Neville Alexander on the Unresolved National Question – A Warning Ignored (Forthcoming in Webster. E (ed) The Unresolved National Question, Wits University Press. Draft – not to be Ƌuoted ǁithout the authoƌs peƌŵissioŶ) Enver Motala and Salim Vally Amongst the scholars, academics, political analysts and activists – even those not favorably disposed to Neǀille AledžaŶdeƌs approach to the national question or his political convictions and practices, there can be little dispute about his immense contribution to the discussions about the national question in South Africa over the last several decades. His searching study and his erudition on the subject has played an important formative and critical role in the debates about the national question following the publication of his One Azania, One Nation: The National Question in South Africa under the nom de plume, No Sizwe. 1 In this article we will pay particular attention to this writing because it was perhaps his seminal contribution and provided the most comprehensive statement of AledžaŶdeƌs views on the subject. In it he first set out the basis for an historical examination of the national question, pointing to the wide range of perspectives representing those of political analysts, academics and scholars and most importantly, the ideas of the ideologues of liďeƌalisŵ aŶd apaƌtheid and the views held by the organizations of the oppressed. In this work and in his subsequent writings Alexander explored the multiplicity of concepts relevant to the national question such as ƌaĐe, ŶatioŶ, ŶatioŶal gƌoup, ethŶiĐitLJ sepaƌatisŵ and the like. His coruscating critique subjected many of the prevailing conceptions on this issue to a thoroughgoing scrutiny 1 Alexander clandestinely began writing this book on Robben Island and completed it during the period of his house arrest in Cape Town from 1974 to 1979. He was motivated to start writing the book after a celebrated debate with Nelson Mandela on Robben IslaŶd. IŶ his oǁŶ ǁoƌds, …I ǁƌote [the ďook ]ƌeallLJ ďeĐause of the deďates I had ǁith MaŶdela oŶ the IslaŶd aďout post -apartheid South Africa, the new nation, nation-building, what it all means in terms of racial prejudice, racial attitudes, racial categories, class, geŶdeƌ aŶd so oŶ….The disĐussioŶ took alŵost tǁo LJeaƌs; ǁe used to ŵeet oŶĐe a ǁeek aŶd disĐuss ǁhetheƌ theƌe is a ŶatioŶ aŶd how we would build a nation. Our position was that there is no nation, and we have to build a nation, and that this implied a whole lot of thiŶgs aďout eduĐatioŶ, stƌuĐtuƌal ĐhaŶge aŶd ideŶtitLJ politiĐs aŶd so oŶ…MaŶdelas positioŶ - Iŵ Ŷoǁ aďƌidgiŶg it - was that very simply the African people, the Bantu-speaking people of South Africa, are the nation. The others, the Indians, the coloureds, the ǁhites, aƌe ŵiŶoƌities. He used the teƌŵ ƌaĐial ŵiŶoƌities ;BusĐh, B., BusĐh, L aŶd Pƌess, ϮϬϭϰ:ϭϬϯ-4). Shaun Whittaker (2014), foƌĐefullLJ edžpƌesses the ǀieǁ that AledžaŶdeƌs positioŶ oŶ the NatioŶal QuestioŶ predates the debate with Mandela, Rather, it was largely informed by his reading of the Communist Manifesto and influenced by the perspectives of individuals such as Olive “ĐhƌeiŶeƌ aŶd IsaaĐ Taďata as ǁell as the Woƌkeƌs PaƌtLJ of “outh AfƌiĐa.