THREE things over the past week or so should have the ANC worried: the booing of President Jacob Zuma by party members at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela; the suggestion by South Africa’s largest trade union the National Union of Metalworkers of SA (Numsa) that Zuma should resign; and the Sunday Times survey which found that only 55% of those who voted for the ANC in 2009, plan to do so again next year.
But while these events should be worrying the ANC, Zuma’s removal as head of the party is most definitely not on the cards. That is partly because the ANC is not nearly as worried as it should be and partly because internal party dynamics render it an impossibility.
The typical response of the ANC to the crisis has been to deny that it exists.
For instance, the booers have been cast as “wedge drivers”, a reference to a famous speech by former ANC president Oliver Tambo, in which he warns members to beware of those among them who seek to create divisions by sowing dissent within the ranks.
Conspiracy theories such as this, in which dissent against the leadership or any kind of deviation from the leadership’s line of march is characterised as the work of enemies of the revolution, are still alarmingly dominant in the ANC alliance.
Even after democracy, conspiracy theories have been used to explain all sorts of untoward developments from the ubiquity of community protests to the sudden demise of the National Union of Mineworkers in the chaos that has swept through the mining industry over the past two years.
Numsa’s suggestion that Zuma should resign will more than likely also be cast in this light. Numsa’s members have been urged to beware of their general secretary Irvin Jim who the South African Communist Party, in an open letter to members, has characterised as an egotistical maniac hell-bent on achieving his own personal aims.
This is a far more comfortable point of view for the ANC than the reality that its political dominance is fraying around the edges. But, in contrast to this manufactured reality, Numsa at its special congress has displayed startling unity and support for the radical positions of its leadership.
As for the opinion survey, this is easiest of all to ignore, conducted as it was by a media organisation deemed by the ANC alliance to have an anti-ANC and anti-Zuma agenda. The survey, though, should really be the most disturbing.
Genuine opinion-based research is hard to come by and the Sunday Times survey, conducted by Markinor, does appear to meet all the benchmarks of opinion polling, which would enable reasonably accurate conclusions.
While the ANC does conduct its own market research, it never discloses its results. Even if the party has commissioned a recent poll, it is improbable that it would consider to ask the questions — which specifically probe the effect of the Nkandla scandal on ANC support — that were asked by the Sunday Times survey.
The key findings of the survey conducted among 1000 registered voters, who confirm having voted for the party in 2009, were that only 55% thought they would do the same again in the next elections. Of those interviewed, 51% said Zuma should step down.
Of course, there is a still an election campaign to run, which may shift some of the old ANC supporters back to their old home. But the size of disaffection revealed by the survey has been completely disregarded by the party. Even those ANC insiders who have in recent years become critical of the party’s performance believe that the anti-Zuma sentiment does not run very deep.
Zuma, therefore, does not look as much of a problem to the ANC leadership as he does to the wider public.
In any event, the ANC’s internal processes towards the next election are quite far along, with Zuma being chosen by ANC structures in all the provinces, even Gauteng, as the number one candidate on the parliamentary list. All that remains is for a national list conference to be convened, voting to take place and the list to be finalised. This may happen as soon as next month.
It is unthinkable that at the national conference Zuma will not emerge as number one on the list.
For him to be dislodged would require one of two things: a power bloc opposed to him, which succeeds in gathering sufficient support before the list conference; or a rebellion of those closest to him.
The first scenario is barely an option. At the ANC conference in Mangaung a year ago it was clear Zuma has 70% of the organisation firmly behind him.
Those who might oppose him are isolated and weak and without the influence or power base to launch a challenge. With the exception of Gauteng, Zuma’s dominance reaches deep into the provinces.
This dominance into the provinces renders the second option also undoable. Since his election in Polokwane, Zuma had built an impenetrable power bloc around himself, whose fortunes are tied directly to his.
To remove him would be to cut their own lifelines and upset the carefully built relations of power and influence in their provinces.
The consequence of this “unity” is that it makes the ANC unresponsive to events and sentiments on the ground. The disconnect between the leadership of the ANC and the mood on the ground is reminiscent of the fight over antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) during the presidency of Thabo Mbeki.
While Mbeki held fast to his position that ARVs were poison and would not be made available through the public health system, people on the ground — specifically in Gauteng — were building up a groundswell of support for “roll out”, which their leaders could not afford to ignore.
In the end, it was the Gauteng ANC which played a key role in flipping the ARV debate, in the realisation that among voters this was an untenable position.
But it cannot happen this time. The ANC in Gauteng is largely out in the cold and the dissenters from other provinces are either outside of the party in the Economic Freedom Fighters and Congress of the People, or marginalised from their own provincial structures. This time the ANC will have no choice but to take the pain at the ballot box, paying the harshest possible price for its torrid internal politics.
Carol Paton writes for Business Day
Zuma entrenched but ANC faces flagging support
But while these events should be worrying the ANC, Zuma’s removal as head of the party is most definitely not on the cards. That is partly because the ANC is not nearly as worried as it should be and partly because internal party dynamics render it an impossibility.
The typical response of the ANC to the crisis has been to deny that it exists.
For instance, the booers have been cast as “wedge drivers”, a reference to a famous speech by former ANC president Oliver Tambo, in which he warns members to beware of those among them who seek to create divisions by sowing dissent within the ranks.
Conspiracy theories such as this, in which dissent against the leadership or any kind of deviation from the leadership’s line of march is characterised as the work of enemies of the revolution, are still alarmingly dominant in the ANC alliance.
Even after democracy, conspiracy theories have been used to explain all sorts of untoward developments from the ubiquity of community protests to the sudden demise of the National Union of Mineworkers in the chaos that has swept through the mining industry over the past two years.
Numsa’s suggestion that Zuma should resign will more than likely also be cast in this light. Numsa’s members have been urged to beware of their general secretary Irvin Jim who the South African Communist Party, in an open letter to members, has characterised as an egotistical maniac hell-bent on achieving his own personal aims.
This is a far more comfortable point of view for the ANC than the reality that its political dominance is fraying around the edges. But, in contrast to this manufactured reality, Numsa at its special congress has displayed startling unity and support for the radical positions of its leadership.
As for the opinion survey, this is easiest of all to ignore, conducted as it was by a media organisation deemed by the ANC alliance to have an anti-ANC and anti-Zuma agenda. The survey, though, should really be the most disturbing.
Genuine opinion-based research is hard to come by and the Sunday Times survey, conducted by Markinor, does appear to meet all the benchmarks of opinion polling, which would enable reasonably accurate conclusions.
While the ANC does conduct its own market research, it never discloses its results. Even if the party has commissioned a recent poll, it is improbable that it would consider to ask the questions — which specifically probe the effect of the Nkandla scandal on ANC support — that were asked by the Sunday Times survey.
The key findings of the survey conducted among 1000 registered voters, who confirm having voted for the party in 2009, were that only 55% thought they would do the same again in the next elections. Of those interviewed, 51% said Zuma should step down.
Of course, there is a still an election campaign to run, which may shift some of the old ANC supporters back to their old home. But the size of disaffection revealed by the survey has been completely disregarded by the party. Even those ANC insiders who have in recent years become critical of the party’s performance believe that the anti-Zuma sentiment does not run very deep.
Zuma, therefore, does not look as much of a problem to the ANC leadership as he does to the wider public.
In any event, the ANC’s internal processes towards the next election are quite far along, with Zuma being chosen by ANC structures in all the provinces, even Gauteng, as the number one candidate on the parliamentary list. All that remains is for a national list conference to be convened, voting to take place and the list to be finalised. This may happen as soon as next month.
It is unthinkable that at the national conference Zuma will not emerge as number one on the list.
For him to be dislodged would require one of two things: a power bloc opposed to him, which succeeds in gathering sufficient support before the list conference; or a rebellion of those closest to him.
The first scenario is barely an option. At the ANC conference in Mangaung a year ago it was clear Zuma has 70% of the organisation firmly behind him.
Those who might oppose him are isolated and weak and without the influence or power base to launch a challenge. With the exception of Gauteng, Zuma’s dominance reaches deep into the provinces.
This dominance into the provinces renders the second option also undoable. Since his election in Polokwane, Zuma had built an impenetrable power bloc around himself, whose fortunes are tied directly to his.
To remove him would be to cut their own lifelines and upset the carefully built relations of power and influence in their provinces.
The consequence of this “unity” is that it makes the ANC unresponsive to events and sentiments on the ground. The disconnect between the leadership of the ANC and the mood on the ground is reminiscent of the fight over antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) during the presidency of Thabo Mbeki.
While Mbeki held fast to his position that ARVs were poison and would not be made available through the public health system, people on the ground — specifically in Gauteng — were building up a groundswell of support for “roll out”, which their leaders could not afford to ignore.
In the end, it was the Gauteng ANC which played a key role in flipping the ARV debate, in the realisation that among voters this was an untenable position.
But it cannot happen this time. The ANC in Gauteng is largely out in the cold and the dissenters from other provinces are either outside of the party in the Economic Freedom Fighters and Congress of the People, or marginalised from their own provincial structures. This time the ANC will have no choice but to take the pain at the ballot box, paying the harshest possible price for its torrid internal politics.
Carol Paton writes for Business Day
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