the role of white intellectuals in Tuacc was contentious (Donovan Lowry recalls the ‘overwhelming presence of white intellectuals’ in their delegations21), they nevertheless played an important role in the early days, sharing skills, knowledge and resources which were denied their black union colleagues. Some became unionists, and others offered skills in legal, administrative, economic, political and financial areas, often voluntarily. They also played a teaching role, recognising that workers’ education was critical to the building of shop steward leadership.22 Sakhela Buhlungu has pointed out that white intellectuals are often solely credited with the creation of a democratic tradition within these unions whereas he believes it was the product of a dynamic interaction between the lived experiences of black workers and the contribution of community, party (SACP, ANC, Sactu) and university intellectuals.23
The Sactu activists and the white intellectuals were both striving for a non-racial, democratic South Africa, but many of the whites had a different standpoint. ‘We had a totally different tradition: we didn’t mind using any structures provided we could maintain our independence. Workers’ independence was everything,’ commented Mike Morris, a union activist of the 1970s.24 White intellectuals drew on the European tradition of union organisation and socialist politics rather than the national liberation agenda of the ANC and Sactu. The Marxist and socialist ideologies they embraced taught them that raising workers’ consciousness was the route to changing power relations in society, and their strong tactical sense made them appreciate that to build workers’ power for socialism it was necessary to offer workers real benefits.25 Organising workers into unions was an ideal vehicle. Wages and conditions would be improved while power was built up for political change.26 In this lay the seeds of the ‘populist/workerist’ debate. Explains Mawu organiser Moses Mayekiso:
The term (socialism) was around from early in Mawu’s activities. It was difficult at the time to propagate socialist ideas but leadership in workshops used to discuss the issue linked to trade union organising strategy, and that socialism will be successful if it is centred around organised workers. This was in the 1970s. That’s what divided the leadership into so-called ‘workerist’ and ‘populist’ camps. They were based on interpretations of the final goal.27
The dominant workerist tendency, influenced by Marxism, repudiated the national democratic struggle espoused by the ANC in favour of a democratic socialist future. The ‘populist’ group favoured links with the national liberation movement, whose primary aim was to destroy the apartheid state. At times, political differences were acrimonious, and the state strengthened the hand of the ‘workerists’ by banning ‘populist’ organisers Sipho Khubeka and Gavin Anderson in 1976. Yet there was also considerable consensus on the unionisation process, as Khubeka recalls: ‘You had two groups who did not see eye to eye politically. There were the students and lecturers who felt sidelined by Nationalist politics, on the one hand, and some white students and lecturers and intellectuals who were supportive of the ANC or Sactu, on the other. Yet they had a common purpose.’28
Mawu organiser Sipho Kubheka (W Matlala)
After the 1973 strike wave, Mawu’s membership grew rapidly in Natal, and by mid-1974 it had 3 883 signed-up members in at least 68 factories. Thereafter membership tailed off, and the Mawu organisers, who had moved from factory to factory without consolidating, came to understand that numbers could not be a substitute for strong factory organisation. Employers, too, had recovered from the shock of the strikes and were actively promoting liaison committees. In addition, a number of unionists were banned in 1974, including Mawu’s Pietermaritzburg organiser, Jeanette Cunningham-Brown. In consequence, a new strategy was adopted, involving the consolidation of organisation in a limited number of factories; shop stewards played a central role and were directly accountable to members, organising in their departments and dealing with management. They also represented members on Mawu’s BEC. Local offices were opened to promote members’ participation in union affairs.29
In Johannesburg, another struggle to revive unionism was underway, although organisers could not recruit on the back of a strike wave. The Industrial Aid Society (IAS), with similar aims to the GFWBF, was slowly recruiting and was building factory committees. It was founded by a similar combination of people who, from the outset, focused on the metal engineering sector because of its economic centrality.30
Worker members of the IAS attended classes run by University of the Witwatersrand lecturers and explored the experiences of the ICU in the 1920s and of Sactu in the 1950s. To these intellectuals, the failure of the ICU was organisational: it had failed to win recognised trade union status for Africans because it spread itself too thinly across sectors in a general union model; it placed excessive emphasis on unaccountable leadership; and it failed to organise members into strong independent worker structures which could withstand government repression. The lessons for workers in the 1970s was that they must organise into tight industrial unions which, through worker power, would force state and employers to recognise African unions. Sactu’s approach differed from the ICU’s in that it was a meeting point for factory-based unions. But for white intellectuals Sactu’s decline was a brutal lesson in organisational politics. They saw that Sactu had delayed organising the most powerful sectors of the economy, such as engineering and mining, and that it was unable to impose a working class direction on the Congress Alliance and had lost its independence. The main lesson they drew, however, was that there was danger in linking factory-based struggles with broader political campaigns which had attracted the attention of state security, and to ensure survival they concluded that unions should avoid overt links with exiled nationalist movements and maintain their independence.31 A survey conducted in the 1970s by sociologist Eddie Webster on why workers avoided joining the new unions found that they were afraid of dismissal and of police action, believing that the state would associate labour activism with the ANC.32 In consequence, union organisers were at pains to adopt a low profile. Mawu organiser Mike Murphy emphasises, however, that this did not mean emulating the conservative Tucsa unions:
We rejected Tucsa’s way of operating. We went to a factory and talked to people and found out what their problems were and then we’d get a meeting together and plug straight away into informal factory leadership. With Tucsa, this basic stuff was absent. Tucsa was a bureaucracy because it had a faith in the law, a financial base in terms of the law, a subscription system, which kept the office functioning and you play a game with management – you scratch their back, they scratch yours and nothing changes much.
The new unionists vigorously debated what form organisation should take. In Natal, Tuacc’s intellectuals and workers made an early choice in favour of industrial unions, and Alpheus Mthethwa, Mawu’s first Natal branch secretary, travelled to Johannesburg to persuade the metal wing of the IAS to join his union. There he ran into a raging debate on whether to form industrial or general unions. Kubheka recalls:
The discussion was that we have seen general unions in the past and they were not very effective because they did not organise strongly on the ground, they did not have a focus on a particular sector. Some people also argued that general unions tend to be more political, and this was dangerous because they do not focus on the building of grassroots structures, and it was dangerous to be too political at that time.
Then the other argument was that industrial unions are divisive. Why not have one general union divided into different sectors, so that you have one line of march in the same kind of union? It would also be easier in terms of resources. You may have a very weak union with vulnerable workers by virtue of their sector, for instance the construction industry where the industry is not based in one place. Then we have a metal industry which is situated in one place where there are many workers. Then the resources could be easily shared if we have one union, one policy, similar principles … these were all very forceful arguments.
The IAS developed close ties with Tuacc and the latter’s plea for industrial unionism ultimately won the day. In 1975, unionists agreed to form a Transvaal branch of Mawu.