Independent thinkers killing ‘slate’ politics

Cynicism or downright disaffection is a common attitude among many towards party politics today, but after the conclusion of the United Democratic Movement’s 5th national conference I can unequivocally say my faith has been restored.

This conference was the site of vigorous, yet healthy and clean contestation. The power of persuasion was the name of the game and an exciting synergy between old and young clearly demonstrated that this organisation has life – and is growing.

The rise of Khanyisile Litchfield-Tshabalala – expelled from the EFF earlier this year – to the position of deputy president of the party demonstrated the maturity of UDM members and their willingness to embrace new ideas from new members who join the party.

The conference also debunked certain myths about the UDM, in particular a perception that the UDM is a party ruled by one individual whose views and standing cannot be challenged – the position of president held by the founder, Bantu Holomisa, was challenged by UDM member Nhlangabezi Ngebulana this year.

The conference also rubbished the notion that the UDM was at death’s door – how could it be when 55% of the delegates were made up of youth.

Another feature of the conference was the level of discipline – a rarity among political parties. This was evident even in the typically problematic registration process for credentials.

The use of a credible independent organisation like the Electoral Institution for Sustainable Democracy in Africa (Eisa) further enhanced UDM’s stand for clean, transparent and democratic processes.

Consequentially, even though the lobbying tactics were intense and robust, the results of all ten top positions– which I must add, were vigorously contested – were accepted by all supporters as fair and democratic.

This conference also reaffirmed my view that one night is too long in politics, and that there are no permanent friends in this game.

On the Saturday night, I had gone to bed believing the balance of forces was in favour of those I supported. This was informed by a consolidation and a head count we had done. To my dismay I woke up the next morning to the devastating news that our support had drastically dwindled due to the emergence of a new lobby group formed at midnight while we were sleeping.

And some from among our lot had decided to join this group.

We were to pay dearly for counting our chickens before they had hatched and for going to sleep before the business of the conference was concluded.

When we learnt that loss was imminent due to the emergent lobby group, we too had to resort to political tactics. This resulted in us regaining some of the lost ground; however, the damage was already done.

But what I appreciated was that while the lobbying was extremely intense and robust, it was healthy and respectful and the atmosphere was peaceful.

It was also clean. There was also no exchange of money in lieu of votes, as is alleged to happen in the conferences of some parties.

Another unique feature of this conference was that the leadership product was a reflection of the aspirations of the various lobby groups. This outcome defied the “slate” approach associated with elective congresses.

While delegates were encouraged by lobby groups to vote for preferred line-ups, we saw an outcome which began to suggest that delegates exercised their independent right and voted for candidates who might not have been preferred by their groups.

This is a rare feature in our political landscape where “slate” politics are the order of the day.

The demise of “slate” politics is to be welcomed since it creates a zero sum game mentality and it is dangerous for the growth of an organisation.

Slate politics is why some contestants resort to manipulation and are willing to play dirty games against their own comrades – something which is detrimental to the organisation in the long run.

Another downside of “slate” politics is that it robs the organisation of a divergent strong leadership for the sake of narrow interest.

The fact is that slate politics violates the tenets of democracy and reduces delegates to voting fodder with no capacity to apply their own minds. And at worst it creates “ownership” of delegates by the aspirant leadership or immediate beneficiaries.

In the UDM’s 5th conference the delegates killed slate politics by cross-pollinating their preferred leadership on the basis of merit and competence.

Certainly there was an element of nostalgia and paranoid vanguardism that stems from institutional memory, but that was mixed with a desire to rebrand and remodel the organisation.

This was possibly most evident in the vote of confidence by UDM members in Litchfield-Tshabalala and Maureen Vogel.

This absolutely dispelled another myth – that the UDM is patriarchal, chauvinist and regional, in other words a tribalist and Eastern Cape based organisation.

UDM members affirmed with a loud voice those it judged to have the necessary prowess to occupy seats on its executive. This is in line with an ascendency plan that seeks gender and youth parity within its executive structures.

In voting the way they did this year’s UDM delegates were responding to the material conditions on the ground – which dictate that a strong message be sent to South Africans that gender mainstreaming is not just tokenism in the UDM.

While other parties are still contemplating whether women are ready to govern, the UDM has emphatically responded with a big yes to affirm that women are ready and have always been ready to lead.

Thando Mpulu is a UDM member