There is a Chinese proverb that "when a person leaves, the tea gets cold". In the literal sense, this of course does not refer to tea but rather to power.
As the proverb goes, the "tea must cool after the guest has left, otherwise it will go bad", meaning that although one freely drinks tea during one’s tenure in office, the authority to warm it up once you are gone is diminished.
Such is the rising tendency of former leaders who lambaste the governments and parties they were once proud to serve.
As a result of the luxury imposed by not having the responsibility of elected leadership, they want to warm their tea by seeking celebrity through criticism of those in office and the policies they themselves once espoused.
This is not a uniquely South African phenomenon; all over the world, countries such as China and so-called mature democracies of the UK, the US and even some countries on this continent, battle with the challenge of former leaders intent on positioning themselves within society at the expense of the parties and governments they led.
It is said that with hindsight everyone becomes a brilliant political pundit. Former leaders of parties and government report things to the media that they at no point raised with their erstwhile or even current parties. Having suddenly "found their voice" after happily playing status quo politics while in power, the "former insider" status of these former leaders lends them an extra appeal in the media.
Their insights on party and state affairs are held up as courageous and bold — speaking truth to power.
The insider status of these critics also unfortunately lends them an air of invincibility: the public is led to believe that their views are gospel as they have been privy to internal, confidential information.
Their bona fides are presented as being for "the sake of the country", and not to protect their "tea" — in this case, being individual or group interests, or to build a power base or fuel personal ambition.
In certain instances, it is not inconceivable that the intention of some of these former leaders turned professional critics is to set up "alternative machinery" that offers an alternative view to the organisation that they would accuse of supposedly being in decline. According to them, theirs is the opposite of a rose-tinted view of state affairs; namely that the current state is in hopeless and irreversible decline.
What must be read from their statements is that current challenges would never have happened when they or their political patrons were in power. Theirs was a golden age, and ours is "delusional".
This commentary does not unite our people and advance their struggle for socioeconomic transformation; nor does it consolidate their leadership of society. Instead, it causes rifts within our organisation and undermines its cohesion.
Chairman Mao identified two types of social contradictions — those between ourselves and the enemy, and those among the people themselves. The two are totally different in their nature. Because they are different, methods to resolve these contradictions are also different.
The story of how former president Nelson Mandela differed with then president Thabo Mbeki’s views on the handling of the fight against HIV/AIDS in SA is now a matter of record. Holding very strong views on the matter, Mr Mandela attended and addressed the national executive committee of the African National Congress (ANC), where it is reported it vehemently differed with his views, to the point of accusing Mr Mandela of interference.
Neither Comrade Mandela nor the national executive committee of the ANC regarded internal contradictions as an issue for public record, understanding as we still do that such would border on populism.
Around the world, former leaders are quoted as vocal critics of the policies of the current administration in their countries — sometimes conveniently forgetting their own chequered legacies.
Society can only be confused by veterans who operate independently and outside structures that they themselves would have sought to defend and protect during their periods of service.
The only way, as Mao’s the Correct Handling of Contradictions Amongst the People dictates, "to settle controversial issues amongst the people is by the democratic method, the method of discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and education" and certainly not by grandstanding and coercion.
These are some of the lessons that leaders, who were our mentors and who today would be accused of such behaviour, taught some of us.
Taking to the streets and shouting at your comrades in any roles, we were told, is bad and opportunistic.
Although political pluralism is to be welcomed, they cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, you position yourself as an "insider-turned-outsider", but at the same time you want to leverage former relationships for personal, political or other gain.
Policies and programmes of government, the functioning and decisions of the organisation, are criticised ad infinitum. This is cause for serious concern, particularly if one considers that we never had the pleasure of them expressing their views when they were still in power.
The ANC has a plurality of forums intended to promote internal democracy. Some of these include the recently held national general council, to which current and former national executive committee members were invited. The national general council went to great lengths to acknowledge and confront the vexing issues facing the movement.
One of the greatest strengths of the ANC has always been the movement’s ability to frankly assess its shortcomings and weaknesses. Introspection is a key pillar of the ANC’s political life.
It is in internal forums such as these that the ANC, in accordance with our dearly held commitment to criticism and self-criticism, raises issues in order to correct the challenges facing the movement and society at large.
The bona fides of those who choose to remain silent in such forums only to find solace on the pages of newspapers, should be brought into question.
It is because of deep disappointment in some of our own that it is necessary for these tendencies be highlighted. It is out of frustration that we refuse to insulate unbecoming behaviour — even within our ranks.
The problem with former leaders ‘finding their voice’
As the proverb goes, the "tea must cool after the guest has left, otherwise it will go bad", meaning that although one freely drinks tea during one’s tenure in office, the authority to warm it up once you are gone is diminished.
Such is the rising tendency of former leaders who lambaste the governments and parties they were once proud to serve.
As a result of the luxury imposed by not having the responsibility of elected leadership, they want to warm their tea by seeking celebrity through criticism of those in office and the policies they themselves once espoused.
This is not a uniquely South African phenomenon; all over the world, countries such as China and so-called mature democracies of the UK, the US and even some countries on this continent, battle with the challenge of former leaders intent on positioning themselves within society at the expense of the parties and governments they led.
It is said that with hindsight everyone becomes a brilliant political pundit. Former leaders of parties and government report things to the media that they at no point raised with their erstwhile or even current parties. Having suddenly "found their voice" after happily playing status quo politics while in power, the "former insider" status of these former leaders lends them an extra appeal in the media.
Their insights on party and state affairs are held up as courageous and bold — speaking truth to power.
The insider status of these critics also unfortunately lends them an air of invincibility: the public is led to believe that their views are gospel as they have been privy to internal, confidential information.
Their bona fides are presented as being for "the sake of the country", and not to protect their "tea" — in this case, being individual or group interests, or to build a power base or fuel personal ambition.
In certain instances, it is not inconceivable that the intention of some of these former leaders turned professional critics is to set up "alternative machinery" that offers an alternative view to the organisation that they would accuse of supposedly being in decline. According to them, theirs is the opposite of a rose-tinted view of state affairs; namely that the current state is in hopeless and irreversible decline.
What must be read from their statements is that current challenges would never have happened when they or their political patrons were in power. Theirs was a golden age, and ours is "delusional".
This commentary does not unite our people and advance their struggle for socioeconomic transformation; nor does it consolidate their leadership of society. Instead, it causes rifts within our organisation and undermines its cohesion.
Chairman Mao identified two types of social contradictions — those between ourselves and the enemy, and those among the people themselves. The two are totally different in their nature. Because they are different, methods to resolve these contradictions are also different.
The story of how former president Nelson Mandela differed with then president Thabo Mbeki’s views on the handling of the fight against HIV/AIDS in SA is now a matter of record. Holding very strong views on the matter, Mr Mandela attended and addressed the national executive committee of the African National Congress (ANC), where it is reported it vehemently differed with his views, to the point of accusing Mr Mandela of interference.
Neither Comrade Mandela nor the national executive committee of the ANC regarded internal contradictions as an issue for public record, understanding as we still do that such would border on populism.
Around the world, former leaders are quoted as vocal critics of the policies of the current administration in their countries — sometimes conveniently forgetting their own chequered legacies.
Society can only be confused by veterans who operate independently and outside structures that they themselves would have sought to defend and protect during their periods of service.
The only way, as Mao’s the Correct Handling of Contradictions Amongst the People dictates, "to settle controversial issues amongst the people is by the democratic method, the method of discussion, of criticism, of persuasion and education" and certainly not by grandstanding and coercion.
These are some of the lessons that leaders, who were our mentors and who today would be accused of such behaviour, taught some of us.
Taking to the streets and shouting at your comrades in any roles, we were told, is bad and opportunistic.
Although political pluralism is to be welcomed, they cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, you position yourself as an "insider-turned-outsider", but at the same time you want to leverage former relationships for personal, political or other gain.
Policies and programmes of government, the functioning and decisions of the organisation, are criticised ad infinitum. This is cause for serious concern, particularly if one considers that we never had the pleasure of them expressing their views when they were still in power.
The ANC has a plurality of forums intended to promote internal democracy. Some of these include the recently held national general council, to which current and former national executive committee members were invited. The national general council went to great lengths to acknowledge and confront the vexing issues facing the movement.
One of the greatest strengths of the ANC has always been the movement’s ability to frankly assess its shortcomings and weaknesses. Introspection is a key pillar of the ANC’s political life.
It is in internal forums such as these that the ANC, in accordance with our dearly held commitment to criticism and self-criticism, raises issues in order to correct the challenges facing the movement and society at large.
The bona fides of those who choose to remain silent in such forums only to find solace on the pages of newspapers, should be brought into question.
It is because of deep disappointment in some of our own that it is necessary for these tendencies be highlighted. It is out of frustration that we refuse to insulate unbecoming behaviour — even within our ranks.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos