Dennis Bloem, who played a pivotal role in mobilising and leading local struggles in Maokeng from the mid-1980s through to the 1990s, has explained why Maokeng was quiescent and tranquil between 1979 and 1985, before the student demonstrations. He rated the conservative character of the place and the oppressive structures as the main contributing considerations:

His explanation can be read to imply that the residents of Maokeng and Brentpark were too intimidated to protest. It is true that the ‘conservative’ character of Kroonstad and the oppressive structures, which Bloem portrays as ubiquitous (and even omnipotent), may have helped to deter many people from becoming involved in opposition politics. However, this explanation downplays (and even fails to acknowledge) the role played by the Town Council of Maokeng in restraining mass mobilisation against it – which, in other townships across the country, provided an impetus for protests.

The absence of pressing socioeconomic grievances, at least until 1989, hindered political mobilisation and organisation in Maokeng (and to an extent Brentpark). The town council, and the Manco (management committee) in Brentpark, were able to provide the basic services to their communities and still managed to keep the rent and service charges at an affordable level. Because of this, individuals aligned with ‘progressive’ structures, especially the United Democratic Front (UDF), failed to mobilise against the town council and Manco until 1989.

Consequently it was students who were thrust to the forefront of the struggle in Maokeng. This was made possible by the already widespread student activism in the country and students’ amenability to politicisation, as well as the increasing involvement of ‘respectable’ adults in opposition politics which stimulated community mobilisation. However, mobilisation was affected by the split between the Maokeng Democratic Crisis Committee and the Activists’ Forum.