AFRICAN MAJORITY GOVERNNRNT - ONLY SQLUTION AFRICAN MAJORITY GOVERNNRNT - ONLY SQLUTION Banqut t Speec.h by the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole (Friday, April 12, 1963) at the Fourth International Conference of the American Society of African Culture Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I wish to take this opportunity to thank all those who, some years ago, conceived the great idea of forming the American Society of African Culture. No doubt the birth of such a Society was the result of a deep concern by the people on this end of the Atlantic Ocean abQut the people on the other side. Anyone who is to understand the African people can do so more thcmughly, as with other peoples of the world, through their music, art, dance, literature, economics and politics. It is indeed gratifying that AMSAC has endeavored to serve as one of the channels of that exchange of understanding which can only come about as a result of involvement and active participation in things relevant to the diverse peoples of Africa. AMSAC has kept the torch of African culture burning. In the dark we see a little, but in the light we see more. AMSAC has provided the much-needed light, and the world can now see more and appreciate more of the African culture which has been relegated into the background by forces of oppression and suppression. It is a good thing that the theme of this Fourth International Conference of AMSAC should be "Southern Africa in Transition." There are now 33 independent African countries, and this represents about 200,000,000 free Africans. There are still 45,000,000 dependent Africans who are struggling to rid themselves of this subject status which not only undermines and distorts the image of the African, but also undercuts human dignity as such. Most of these 45,000,000 "unfree" Africans live in Southern Africa, and hence my appreciation of the theme of this Conference. -2- The other day I was reading a newspaper, and I came across this question,. "Can democracy survive in Africa under the new African governments?" as though under colonial rule there was democracy. I could not help feeling that only an African majority government, and not a white minority government, can talk of democracy, for, indeed, nowhere in any part of Africa did the white man introduce democracyo It is impossible to introduce at one and the same time imperialism and democracy Since the advent of the whites in Africa, democracy was literally smothered down. It is only since the liberation of Africa by the Africans themselves that democracy is being re-introduced effectively. The type of democracy the whites introduced to Africa is not "government of the people, by the people, for the people," but rather, "government of Africans, by the Europeans, for the Europeans." Let it be noted that no nation rules for the benefit of another, but for itself. It is left to the Africans to establish in Africa "government of Africans, by Africans, for Africans," just as in these beautiful United States you have "government of Americans, by Americans, for Americans." The problem facing all Southern African countries is fundamentally the same. The problem is one of liberating these countries from the humiliating white minority ruleo The argument that if a foreign power imposes its rule for a fairly long tine over the natives of any country, in the end the natives will accept it, has been proved false by the fact that the peoples of Angola and Mozambique are up in arms against the Portuguese after centuries of foreign rule. The same thing could be said of people in West, Central, North, and East Africa. As I have already indicated that the problem is fundamentally the same for all the countries in Southern Africa, it becomes self-evident that the solution to this problem is also basically the sameo The only correct solution to the problem of white -3- minority rule is African majority rule. There is no other solution than that. Any other concocted solutions would merely serve to put off the evil day. There is no racialism in this approach since the African does not want to rule his country on the basis of his numerical superiority. Nor does he want to rule because he is African, but because the country belongs to him. He is, by birth, domicile, culture, psychology, history, geography, and spiritual heritage a inhabitant of his country. The fact that politically and militarily he is not in control of his country, does not alter his right of ownership of his country, any more than does the fact of stolen property change the right of ownership0 I have already stated to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the solution to the present problem is African majority rule0 Nothing short of this could be the real answer. The question now arisess How do you bring about this African majority rule? This is the question which is occupying the minds of African nationalists in Southern Africa. Every African nationalist has to make up his mind on this important question. While the problem and the solution are fundamentally the same in all Southern Africa, one wonders whether the methods of bringing about an African majority government are the same. Freedom has come to subject peoples by different methods. Broadly speaking, there are two ways of bringing about an African Majority governmento One is the way of non-violence and the other is the way of violence0 Which of these ways is suited to the Southern African situation? This is a pertinent question which deserves our attention. Under the Nazi regime non-violence failed in Germany0 In South Africa it failed. In Palestine it also failed. But in what used to be French Equatorial and West Africa, non-violence succeeded. In India it succeeded under the dark shadow of violence. In the Sudan, Ghana, Nigeria, Tanganyika and Uganda, it also succeeded under varying degrees. Violence, on the other hand, carried the day in Morocco, Algeria, Kenya, - 4- the Congo, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. It is clear that violence cannot boast over non-violence, nor non-violence over violence. Both methods have been used successfully and unsuccessfully since history can recall. Since these principles -- violence and non-violence - are so relevant to the struggle going on in Southern Africa, it is important to examine briefly their inner meaning. In method, violence and non-violence are two worlds apart, but in their motive and objective they are inherently the same. Violence is usually resorted to after shrewd political calculation -- namely, that after a given violent action a favourable political impact would be created. Non-violence is also a shrewd political calculation that after peaceful demonstration, or passive resistance, the right political climate can be created. In this sense both non-violence and violence spring from the same source - namely, political frustration brought about by white minority rule. Both aim at establishing an African majority government. It should be clearly noted that political violence is merely a political method of bringing about desirable political changes. It does not rejoice in destruction for its own sake, but in establishing a new order based on social justice. But non-violence believes that the new order can be established without destroying. In a country that allows progressive constitutional development, non-violence can work with amazing success. There is every hope that in such countries as Bechuanaland Protectorate, Basutoland and Swaziland, non-violence may succeed. But in countries like South Africa, Mozambique and Angola where the inhabitants have no political rights to speak of, where no constitutional provision is made for political advancement, it would be unrealistic and wishful to think of an African majority government coming without violence and bloodshed. In South Africa the Africaners have openly declared baascaap. In Mozambique and Angola the Portuguese have frankly stated that these territories are integral parts of Portugal. Whether non-violence can reverse these two positions remains to be seen. -5- I may now take the case of Southern Rhodesia# the country from which I come. As most of you, ladies and gentlemen, may know, the goverrnment we now have was elected to power last year on the unabashed ticket of white supremacy. The same government which was elected by less than 1% of the population of nearly 4,000,000 people is now demanding from Britain independence for Southern Rhodesia. As the country's legislature is 77% white and only 23% African in a country that is more than 90% African, as the Europeans control 95% of the vote and the Africans only 5%, and as parliamentary representation is 50 Europeans and only 15 Africans in a country that is basically African, the effect of granting independence to Southern Rhodesia under these most unsatisfactory conditions would have the immediate effect of creating another South Africa. In 1910 Britain created South Africa, and now she is being requested to create another one in 1963. In fact she is being asked to sell nearly 4,000,000 Africans to the 250,000 white settlers there. The problem is: In the face of this demand, how can the African people of Southern Rhodesia prevent this act of being handed over, like merchandise, to a quarter million white settlers? If Britain grants independence to Southern Rhodesia before the establishment of a fully representative government, then the African people are ready to grant themselves the independence that rightly belongs to them as the inhabitants of the country. If, on the other hand, the white settlers decide on a "go it alone" policy, and unilaterally declare themselves independent, the Africans have no other alternative than to proclaim themselves independent.