Massive pressure from the political Left and behind-the-scenes intervention by, among others, trade union leader Zwelinzima Vavi and the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) this week persuaded the government to reverse its hard-line stance on street protests at the World Summit in Johannesburg.
The government, stung by criticism that its handling of protests resembled apartheid-era repression, late on Wednesday approved two marches planned for Saturday from Joburg’s impoverished Alexandra township to Sandton, the main venue for the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Applications for both demonstrations were earlier refused under an apartheid-era law. The reversal followed escalating tensions between march organisers and security authorities.
On Monday Minister of Safety and Security Charles Nqakula had said anyone who marched would “fall foul of the law and will be acted against”. Protest organisers vowed not to be deterred. This could have pitted up to 20000 marchers against security services, with bloody consequences.
“This shows that steadfast determination will carry the day,” said Trevor Ngwane, a prominent left-wing campaigner against the summit. Ngwane’s Anti-Privatisation Forum is part of the Social Movements Indaba, a coalition opposed to “corporate globalisation”. This group, insisting on its right to highlight disparities between Alexandra and Sandton, says it will draw 10000 protesters to march the 10km route on Saturday morning.
The Global People’s Forum, the official civil society gathering on the summit sidelines, plans to draw an equal number on a similar route, from about noon on Saturday, to protest environmental degradation and neglect of the poor. Unlike the Indaba march, it is not anti-summit.
The Forum march is likely to be joined by members — and Cabinet ministers — of the African National Congress and its alliance partners after a morning rally in Alexandra. The rally may be addressed by President Thabo Mbeki and Cuban President Fidel Castro.
Fears of violence grew after last Saturday, when police broke up a candlelight protest outside the University of the Witwatersrand. Minister of Foreign Affairs Nkosa-zana Dlamini-Zuma later justified the police action, saying “this summit is not a summit for anarchy”.
On Monday Nqakula maintained the hard line, saying no march from Alexandra would be allowed. Leaks to the media claimed protesters were planning to block the M1 highway between Alexandra and Sandton.
Indaba leaders vowed to march regardless. Said Ngwane at the time: “Our Constitution allows us freedom of assembly, freedom of association … The only option for us is to defy the criminalisation of our march.” The more establishment-orientated Global People’s Forum also signalled it wanted to defy government.
The Mail & Guardian has established that Vavi, general secretary of the Congress of South African Tradde Unions, played a key role in winning over Nqakula and some of his Cabinet colleagues. He approached Nqakula, Minister of Justice and Consitutional Development Penuell Maduna, Minister of Intelligence Lindiwe Sisulu and others on Tuesday and proposed a compromise. Vavi told the M&G: “All of us realised that it would be quite a horrible statement if the world came for the first time into democratic South Africa and people were not able to march … The last thing we want is a city with blood on the floor.”
ANC leaders including national chairperson (and Minister of Defence) Mosiuoa Lekota and presidency head Smuts Ngonyama had already been trying to soften colleagues’ stance.
One ANC insider said the earlier hardline stance was “an overreaction based on security concerns”.
Barry Gilder, Deputy Director General of the NIA, said concerns centred mainly on the crossing of the M1 highway, a route heads of state and government needed to take. But he acknowledged that the government, “in our concern to secure such a huge event … may have erred on the side of caution”.
Gilder said this “possible overre- action” resulted from a desire to protect South Africa’s image by ensuring there was no disruption. But to be seen to be suppressing dissent might equally dent that image. “That is why we stretched our boundaries a bit and decided to reconsider.”
Gilder said the NIA had argued for a softening of curbs on protesters.
For their part, march organisers agreed to cross the highway at a less security-sensitive place.