If you were a brilliant freedom-fighter does that guarantee you will also be an exemplary champion of freedom? That is a question one cannot help but raise, with increasing sharpness, in respect of many within the African National Congress. It is far from clear that the answer is a happy, obvious and unequivocal ‘yes’. The ANC’s single greatest challenge in the upcoming National General Council will play out in the session focusing on its organisational culture and leadership renewal.
Put bluntly, while the ANC’s capacity to ensure a better life for all is not nearly as woeful as many opposition parties and critical media and some analysts would have us believe, nevertheless, the ANC has failed dismally to successfully transform itself into a classic – boring, even - parliamentary party. In short, it is stuck in the organisational ethos of liberation politics. It is worth reflecting on this shortcoming, thinking through its implications for our democracy and having a stab at a constructive way forward.
The ANC’s greatest organisational challenge is less a structural one than a cultural one. It needs to allow for greater internal disagreement. It also needs to allow for greater public transparency about such disagreement. That is not to say, as defenders of the party wrongly respond when that suggestion is put to them, that it must air all of its dirty laundry in public. Not so. Of course no organisation is ever that transparent. It would be self-destructive to be brutally honest about deep differences.
However, keeping some lid on differences of opinion about ideology and policy does not mean that complete secrecy is the answer. Take, for example, the culpable silence from many within the ANC (including the Zuma-ites now pretending to be veteran champions of scientific orthodoxy) with regards to the politically late Thabo Mbeki’s Aids denialism not too long ago. One simply cannot believe the flimsy claims that behind closed doors the ANC is a debate society more robust than the Oxford Debate Union. If that were the case, the rest of us who are not allowed inside those secret debate chambers should at least see occasional evidence of such, such as a clear victory of rationality (Aids orthodoxy) over irrationality (Mbeki having an African identity crisis at the cost of his country’s health - literally.)
This lack of internal democracy continues. Polokwane was not a panacea for the ANC’s organisational challenges. It got rid of one symptom, Mbeki, but not the problem, liberation ethos’ uglier reach. The print media got horribly excited a few days ago, for example, when cabinet minister Tokyo Sexwale made vague noises in pseudo-support of the media. This was seen as lethal criticism of the mooted Media Appeals Tribunal. Yet Sexwale had to be vague about his support.
But, given just how dangerous the idea is, why does the ANC not have a culture of internal debate and disagreement that would allow a Sexwale or a Jeremy Cronin, the deputy minister of Transport, to not hide behind unclear, ambiguous language which not even a skilled diplomat could decipher?
In short, the ANC remains internally undemocratic. It has yet to internalise the norms of democracy. It is little wonder that when it comes to respecting such norms outside the party, individuals like the Defence Minister, Lindiwe Sisulu, has a tough time engaging parliamentarians. After all, she is used to a top-down approach within the party to key debates.
This lack of transformation has bad consequences for all of us.
First, it acts as a disincentive for talented youngsters to enter politics. South Africa is no place for young politicos. If you grew up after 1994, went to a multiracial school, and belonged to a debate club and an environment where disagreement was cherished within the confines of logic and evidence-based reasoning, then ANC politics would turn you off. The winners are corporate companies and the losers are political parties and state departments.
Yet, we need a state bureaucracy that is highly skilled. But when the organisational culture of the most powerful political party is unforgivably ugly, and has an impact on the civil service as a result of the control wielded by these same politicians over the state machinery, then you have a government and a state system that young South Africans are not keen on being a part of unless forced into that system due to lack of alternatives.
Second, the lack of organisational transformation within the ANC negatively impacts our body politic. Democracy is not just about formal benchmarks like free and fair elections every five years or simply about respecting court judgments against the state, most of the time. It is about substantive norms; it is about democratic culture.
This means, for example, not introducing legislation that may result in whistle blowers being locked up or journalists who act in the public interest not having recourse to a legal defence on that ground when they let an important, even classified, state document come into the public space. It means not arresting a journalist just because he or she is tjatjarag. It is obvious that this lack of respect for democratic culture within the wider political system is directly related to the lack of an internal democratic ethos within the ANC.
So what is the solution? To be fair, the discussion document on this organisational question makes the right noises. Cadre deployment for its own sake retards development in cases where those cadres lack the skills for jobs, especially at local government level. That should be eliminated. At the root of it all, ultimately, lies money. It is understandable that none of the so-called cadres aspired to freedom-with-poverty. But that should not entail money driven politics.
The ANC should therefore try to come up with mechanisms that will aim at two things: first, diminishing the possibility of corruption and the impact of money-driven politics; second, it needs to adopt and enforce rules that allow for the open – public, even – contestation of ideas, policies and leadership positions.
A secret debate society is no debate society. Liberation politics and ethos have no rightful place in a multiparty, liberal and open democratic society. Ke Nako!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But how to solve the money problem? Either we find a decent mechanism to reward the heroes of the struggle, (after all they certainly deserve decent lives after all their sacrifices that we all benefut from) or they will find potentially damaging ways to reward themselves.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant! on the button.
ReplyDeleteI firstly would like to ask BHEKE:
Why exactly did they struggle? was it for the liberation of their people and for fairness and equality? or was it for themselves? If it was the first they should have rejoiced in the opening of South Africa and the goal being achieved. This should have been followed by appointing the appropriate people consequently to benefit south africa as a whole and not nominat themselves which many of them did. If they find potentially damaging ways to reward themselves then they really didn't care about south africa in the first place.
I really enjoyed your analysis, as one who generally doesn't delve into articles about the ANC in the newspapers as the beast has so many sides with an internal maze of agendas. I generally find the amount of mud slinging excessive. So I generally just try and get the just of whats happened as most the time its some allegation or sensationalism, and I carry on with my little life....
Unfortunately, this internal song and dance illustrated in the media, is necessary in a party which uses 'liberation' type politics as it rouses the emotions and connects with the people within the party and the voters. This basically means it doesn't matter what you say as long as you do it to a good beat with a bit of flair, whoever is supposed to be listening will prick up there ears, connect and join in with the jive and they'll enjoy it and remember it. It is essentially going to war with your opponents differnet point of view and fighting it until it is defeated and then taking the spoils of war, ie the popular favour, and the ego grows, causing the rush of endorphins and feeling of power.
It doesn't go the 'boring' debate route because that means logic would have to be the name of the game and not, name and shame egos. Yet logical discussion doesn't quite pull the heart strings and raise the adrenalin does it?.... No, it is hard work and involves the thrashing out of facts in a sequential interrelated sequence to prove a point and not damming the opponent for personal reasons. Debate is the REMOVAL of personal opinions from the equation and laying down the various versions of the facts like a puzzle and finding what shape they make, it doesn't satisfy the ego as the motives were not ego driven, but simply to solve the puzzle....
...So, we have come to the problem why are these liberation politics being utilized as asked in the article?
ReplyDeleteWell because those in the ANC government elected to government were initially the liberation movement leaders who were so prominent because they used liberation politics to mobilize a generally illiterate culturally mixed group, with limited communication lines. These leaders typically had lots of character and not as much academic understanding (they could garner support and say the right things to the right people stirring emotions). I'm not saying all the liberation leaders were like this but that during those times there were many effective rebels for the cause (The situation called for leaders who could rouse). This liberation politics was 'we need to fight because were right'.
It is many of these liberation leaders that were positioned in government due to their influence with the people in the delicate time that was the beginning of democracy. Initially these leaders still wanted a fight as that was their main type of politics, that is why this sort of very opinionated politics has dominated. Many of those leaders and indeed the younger warrior leaders who had gathered their followers from their respective areas during the struggle rose to the greatest power -seats of government.
I guess the more critically thinking politicians found themselves often surrounded by these jostling opinionated populist individuals, and their point of view was out voted by the majority of less 'educated' negotiating leaders. So these few people with the main job of securing freedom left for more influential positions.
(A point in case is Julius Malema, I mean he says he can debate about anything even if he doesn't know about the topic?!.)
This left more people like JZ to dance to the adoring crowds. These crowds who even after independence, impoverished and still lacked the skills to make discerning decisions between which politician was stating his point of view based on observation and acquired facts and not trying to sweet talk and pull heart strings and mashemywam's. The liberation politicians represented the majority's thinking of what a leader must be strong in what he does and fighting politics (None of this naffy negotiation banter).
The ANC has failed to make that transformation to 'classical' debating type 'boring' party precisely because the the 'liberation type politics' is what the people want-the people are still fighting, hard lives poverty, rising costs. They want a fighter not a talker. The crowd are not educated yet, as much as things are changing slowly, EDUCATION is the key, and well with racial economic policies there is still a struggle isn't there, so they be in power as long as BEE stands, good luck to us all.
Thanks.