Abstract

In oppressive states where legitimate opposition is outlawed resistance organisations often operate underground. The secret membership and leadership make consultation, debate and accountability virtually impossible. Invariably covert organisations tend to be undemocratic. Yet, to be effective, a resistance organisation needs the support of the broader mass of oppressed non-members whom it cannot consult, and from whom it received no mandate. This study examines the question whether or not covert resistance organisations are entitled to support from bystanders. Alternatively, are bystanders justified in withholding support on the grounds that they had not consented to the aims and strategies of the movements, or that they were not consulted on a particular issue? Almost every major political programme of resistance in South Africa is characterised by a measure of both persuasion and coercion. School, rent and consumer boycotts and national stayaways, for example, are monitored closely by activists and the consequences for the violators are sometimes perilous. Critics have been quick to point out that coercive involvement of the oppressed in the liberation struggle is morally indefensible. This study concludes that the issue is much more involved than is suggested in the above criticism. Consent theory of obligation fails to account for any obligations the oppressed may have to support a liberation struggle. Voluntary consent of the oppressed is highly improbable where reprisals by the oppressive regime are likely to diminish or undermine the willingness to participate in the liberation struggle. By employing the theory of fair play it is argued, that in certain limited circumstances, coercive measures by liberation movements in an attempt to enlist support for specific projects and campaigns are justified. However, no bystander should be coerced into joining a political organisation. ;The fact that formerly banned resistance organisations were unbanned in February, 1990 has not affected this study's findings materially. The aim remains to examine to what extent an underground organisation can be democratic