his own Traditional Prime Minister and take control of the Trust, which will consolidate his own position.
The future of KZN is now in the hands of a much younger generation. That will also determine the future of the IFP.
*Professor Dirk Kotzé is from the Department of Political Sciences at Unisa.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.