SUMMARY
The conflict between the Supporters of ANC (African National Congress) and the Supporters of IFP (Inkatha Freedom Party) was perceived to be a zero-sum conflict by supporters of both parties. Either ANC’s view on how to deal with the Apartheid government would prevail, or that of IFP. A combination of the two approaches was not deemed plausible. Even in the years following the end of Apartheid, the two political groups had problems reconciling on a national level, but mostly on the local level. Violence between the groups lasted until 1996 and up to today the relationship between the two parties and its supporters remains tense. The conflict between Supporters of ANC and IFP has cost more lives than the general struggle to end Apartheid.
Three main incompatibilities make for the tensions between the ANC and IFP. The most important one concerned their competing views on what strategy to pursue in order to free the country from the Apartheid regime. The ANC had unofficially committed to a violent strategy to apartheid when the National Executive Committee decided in 1961 that the ANC ‘would not change its official non-violent standpoint [but that] those members who involved themselves in this would not be restrained’. MK (Umkhonto we Sizwe; the Spear of the Nation) was formed in order to carry out ANC’s armed struggle. The IFP on the other hand, had a principle and pragmatic opposition to the use of force in order to reach its goals. The organization aimed to become too strong of an opposition force to be ignored. Additionally, Chief Buthelezi, the founder of IFP, debated the quality of the freedom that would be brought with an armed struggle. Looking at other African countries, he noted that oppressors were often replaced with different oppressors after an armed conflict: ‘The very people who talk the most glibly of a just revolution are those now perpetrating the most horrible deeds’, he argued.
The second incompatibility between the ANC and IFP concerned economic policies. Where ANC favored international sanctions in order to pressure the Apartheid regime to change, the IFP was more concerned with immediate economic development that would be beneficial to the poor black Africans. Chief Buthelezi was an outspoken advocate of market-based transitions, which would enable the economic development of the black workers. He argued that international sanctions would disproportionally affect the black workers.
The third incompatibility that led to the non-state conflict between Supporters of ANC and IFP pertained to their conflicting opinions about the so-called homelands: areas specifically designated to black South Africans, which over time would turn independent, so that no black person would have the South African identity anymore. In total, 13 percent of the South African surface was reserved for these homelands. ANC and IFP had contradictory ideas on how to deal with these homelands. The ANC believed that corroborating with this structure would be comparable to corroborating with the enemy, and thus firmly opposed it. Inkatha on the other hand believed that the homeland structure, to a certain extent, was a way to enhance the general quality of life for black Africans and influence the Apartheid regime. The IFP was, however, firmly opposed to independence for the homelands, since this would diminish the influence on the Apartheid-regime. For this reason, Chief Buthelezi became the chief minister of the KwaZulu homeland. This non-independence strategy was one of the cornerstones of Inkatha politics. It went so far that IFP would be willing to abandon its non-violence principle in order to defend KwaZulu from forced or coerced independence.
A further differentiation between the two groups can be made on the basis of ethnicity: Inkatha is dominated by Zulu members, while ANC’s members mostly belong to the Xhosa ethnicity. In Inkatha’s first years, only Zulus could become members of the party. Later, the leadership lifted this restriction. While it is clear that the ethnic basis of both groups is different, this is not considered a main reason for the conflict.
The conflict between Supporters of ANC and Supporters of IFP is often compared to an unofficial civil war. Two main events are thought of as its triggers: first, the Soweto revolts in 1976, in which heavy violence between black youths and white police broke out. In the aftermath of these clashes, the differences between ANC and IFP became more and more visible: while the ANC endorsed the activities and violence, and saw it as a ‘vindication of the revolutionary goal it had long advocated’. IFP on the other hand saw the revolt as a tragic waste of black lives, which would not enable the toppling of the Pretoria regime. This event increased the rift between the two parties. The second event that made the division even larger was a meeting between the leaders of the ANC and IFP in London in 1979. While this meeting was thought of as a reconciliatory meeting, which should have resulted in a ‘marriage made in heaven’, it resulted in an even larger split between the two parties. As to why this is, both parties have differing opinions. ANC claimed it mainly had to do with IFP’s open criticism on ANC’s strategies, combined with a supposed breach of confidentiality when the news about IFP’s appearance in London leaked. IFP on the other hand claimed that the fact that the ANC wanted to be the dominant party, the sole representative of the black population, caused the growing tension between the two groups. Violent activities between followers of both groups started in the 1980s, but the conflict intensified in 1990 when the ban on the ANC was lifted. This increased the opportunities for political mobilization, resulting in heavier violence.
Describing the conflict, one author states that ‘[t]he spiral of war between Inkatha and ANC has spawned complex networks of complicity that stretch from the lowest forms of organized crime to the highest echelons of the state’. The conflict divided whole communities and towns into two parts reflecting bases of support for either of the parties. While partly taking place on a national level, most of the conflict occurred on a local and regional level. Most events in the conflict are clashes between supporters of both parties in a certain township or village. Often these clashes are fought about control over villages or townships. Common occurrences were attacks on hostels, houses in the urban areas in which workers from the countryside lived together, often based on ethnicity or political affiliation. Besides attacks on hostels, trains and minibusses that people used to commute to work were also frequently targeted. During these attacks, not only modern methods of assault as guns or automatic weapons were employed, but also often traditional weapons as clubs, assegais, cane-cutting knives and spears. A particular gruesome method employed was the so-called necklace method, where tubes of for instance bicycle tires or ropes are drenched in benzene, put around the victim’s neck, and lit on fire.
An important part of the conflict between Supporters of ANC and Supporters of IFP was played by the so-called ‘third-force’. This third force was a network of security and ex-security force operatives, which supported the members of IFP. This support became most visible in the ‘Inkathagate’: in July 1991, the Johannesburg ‘Weekly Mail & Guardian’ and the British ‘Guardian’ revealed the existence of a secret police project for funding for the IFP. On a local level, it was often visible that the police did not stop the IFP members when attacking supporters of ANC, or even contributed to the attacks.
The conflict between Supporters of ANC and the Supporters of IFP mostly occurred in Inkatha’s ‘homeland’, KwaZula-Natal but also spread to the Transvaal region. Most of the violence occurred within the poor townships.
From 1996 onwards, a relative peace prevailed between the supporters of the Supporters of ANC and the Supporters of IFP.
The non-state conflict between the Supporters of ANC and the Supporters of IFP is first included in UCDP data in 1990. In July of that year violent clashes flared up in the region, resulting in over 25 battle-related deaths.
