From Uprising to Soft Power: How 1976 Shaped South Africa's Struggle and Its Co-option

June 16 has been memorialised in state ceremonies and school textbooks, but often stripped of its radical potential, writes Gillian Schutte.
On the morning of June 16, 1976, thousands of Black schoolchildren in Soweto marched peacefully against the apartheid government's decree that Afrikaans be used as a language of instruction in schools.
It was not just a protest about language - it was a refusal to be culturally colonised, a rebellion against the daily indignities of Bantu Education and systemic dehumanisation.
The apartheid police responded with gunfire. The murder of children in broad daylight - most iconically captured in the image of Hector Pieterson's body being carried through the streets - shocked the world and shattered any illusion of the regime's legitimacy.
The uprising quickly spread beyond Soweto. Within days, townships across the country were in revolt - Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban and others echoed with the chants of youth refusing to bow to white rule. The state responded with tear gas, batons, bullets, and mass detentions.
Apartheid officials reported 500 people, many of them teenagers, were killed in the unrest that year. The number of deaths is said to be much higher than official records. Teenagers were thrown into solitary confinement for months at a time, and many were brutally tortured.
The regime was exposed as not only racist but murderous. And the youth, once dismissed by apartheid authorities as controllable, had become an ungovernable force. Many fled into exile to join liberation movements such as the ANC and PAC, swelling the ranks of the armed struggle and political education.
The brutality of the crackdown was widely condemned. Media coverage and public outcry surged across Europe, the Americas, and the Global South. For the first time, liberal democracies that had tolerated apartheid for decades found themselves under immense pressure from civil society and student movements to divest, boycott, and speak out.
Pretoria's image abroad was in tatters. Even its staunchest allies in the West realised that the optics of slaughtering children was unsustainable.
This moment triggered a significant tactical shift in how the apartheid state - and its Western sponsors - would manage opposition going forward. The gun had failed. Repression had bred rebellion. The next phase of the counterinsurgency would not rely solely on force, but on persuasion. The terrain of struggle moved from the battlefield to the hearts and minds of South Africans.
This pivot mirrored broader global strategies of Cold War soft power, particularly those employed by the United States. Where outright military suppression was too costly or controversial, the West deployed cultural, educational, and economic tools to manage political outcomes in the Global South. South Africa became a laboratory for these experiments.
USAID, established under the Kennedy administration, began to reframe its activities in South Africa. Rather than just economic development, its mission included 'democracy promotion' and 'civil society strengthening' - innocuous phrases that masked deep ideological work.
Under these programs, Black youth were recruited into leadership workshops, community development initiatives, and training schemes that promoted liberal, non-violent values over revolutionary consciousness. Vocational education replaced political education. Human rights replaced collective liberation.
Similarly, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US government-funded proxy for the CIA, started operating in South Africa during the 1980s. Its funding flowed to media platforms, electoral reform initiatives, and NGOs that framed their work in donor-friendly, non-confrontational language. These organisations criticised apartheid - enough to appear progressive - but avoided challenging capitalism, white wealth, or US imperialism.
German political foundations followed suit. The Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (aligned with Germany's Christian Democrats) and Friedrich Naumann Stiftung (aligned with the Free Democrats) poured money into South African civil society, shaping liberal intellectual discourse, funding legal reform NGOs, and sponsoring dialogue platforms. Their aim was not to destroy apartheid's economic architecture, but to transition South Africa into a post-apartheid dispensation that would retain capitalist order and white economic dominance under the veil of multiracial democracy.
These interventions marked the birth of a soft coup - the gradual neutralisation of radical resistance through donor influence, media manipulation, and ideological infiltration. This was the counter-revolution wrapped in NGO language. It was no longer tanks and tear gas. It was television studios, grants, scholarships, and training programs. The new foot soldiers were consultants, not soldiers.
Silencing the language of radical change
A similar fate would later befall the students of the #RhodesMustFall and #FeesMustFall movements. These were the children of June 1976's legacy - once again standing up against institutional racism, Eurocentric curricula, and economic exclusion. But as with their predecessors, their revolt was gradually professionalised.
Donor-funded NGOs and foreign-backed think tanks began to absorb key leaders, offering them fellowships, internships, and platforms that steered them away from revolutionary demands. What began as fierce critiques of structural violence and colonial legacies was quickly reframed into career-building exercises in 'policy reform' and 'youth dialogue.'
The language of radical change was replaced with 'stakeholder engagement,' and a new class of young Black professionals emerged - not to dismantle the system, but to manage it.
By 1994, the foundations of the neoliberal South Africa were already cemented. Liberation had been negotiated, but the terms were not drawn up by the oppressed. The economy remained in white hands. The land remained dispossessed. The ANC, now transformed from liberation movement to ruling party, was encircled by donor logic, Western debt traps, and a civil society already restructured by decades of soft power.
The irony is bitter. The blood of the youth in 1976 forced the world to see apartheid for what it was - a murderous regime bent on white domination. But that same uprising also accelerated the global regime's adaptation. It taught them that guns alone would not suffice. They would need to shape the minds of South Africans - to raise a generation of Black liberals rather than revolutionaries.
June 16 has since been memorialised in state ceremonies and school textbooks, but often stripped of its radical potential. The children who marched did not ask to be co-opted into donor-funded development programs. They demanded dignity, land, justice, and power. Their rebellion should not be remembered as the beginning of reconciliation, but as the signal that the time for half-measures was over.
Today, as South Africa confronts deepening inequality, youth unemployment, and the hollowing out of liberation promises, it becomes increasingly clear that the struggle never ended - it was only rerouted.
To reclaim the spirit of 1976 is to see through the tactics of soft power, to resist the seductive language of donor dependency, and to once again place African sovereignty at the centre of liberation.
*Gillian Schutte is a well-known social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
IOL Opinion

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

IOL News

7 hours ago

• IOL News

The ethical blind spots in SA's unemployment stats

South Africa's high unemployment also stands out globally. The writer says South Africa's metrics function as biopolitical instruments that perpetuate apartheid-era exclusion by rendering Black economic agency statistically non-existent. Image: File THIS opinion piece responds to former Statistician-General Pali Lehohla's article Debating the Labour Force Survey – A Response to Fourie's Critique. It serves as a rebuttal to his critique of my earlier article, Why Capitec's CEO Is Forcing SA to Rethink Its Unemployment Narrative, in which I argued that South Africa's unemployment figures fail to reflect the lived economic realities of the majority Black population. Lehohla claims that my article has 'amplified the debate' and insists on setting the record straight before it spirals into misinformation and speculation. However, my article did not reject StatsSA data outright. Instead, I argued that South Africa's high unemployment statistics are shaped by a biopolitical statistical system that invisibly erases informal economic activity and Black labour. This is largely due to restrictive measurement methodologies and the active suppression of the informal sector, unlike in other developing countries. I proposed the adoption of hybrid metrics and structural reforms to more accurately capture and support this vital, yet uncounted, segment of the economy. My stance aligns with UCT economist Haroon Bhorat, who engages constructively with Fourie's arguments rather than dismissing them entirely. Lehohla, however, dismisses Fourie's estimate of a 10% unemployment rate — based on informal economic activity — as 'abracadabra', 'lying', and the rant of a 'random businessman who profits from Black communities'. His anger masks a deeper crisis: South Africa's economic measurement system, though methodologically sound, is philosophically ill-equipped to account for the informal, digital, and survivalist nature of the majority-Black workforce. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Lehohla defends StatsSA's unemployment figures based on their adherence to International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards and the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS). Yet, I argue that this technical rigour obscures vast swaths of economic activity. For instance, a township hairdresser or street vendor without formal records becomes statistically invisible. This creates a profound ethical issue: stark racial disparities in unemployment, with Black South Africans facing an expanded unemployment rate of 40%, compared to just 7% for white South Africans. South Africa's high unemployment also stands out globally. Countries like Mexico (55% informal, 4.5% unemployment) and Nigeria (85% informal, 3.34% unemployment) include self-reported informal work in their statistics. In contrast, South Africa's metrics function as biopolitical instruments that perpetuate apartheid-era exclusion by rendering Black economic agency statistically non-existent. Bhorat notes that UCT's Development Policy Research Unit (DPRU) consistently shows South Africa having one of the highest unemployment rates globally (33.6%), but also one of the lowest informality rates (about 16.3%). He highlights how most emerging economies address unemployment not by creating more formal jobs, but by allowing informal work to flourish. DPRU research further suggests that South Africa's unusually high unemployment is not primarily due to poor job growth or strict labour laws, but because our economy actively suppresses the informal sector. My advice to DPRU is not to shy away from confronting the moral failures or societal consequences that their data may obscure. Lehohla's refusal to engage meaningfully illustrates the difficulty of escaping the grip of orthodox economics and its limitations. Orthodox economics treats the economy — and by extension, social life — as a predictable machine operating in equilibrium. When official statistics diverge from lived experiences, the social contract built on citizens sharing data begins to erode, revealing a deep crisis within the discipline of economics. Unlike Adam Smith — who grounded market value in ethics and social relations in The Theory of Moral Sentiments — modern economics has severed this moral root, prioritising abstract mathematical models over real-world complexity. Joseph Stiglitz warns that GDP-centric metrics obscure true well-being. Persistent youth unemployment amidst trillions of rands in township transactions is not merely an error — it reflects a flawed measurement paradigm. Kenneth Boulding adds that modern economics builds on classical works like The Wealth of Nations and Das Kapital, which contain unrealised 'evolutionary potential' absent in contemporary models. He cautions that excluding economic history from graduate education produces 'idiots savant' — technically proficient economists who lack institutional understanding and historical insight. A balanced synthesis of modern analytical tools and classical wisdom can help bridge this divide, fostering critical engagement with economics as both a technical and humanistic discipline. Lehohla's defence rests on rigid positivism — the belief in the 'holy' authority of statistical processes — yet this glosses over the ethical roots of economic thought. For Smith, wealth was defined by the ability to command others' labour — a social relationship, not a cold data point. Modern economics, however, has decoupled itself from these normative foundations. As Stiglitz points out, most metrics conceal inequality and human suffering, reducing development to arithmetic rather than justice. This philosophical drift is evident in South Africa: while StatsSA reports rising unemployment, Capitec Bank documents over R2 trillion in township transactions — a vibrant economic reality invisible to official instruments. This disconnect signals a deeper crisis in economics. Equilibrium models and optimisation problems eclipse historical nuance, cultural dynamics, and power relations. Boulding warned of this technocratic drift, describing modern economists as technicians fluent in calculus but blind to social texture. In a direct response to me, Lehohla stated: 'There is no legacy to protect on my part, Bhungane (my totem), nor language to polish. When a lie is told, there is no reason to give it a different word. It is simply a 'lie,' and when an argument does not make sense, it is called nonsense in the English language, and when nonsense is given wheels and wings to fly, it is called 'rubbish.' Those who wish to opine should do so from research rather than from a hailer.' While I may not use his hyperbolic or confrontational language, I am neither uninformed nor inexperienced in public discourse. I have an academic and policy track record that makes me far more than 'a hailer.' As many have rightly pointed out, shouting or using aggressive language does not strengthen an argument. We must allow space for multiple viewpoints to ensure inclusive policymaking around poverty, inequality, land reform, and unemployment. Finally, Lehohla attributes South Africa's unique unemployment situation to two key factors: agricultural activity tied to land ownership and high levels of economic concentration. He argues that these factors challenge simplistic international comparisons and emphasise the centrality of the land question in shaping employment outcomes. No. Lehohla is deliberately conflating issues to obscure the fact that his revered unemployment metrics miss the ethical forest for the numerical trees. Siyayibanga le economy! * Siyabonga Hadebe is an independent commentator based in Geneva on socio-economic, political and global matters. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.

The South African

8 hours ago

• The South African

Surviving to thriving: SPCA shares heartwarming update on Bobby

The SPCA has shared a heartwarming update on Bobby, a dog rescued after it was spotted in a viral TikTok video earlier this month. Images of the emaciated dog – who had been forced to eat plastic to survive – left many South Africans enraged and calling for action. Johannesburg content creator Sasha Tshiamo and the dog's owners are now facing charges of animal cruelty. Earlier this month, a TikTok video featuring Sasha Tshiamo dancing was posted on the X platform. The video quickly went viral because of an emaciated dog in the background. The animal's ribcage was clearly visible, and it appeared lethargic. Following a nationwide call, the SPCA stepped in, removing the dog – affectionately nicknamed 'Bobby' – from her shocking living conditions. The animal activists revealed that both the dog's owner – who willingly surrendered the animal – and the influencer were now facing animal cruelty charges. In a social media post, the SPCA shared an update about Bobby, who appeared to be thriving under their care. In a video clip, brave Bobby is seen wearing a winter jersey as she frolics in a garden and happily poses for pictures. The heartwarming caption read: 'One sad video, one brave dog, one second chance. 'Bobby's story didn't end in the background – it's only just begun! From a shadow of herself to a brave and beautiful girl. It turns out that all Bobby needed was a little love and some treats.' View this post on Instagram A post shared by NSPCA (@ According to the SPCA, Bobby will soon be up for adoption. The SPCA has repeatedly warned the public that animal abusers can be criminally charged under the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962. The act – which was established to prevent the cruelty of animals – stipulates that those found guilty can face a fine or imprisonment. The SPCA rescued a starving dog that captured the hearts of South Africans. Content creator Sasha Tshiamo is now facing animal cruelty charges over the viral video. Images via X: @nspca_sa Offenders could also face a denial of ownership – preventing them from owning animals – as well as a criminal conviction. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.

TimesLIVE

13 hours ago

• TimesLIVE

CRL chair's claims against its executive director are 'defamatory', Forsa says

Freedom of Religion South Africa (Forsa) has strongly denied what it termed false and defamatory allegations made by chairperson of the CRL Rights Commission Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva on Thursday. During a media briefing convened by the commission, Mkhwanazi-Xaluva alleged Forsa and its executive director Michael Swain had accused her, Cheryl Zondi and/or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation of receiving R1.5m from the National Lotteries Commission. Zondi was a witness in the rape trial of Nigerian televangelist Timothy Omotoso. Forsa said this donation was reported widely in the media. It said a press release from the National Lotteries Commission of December 13 2018 stated the Cheryl Zondi Foundation had partnered with the Izimvo 447 NPC and received R1.5m to aid their work for those exploited in sacred spaces. 'Neither Michael Swain, nor Forsa, has ever alleged financial misconduct of any kind. Such claims are false and wholly without any factual basis at all,' the organisation said in a statement. Forsa said it was disappointed that Mkhwanazi-Xaluva did not first seek clarity or engage with it before making public accusations and threatening legal action. 'Her subsequent laying of criminal charges against Michael Swain and Forsa is seen as vexatious and unfounded. It appears to be a personally motivated attack designed to intimidate and deter Forsa (or others) from opposing the chair's agenda to push again for state regulation of religion.' Forsa said it reserved all legal rights in its response to this matter and was considering appropriate legal remedies in response to these false and harmful allegations. 'These include a formal demand for retraction as well as amending its extant damages claim for defamation.' Forsa said it was not against any person or institution, including Mkhwanazi-Xaluva or the commission. 'On the contrary, Forsa supports all of its legitimate and constitutional objectives. However, our singular focus is the protection and advancement of religious freedom and related constitutional rights in South Africa.' Forsa said a letter from more than 20 senior religious leaders representing about 12-million South Africans was sent to President Cyril Ramaphosa in 2019, raising several concerns, including that Mkhwanazi-Xaluva simultaneously served as CRL chairperson and deputy chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation. The commission was a Chapter 9 institution, created to be independent and impartial, accountable only to parliament, Forsa said. 'Thus, its chair must avoid bias, preferential treatment and dual loyalties. Arguably, this includes keeping clear boundaries when interacting with organisations, especially advocacy organisations, linked to matters before the commission.' Forsa said under Mkhwanazi-Xaluva's leadership at the time, the CRL strongly pushed for state regulation of religion. 'A wide diversity of faith communities strongly opposed the CRL's proposal. The 'conflict of interest' concern arose because the CRL chair cited the Omotoso case as a high-profile example to justify the CRL's proposed regulation model (via peer review councils, licensing of religious leaders, etc).' Her appointment as the deputy chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation, therefore, created a strong impression of an overlap of interest and influence. 'On the one hand, the chair of the CRL is tasked with impartial interaction with faith communities, constitutional compliance, and safeguarding diverse religious rights. Acting as deputy chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation is an advocacy-aligned — not neutral — position.' This raised legitimate concerns about a conflict of interest on the part of the chairperson, Forsa said. 'It must be stressed that this in no way raises any concern or casts any suspicion on Cheryl Zondi or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation.' Since being reappointed, Mkhwanazi-Xaluva has continued promoting proposals for state regulation of religion, including the introduction of peer review mechanisms, Forsa said. It said it had consistently opposed this course of action, repeatedly warning that state regulation of religion was unnecessary, unconstitutional, unworkable and unaffordable. 'In Forsa's public education efforts to point out the dangers to religious freedom of state regulation of religion, we gave the historical background to the current context. One part of this extensive presentation referenced the 2019 letter to the president in good faith and with full transparency.' Forsa said the 2019 letter did not accuse Mkhwanazi-Xaluva of theft or corruption of any kind and did not contain any accusations against Zondi or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation at all.