In 1984, a Conservative government under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declared war on Britain’s unions, including the National Union of Mineworkers. The closure of coal mines was announced, not only threatening an industry, but whole communities.

The government used all means available to fight the 160,000 coal miners that took to the street. Those who stood on the front line of the strike for an entire year were labelled ‘the Enemy Within’ by Thatcher. These miners became part of a battle that has shaped Britain today

Still the Enemy Within is a unique insight into the 1984–85 British Miners’ Strike, told through unique archive footage and the raw first-hand experiences of those who lived through Britain’s longest strike.

Directed by Owen Gower
Duration: 112
Year: 2014

"This is merely the worst, the most brutal, the most bloody of thousands of so called ‘unrest incidents’ we’ve had around the country. We have them on an almost daily basis."

Cape Town based journalist and political commentator Terry Bell set the tone at last night’s insightful discussion of the Marikana massacre and South African politics today. The talk’s key focus was not ‘what happened?’, or ‘why?’, but ‘what next?’.

The chair for the evening, Royal African Society director Richard Dowden, was joined by an expert panel, the discussion ranged from ANC corruption and economic issues, to 2024 political forecasts.

Audrey Brown, BBC producer and presenter interviewed the National Union of Mine Workers’ spokesperson, Lesiba Seshoka, following the massacre, and was shocked by his response:

"’Well the police sent out a very strong signal to these people – we will not be held to ransom, there will be no disorder.’ The response was just astonishing. The National Union of Mine Workers is meant to represent and protect these workers."

Andrew Feinstein, a former ANC MP who left the party following a public spat with Thabo Mbeki surrounding a $10 billion arms deal, took the discussion further:

"Our new Commissioner of the Police made this statement very soon after the tragedy happened, that ‘the police had nothing to apologise for.’"

Moving away from the specifics of the massacre and its precursors, Feinstein gave an impassioned insight into the ANC ‘s interior:

"Mbeki had a degree of technocratic competence… there was the sense of the building of a government…which during the Zuma administration has just collapsed. And, I would characterise the Zuma administration as one of serial ineptitude."

Jonny Steinberg, acclaimed author and lecturer in African Studies at Oxford University, gave a damning indictment of the ANC’s future prospects.

"Currently poor black South Africans vote at a greater rate than the apathetic middle class. The post-Marikana political scene will see a swing between poor, predominantly black voters, and the wealthier middle class – who will return to the poles, voting against the ANC."

"Very little is going to change in the short term, but a great deal will change in the medium term." Steinberg said. "By 2019 or 2024 we may see the end of one party movement in South Africa and an era of coalition party politics."

Natznet Tesfay, head of Africa forecasting at Exclusive Analysis Ltd, commented on the threat of contagion of strikes to sectors that appear unrelated.

"These economic problems, combined with the perception that President Zuma is already in position to win re-election as ANC party leader, continue to undermine the party’s dominant position."

Predictably, Julius Malema‘s name arose in discussion. Steinberg and Feinstein held he was not a long term political player, while Tesfay added:

"Malema himself has become an indicator…within a couple of days of his arrival [at a mining site] or his contacting them, there is a strike. So he is providing some kind of incitement and that needs to be recognised."

Ultimately the panel highlighted the ANC’s increasingly embattled position when fielding audience questions on Malema, economic issues and corruption, which Bell described as:

"People in one another’s pockets but much more subtly than with bribes."

Feinstein added:

"I think the way in which money percolates between the mining houses, or companies in general, and the political class happens between a variety of formal and informal mechanisms, but that it is happening, there is absolutely no doubt."

Watch the event here:

By Thomas Lowe

International disagreement on the aims of the Iranian government was well represented on the discussion’s panel. Does Iran seek regional hegemony? Are its motivations aggressive or defensive? And the pointed question at the heart of the debate – what will Israel do next?

Martin Fletcher, associate editor of The Times took the reigns.

Author and contributor to a number of leading newspapers, Christopher de Bellaigue says we need a little more empathy.

“We wilfully misunderstood Iran then and we are in the process of wilfully misunderstanding Iran now. We have to make that leap of imagination – put ourselves in the shoes of our opponents… If we say that they are bent on Israel’s destruction then frankly I’m not convinced. If we think that they want to shore up their authority – I find that much more convincing.”

Ran Gidor of the Israeli embassy in London accepts that if Iran developed a nuclear weapon it would be unlikely to drop it on Israel tomorrow. His immediate concerns are different.

“A nuclear Iran would be better placed to destabilise the entire region. It’s not about hegemony… It’s putting together the trajectory of Iranian behaviour since 1979 plus give the Ayatollah weapons of mass destruction… the formula is a catastrophic one.”

In this Gidor found a sympathetic, if nuanced, ear. Former Italian Ambassador to Iran, Roberto Toscano seeks the middle ground. How should Israeli fears that Iran would be able to exert its influence differently with a nuclear weapon be addressed?

“Iranian regional hegemony is not acceptable but Iranian exclusion is not possible. Can you have some politically enlightened diplomatic tool to exclude hegemony and to allow for inclusion? This is the name of the game.”

And Iranian economic exclusion, says Iranian-American writer Azadeh Moaveni is allowing the government to push the narrative that Iran is being humbled by the West.

“I think that the actual reality of sanctions is being felt so acutely in almost every Iranian’s daily life and… that resentment is now being squarely directed at the West… there’s a feeling that Iran is being persecuted in a way."

One member of the audience asked a simple question completely passed over in the first half of the discussion: Would a strike against Iran be legal anyway? Yes, says Gidor.

“According to the acceptable definitions of self-defence under international law that would include, sometime a pre-emptive strike if and when the threat were considered to be imminent… This is why familiarising ourselves with the technicalities is so important… to determine first of all how imminent is the threat and secondly what should be done about it.”

Finally, and unsurprisingly, the elephant-in-the-room question of Israel’s own weapons capacity would not budge.

Ran Gidor I’m sure you don’t want me to talk about Israeli’s WMD capability tonight because I want to keep my pension #FCBBCA

— Frontline Club (@frontlineclub) March 16, 2012

Another blog post about this event written by Richard Nield can be found here.