The year 1990 saw the unbanning of the ANC and other political formations that had been banned since the 1960‟s and beyond. Particularly for the ANC, it meant that it now needed to contend with the task of rebuilding its structures within the country and asserting itself as the foremost organisation within the mass democratic movement in the country. Glaser (2012:98) states that throughout 1990, after F.W De Klerk had dramatically announced the unbanning of the liberation movements, ANC exiles drifted back into South Africa, and political prisoners were released. The ANC had to re-establish itself as a legal party and negotiate mergers and alliances with the 1980s internal movement. Not surprisingly, one of the key points of discussion was the formation of an overarching ANC youth structure.
According to Botiveau (2007:17), just like the post-Soweto uprisings had been the product of high school pupils, the 1980-81 mobilisation and the 1984 uprisings owed a lot to students and the Congress of South African Students (COSAS) in particular. COSAS was a national organisation, well rooted locally, and from its creation (1979) onward, it had called for the creation of a national youth organisation. This initiative was adopted by the UDF and led to the formation of SAYCO a few years later. As from 1983 members of COSAS who had left the educational system played a major part in the creation of youth congresses all over South Africa. These had aligned themselves with the values of the ANC and covered the youth as a whole: students, young workers and unemployed youth. These congresses were then gathered in regional structures, such as the Cape Youth Congress (CAYCO). As a result of this overall process, SAYCO was launched on 28 March 1987. More than 200 delegates secretly gathered at the University of the Western Cape, in a founding congress which
resulted in the adoption of the Freedom Charter and a constitution claiming the full representation of the South African youth.
It is with respect to the above context that Glaser (2012:98) argues that in the re- establishment of the ANCYL, four youth organizations needed to be accommodated in a new structure: the external ANC Youth section; SAYCO; COSAS; and the South African National Students Congress (SANSCO). COSAS had re-emerged as a force in high schools following its unbanning in early 1990. SANSCO was university based, effectively a reconstituted AZASO; it then simply became the South African Students Congress (SASCO) when it merged with NUSAS in 1991. According to Glaser (2012:99), all four groups agreed in principle to the renewal of the ANCYL, but the issue that caused a great deal of disagreement was the shape the new organisation would take. Glaser (2012:99) further notes that early on in the negotiations, COSAS and SASCO decided to retain their independence. They argued, according to Glaser, that they needed autonomy in order to be responsive to their very specific school and university student constituencies. Rather than integrate into the new ANCYL, they would maintain a cooperative relationship and even encourage dual membership. This left the Youth Section and SAYCO to enter into direct negotiations.
Held between 13 and 16 April 1990, the resolutions of SAYCO‟s first national
congress outlined the “natural” link between SAYCO and the ANC, as well as the necessity to relaunch the ANCYL, in which, according to SAYCO, it would play a major role (Botiveau 2007:20).According to Glaser (2012:100), the Youth Section carried the authority of a exile movement and the ANC name behind it, but lacked a mass organisation and its negotiation position was therefore weak.
The negotiation process between SAYCO and the Youth Section was quickly charecterised by conflict over the question of leadership within the organisation to be. In contrast to the rebuilding of the ANC, which was based on an imprisoned or exiled leadership, the construction of ANCYL, in the absence of an
external structure, required an important role for the “inziles”. SAYCO agreed on the principle of fusion with the Youth Section, but its leaders were determined to control the process (Botiveau, 2007:20). Glaser (2012:100) summarises this merger between the two by stating that SAYCO, because of its mass support, was able to control the terms of the merger.
SAYCO‟s leadership was granted the main positions in the Provisional National Youth Committee, which was the Provisional Executive Committee of the ANCYL. Peter Mokaba remained President, and Rapu Molekane National
Secretary. The provisional ANCYL was officially launched on 27October 1990,
though SAYCO did not disband until the official launch of the ANCYL in December 1991. The preamble of the provisional ANCYL relinquished the Marxist references of SAYCO, focusing on the objectives of the ANC: a democratic regime in a non-racial and non-sexist society. In order to contribute to this aim, the ANCYL was to become a mass-based youth movement. It would serve the interests of the ANC, but also those of the South African youth. These two functions were to be known as the “twin tasks” of the ANCYL: support for the ANC, rallying the youth behind its programme, as well as “championing the general interests of South African youth” in the political and socio-economic life of the country.