The unbanning of the ANC raised questions about the future of the NIC/TIC as well as of the UDF. There were murmurings that the UDF would redefine its focus to concentrate on socio-economic issues while the ANC focused on political negotiations. Some put forward the idea that the NIC could become a cultural body. Yunus Mohamed, then regional secretary of the UDF in Natal and a member of the NIC executive, indicated in a 1990 interview that the UDF would ‘restructure’ itself to remain relevant in the changing political context. He lamented in 2002 that ‘it would have been good if the UDF had remained. I argued that position openly, but … there was a climate of suspicion and the decision was to close the organisation.’

Why was the UDF disbanded with such haste?

Some within the ANC saw the UDF as their creation. However, even though its programmes were important in popularising the Freedom Charter, the UDF had gathered its own identity, momentum and homegrown leadership. Those who did not want to see the UDF simply disband were portrayed by some within the ANC as part of a reactionary cabal. In an open letter to Walter Sisulu, Aubrey Mokoena, a key member of the Release Mandela Committee (RMC) and the UDF, who wanted the UDF disbanded, explained: ‘It has always been our understanding that the UDF was a front of organisations and never an organisation in itself. However, certain functionaries of the UDF cherished ambitions and aspirations that … the UDF should exist as a parallel structure to the ANC.’

Writing in 1989, Jerry Coovadia waxed lyrical that a strong heterogeneous internal movement ‘will be the foundation on which democracy will be built in South Africa … because the ANC has made it clear that it is not a government in exile. It has said that it will accept the freely expressed wishes of all the people of South Africa.’ Coovadia's romantic view seemed to be oblivious to the dangers of the ANC's democratic centralism and the UDF's adoption of the Freedom Charter in 1987, factors which created the conditions for ‘the centralisation of the [Mass Democratic Movement] under the national leadership and the reduced concern for accommodating alternative views’.