Zuma’s ‘second deputy’ process flawed

The ANC held an historic national policy conference over five days in Johannesburg which assumed the posture of a consultative assembly.

The outcomes were declared by all to be paving the way for a stronger, united and coherent movement that seeks to reposition and re-entrench itself as the strategic centre of ensuring a better South Africa as demanded by the society it leads.

Against the backdrop of denialism, perceived or real, what a happy moment it was when all of us as delegates in the NPC unanimously agreed that we have a crisis.

From the moment the secretary-general tabled the now infamous diagnostic report up until the president’s closing address in front of no fewer than 1600 members of the media, even those leaders whose heads had been previously buried 20m underground, had to wash the last grains of sand from their faces.

Part of the reason why a significant portion of our traditional support base was getting frustrated, some to the point of withholding votes at best, and, at worst, punishing us by voting for the opposition, was because of a strong perception that we have become an arrogant organisation that is very distant from the society it claims to lead.

Hence it was truly a refreshing Damascus moment when, despite earlier protestations by a few denialists, the diagnostic report was tabled and adopted by the NPC.

Although the intricate details contained therein cannot be shared here, it can be stated that it was an honest and candid introspective analysis by the national executive committee, accurately capturing the essence of the challenges the movement faces.

Love or hate him, Gwede Mantashe once more displayed his brave ability to present a balanced – and honest – view of challenges facing the ANC.

Even his personal explanatory notes clarifying the NEC-approved document cut across the obnoxious factional divide.

The road to healing begins with first accepting that there is illness; going for thorough diagnosis; and then finding what remedies are needed to cure the illness.

Without taking that first crucial step of accepting a problem, no diagnosis can be made and therefore no remedy can be sought.

Even if we perhaps disagree on whether the organisation is in the general ward or the ICU, at least we now accept it is ill, in hospital and in need of a cure.

But the remedy must fit the illness. One approach to curing ailments, homeopathy, is fundamentally premised on the axiom similia similibus curentur, loosely translated as “likes are cured by likes”. Applying this doctrine to general problems means that the solution must fit the problem.

The most chronic illness afflicting the ANC is a scourge of increasing institutionalisation of factionalism.

At the NPC we all agreed this is the biggest elephant in the room.

This is why the president, in both his opening and closing remarks, allocated more time and off-the-cuff analysis to the danger of factions and to proposals on how to effectively deal with this tendency we have all been speaking out against but continue being part of.

The chairperson of one province had earlier made a public proposal through the media for an amendment to the ANC constitution to allow for a losing candidate for the position of president to be automatically installed as the deputy president.

I initially dismissed this as so far-fetched that I thought it was simply a spur-of-the- moment suggestion, but I was wrong. That much became evident when the president veered from his prepared speech to spend almost 15 minutes bizarrely endorsing the suggestion, thereby revealing the genesis of the proposal.

He spoke eloquently in support of the proposal, to the extent of tendering his availability to move from branch to branch to lobby for its adoption.

Whether or not one agrees with the proposal, the commitment from the president is commendable.

But is this proposal in line with the doctrine of similia similibus curentur? Methinks not.

Much as we need to think beyond factions we should steer clear of constitutional adventurism that may come back to haunt us. We need to decisively obliterate factionalism without tempering with the basic tenets of our movement.

One of the fundamental cornerstones of our organisation is the centrality of intra-party democracy, defined as “the level and methods of including party members in the decision-making and deliberation within the party structure, including voting for the leaders of their choice”.

Rational processing of the proposal leaves no option but to reject the notion of an automated deputisation as contrary to the principles of healthy intra-party democracy. This is already diluted in the movement by the application of democratic centralism – where a tiny minority of members, by virtue of being part of a leadership structure, take decisions on behalf of the majority.

The best option is for each contesting leader to be allowed to stand for one or more of the positions available so that delegates can then give that leader votes in whichever position they think he or she deserves to occupy.

For example, if Leader A stands for president and also accepts nomination for deputy president and the majority of delegates then vote for him or her to be deputy president it means they have chosen another leader as president and see him or her only fit to be deputy.

As things stand, in terms of Rule 12.3.1 of the ANC constitution, officials are “elected separately” from the additional members but together in one voting block. This simply means that, if one stands for a position in the top six and is not elected, because the positions are lumped together as a block, there is no opportunity to stand for another position. That leader is out of the top six completely.

To be part of the NEC he or she will have to accept and be voted for in order to be an additional member.

The idea of voting for each position, announcing the results and opening nominations for the next position where the loser can then still stand, is too cumbersome and would need several days to complete.

A more simple system allows for multiple nominations, even to all the available positions if one so prefers.

In essence, each position must be occupied by a person via a vote by delegates not through some concocted automated deputisation system which is undemocratic.

However, the proposal to increase the number of officials from six to seven by adding a second deputy president must be supported, based on operational needs of the organisation rather than it merely bebing an instrument to reduce contestation by creating more positions.

But this must be on condition that only the president, first deputy president and chairperson are deployed to government. The rest must be full time functionaries at Luthuli House and be available to run the organisation’s day-to-day affairs. That way we ensure that the presidency of the ANC always has a warm body at Luthuli House in the form of the second deputy president.

The idea of a second deputy secretary- general (DSG) or, as some opine, two deputy DSGs must be rejected as a flimsy short-termist attempt to create more positions for those who may not find favour with the majority of the delegates.

The secretary-general and DSG are full- time functionaries anyway, so the secretariat is always present at Luthuli House, has dozens of staff and therefore needs no further beefing up.

This is the best electoral system to ensure we don’t lose credible leaders due to slates, as is the case in the current winner-takes-all arrangement. It ticks all the relevant boxes in the doctrine of similia similibus curentur.

The one proposed and endorsed by the president is fundamentally flawed and will cause more harm than the challenges it seeks to address.

While we all agree we have to find pretty radical and innovative solutions to factionalism, throwing additional positions and a fundamentally flawed voting system at the problem is hardly a viable solution, neither is an adventurist approach to eradicating factions.

Ace Ncobo is a branch secretary of the ANC but writes in his personal capacity