The Individual, Auto/biography and History in South Africa

issue of armed struggle directly, Alexander took the opportunity to ask whether a
“change of policy” on the Unity Movement’s part should not be considered, especially in
the light of the “peasant revolt” in the Transkei. Tabata himself failed to raise the matter
of guerrilla warfare. And before Alexander had a chance to elaborate, Jane Gool took
him to task for daring to question policy. In “browbeat[ing]” Alexander, Gool had used
her position in the movement of being “an elder person”, when it had become part of
the movement’s “decorum” not to question elders in formal meetings. 85
Feeling that he had been “gagged”, even “trapped”, Alexander resolved not to attend
any further meetings of the ‘inner circle’. It was this retreat on his part, Alexander
thought, that had “alienated” Tabata from him. Tabata had realised that Alexander had
“slipped from under his control”, and that the leadership was not “able to control” him.
Independently, Alexander had come under the influence of debates in the FI about
guerrilla warfare, and had been persuaded by Michel Pablo’s argument that “the centre
of gravity of world revolution” had “shifted to the colonies”. Alexander had become
convinced, especially after Sharpeville, that guerrilla warfare was necessary to
overthrow the apartheid state. It rankled that Alexander had made independent contact
with the FI. In Alexander’s reading, Tabata worried that people might identify him
(Alexander) with having advocated a switch to armed struggle, and about the power
that this may have brought him. Tabata made a point of attending SOYA meetings, and
attacked Alexander whenever he “raised any question”, saying that “Neville knows
where he should come if he has problems”. By that time, Alexander had become hostile
in the face of the reluctance of Tabata and the Unity Movement leadership to discuss
“issues of practical revolution”. 86
85 Ciraj Rassool, Interviews with Neville Alexander, 8 & 28 December 1992.
86 Ciraj Rassool, Interviews with Neville Alexander, 8 & 28 December 1992. Tensions had already
emerged while Alexander was still away when Tabata and the leadership compelled the formal
affiliation of the CPSU to the AAC. The CPSU had been formed as “deliberately non‐aligned”, as a
strategy of winning young people over to an AAC position. Of course the weight that Alexander gave to
this ‘break’ with Tabata in the narration of his auto/biographic trajectory is itself interesting. It may be a
case of a narrative of leadership formation that required an Oedipal break with the father figure.
466