“MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL” - HOW THE WHITE REGIME WANTED TO ISOLATE DESMOND TUTU IN 1986

In August 1986 when one of the most radical religious leaders at that time, Desmond Tutu, was busy preparing for his enthronement as South Africa’s first black Archbishop of the Anglican Church, the white establishment was calling for his head. He had enraged the white ruling elite because of his calls for sanctions against the country. The Press Trust of SA News Agency, which was operating under extreme harassment at the hands of the security police at this time, published the following article on August 27 1986 about the anti-Tutu hysteria. “TU TERRIBLE, TU SPECTACULAR, TU TU MUCH” The run-in to the investiture of Archbishop Desmond Tutu on September 7 (1986) in St George’s Cathedral, Cape Town, has been marked by incredible virulence. He has been labelled “fat-cat, vain, impudent and transparent” and lampooned: “Tu terrible, Tu spectacular, Tu Tu much”. The pro-government Citizen newspaper of Johannesburg, which runs an almost daily campaign against the archbishop-elect, wrote in one of its editorials: “There is no greater thorn in South Africa’s flesh than this man of cloth who strides through the world like a religious pop star”, and went on to denounce the enthronement as a quest for “ecclesiastical super-stardom”. More decisively, the right-wing Afrikaner political parties have called for his arrest, prosecution and the confiscation of his passport. In the white Government circles there have been murmurs of treason. It is an unusual situation for white South Africans to be frustrated by a black Christian whose neck they would dearly love to wring. The up-market Business Day newspaper in Johannesburg neatly summed up the problem. Bishop Tutu, it said, “was taunting a blundering Government, calling for sanctions, pronouncing his hatred for capitalism and making his investiture an international showbiz event”. But the newspaper warned that if the Government took the bait and tried to play the Bishop at his own game it would lose.

“The bishop is a master of theatrical politics who has raised the consciousness of half of mankind about apartheid……. He has no need to fear Government. He has won the affection of his people, the honour of his church, the Nobel Peace Prize, and the acclaim of mankind; the only achievement that eludes him as a man of the cloth is martyrdom. “To be tried for treason, and (if the past trials are any guide) to be acquitted, would create an international circus sufficiently sensational to satisfy the lust of cameras for a year or two.” The only point on which the newspaper may be wrong is that the bishop will necessarily be acquitted. The law is specific and provides for lengthy incarceration for South Africans who call for sanctions against their country. There is little doubt that the bishop’s action verges delicately on the treasonable. From the white right-wing point of view the real issue is relatively simple. Will the satisfaction of jailing the bishop outweigh the disadvantage of a bad international Press. It is a judgement on which Bishop Tutu’s head depends. The Citizen newspaper offers some insight into the possible plans that are being made for the Bishop. It says action will not be taken against the Bishop before his installation because it would precipitate an international diplomatic incident given the high-powered guest list. “The spectacular guest list is a ploy to ensure maximum publicity and martyrdom should any steps be taken against him.” But, it adds: “Because of the hostile public opinion generated during Bishop Tutu’s latest trip abroad and the mounting pressure for action in political circles, there is now a considerable body of senior opinion in the Government that favours some form of action at an appropriate time”. This sounds ominous considering that warnings have also been issued recently by both the Minister of Manpower, Mr Pietie Du Plessis, and the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industries, Mr Kent Durr. To boot, State President Mr P W Botha suggested in a jibe at his party’s Federal Congress that the country could soon see the back of the Bishop. It is difficult to say whether the Bishop would have been reviled so bitterly had he been white? In South Africa, however, there is little reason to doubt that race colours most perspectives. In the Bishop’s case, racism has been conveniently submerged in the great debate on sanctions and the “national interest”. Most whites, if they are to be believed, are outraged by the Bishop because he has called for sanctions. The stock argument is that this will put Black people out of work, erode their living standards and increase their misery, “effects that the Bishop is unlikely to suffer because of his clerical wealth”. As the Citizen newspaper put it: “Far be it for us to suggest there should be any actions against the Bishop. But at least we can question why a man who lives so well and travels so far is unconcerned about the lot of so many blacks who are going to suffer because of sanctions.” Seldom is there ever mention that sanctions will affect whites when these arguments are trotted out. It is a remarkable testimony to white altruism which probably explains why social security for blacks in South Africa is virtually non-existent. The fact that some four million blacks in the country – 25 percent of the working population – are unemployed; that nearly two million people in the bantustans are without incomes, let alone jobs, never enters the reckoning. Moreover, in attacking the Bishop, most whites gloss over the fact that he is not the only black person who supports economic pressure on South Africa. The largest labour federation in the country, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), favours economic measures as does the black business lobby, the National African Federated Chambers of Commerce (NAFCOC). The United Democratic Front (UDF) people’s organisation, which commands the support of millions of South Africans, shares similar sentiments as do all of the extra-parliamentary black political groups. In short, the conundrum is that whites are against sanctions for the sake of blacks who favour economic measures that will pressurise the white government into vital political concessions. Those blacks who are the exception to what is very much a rule are inevitably linked to the bantustans, which are essentially and increasingly dependent on South Africa for survival. They understandably, reserve a special ire for the Bishop.

(DR FAROUK MEER - A PHOTO TAKEN WHEN HE ATTENDED A ONE YEAR MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR STRUGGLE ACTIVIST MEWA RAMGOBIN IN 2017) Dr Farouk Meer, an official of the UDF and the Natal Indian Congress (NIC), believes that part of the hostility derives quite naturally from the Bishop’s status. “He is an international figure, with an aura enhanced by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. As such what he says commands an international audience. “The fact that his views coincide with the opinion of the black majority in the country must hurt whites. By articulating what black people really think, he is breaking a conspiracy of silence imposed on the majority through their lack of political power and through white control of the media. “Whites are quite happy to ignore black feelings as long as it does not reach the outside world. Bishop Tutu has broken the rules of the game and whites are sore.” Dr Meer adds that “deep down whites realise that the real issue is not sanctions, but apartheid”. “They are using the sanctions threat to rally around a common fear. That fear has been raised by a black man in their own backyard. “They have allowed him to grow powerful and now he is a danger. It sticks in the craw of the white minority.”

(ZWELAKHE SISULU - WHEN HE WAS EDITOR OF THE NEW NATION NEWSPAPER) Zwelakhe Sisulu, editor of the New Nation black newspaper, adds another dimension: “South Africa prides itself on being a Christian nation”. “The reality of that Christian commitment is now being questioned by a black man. He is challenging their comfortable Christianity, challenging them to come to grips with the real horror of the apartheid system on which they thrive. This is obviously disconcerting and enraging.” Sisulu says there is also another aspect in which Tutu deeply affronts most white people. “Most whites are still basically paternalistic. They believe that they have allowed Bishop Tutu to ascend in the church. Therefore, he ought to act with reticence and circumspection, indeed respect they finally believe that all blacks must show towards whites.” The white conservative Daily News afternoon newspaper in the city of Durban suggests yet another reason for the backlash against Tutu. In an editorial, it says: “With sanctions barriers going up all around us, it is quite natural for many South Africans to have intimations of paranoia. This may manifest itself in a desire to lash back at those who promote the campaign.” Whatever the psychological motivations there is little doubt that Bishop Tutu has incensed whites as few church people have done in this country. The fact that he has invited international dignitaries to his enthronement has only fuelled white jealousies, inflaming the wrath of a besieged and isolated tribe. They are calling the enthronement in St George’s Cathedral “a showbiz event”. It gives whites the opportunity for sincerely wishing the Bishop breaks a leg. Ends – Press Trust of SA News Agency August 27 1986