Reminiscent of the Reverend Mqoboli’s opening of the ANC’s inaugural conference on January 8, 1912, Reverend Mehane opened the 5th policy conference held at Nasrec this year with the hymn, Lizalis’ idinga lakho Thixo.
Composed by the Reverend Tiyo Soga around 1857, this hymn was sung, alongside Nkosi sikelel i-Afrika at the ANCs founding congress more than a century ago.
In singing the historic hymn in 2017, umfundisi was reminding fellow members of their genealogy. He was saying they were not imigqakwe (without parentage) but had a long and illustrious ancestry, which they dared not disgrace.
Delegates sang with gusto, seemingly responding to the spiritual forces that umfundisi invoked.
In similar fashion to the distinguished line of clergy who have served in the chaplaincy of the liberation movement, Mehane pleaded for divine intervention in the proceedings that were to follow over the next six days.
As those gathered, including the communists, bowed their heads for the prayer, the reverend underlined the importance of unity: “Unity, oh Lord, is not a commodity. As your son Jesus said, I am one with my father. Let the delegates of this conference be one with each other. Let them be one with you. … let them be mindful of the foundations of this movement. Let us not go astray from the foundation left by our forebears. Yenza ukuba singawuyilizeli umlimandlela esawunikwa ngobawo nomama bethu …”
The choice of words in the prayer was deliberate. The priest was pleading with the warring factions in the ANC to find each other. But it didn’t take long for one to realise that not all who were gathered at Nasrec were true believers. As they opened their eyes, it was back to realpolitik. Sentimentality made way for cold calculation. The delegates focused on the issues of the day, with one lot determined to prevail against the other.
What followed over six days was not remotely an attempt to recapture what once was, but a battle between contending factions, one keen to regenerate the organisation, the other to preserve the status quo under the guise of pseudo radicalism.
The first indication that the conference would be a bruising feud came from the outset, with the first address by the president, Jacob Zuma.
Whilst purporting to call for unity in the ranks, Zuma was scathing of his critics and the public institutions that sought to rein him in. Zuma also mocked those veterans who had urged him to step down, saying they were pretending to be greater than what they actually were.
He even ridiculed one who apparently phoned him from a hospital bed distancing himself from the rest of the group of 101 veterans.
Then Zuma incited branch delegates against their own pioneers saying the veterans thought very little of them.
Zuma did not want delegates to heed the advice of those who have dedicated their lives to the cause of freedom, but to shun them as charlatans.
The gloves were off and so was any pretence at seeking unity in the ranks.
The judiciary was also in the president’s line of fire. Judges have provided the last line of defence against Zuma’s abuses of power. Rather than acquiesce in the same manner as parliament has done, the Constitutional Court ruled that the state president had violated his oath of office.
Zuma claims this is “judicial over-reach” rather than a legitimate exercise to check the excesses of the executive.
He denounced the judicial decisions over the executive as anti-democratic and instigated by the opposition. And Zuma urged delegates at Nasrec to look into curbing what he referred to as “judicial intrusion”. In other words, what most people consider to be misconduct, President Zuma defines as proper behaviour.
This explains why his supporters resisted the tabling of the secretary-general Gwede Mantashe’s Diagnostic Report in the first session of the opening day.
The report had been approved by the national executive committee (NEC) and laid out problems which was for discussion by the conference for the opening two days.
It was the most bizarre thing. So serious are the problems in the organisation that a substantial part of the Strategy and Tactics Document was, for the first time since its introduction in 1969, dedicated to organisational challenges. Yet, Zuma’s supporters did not want a dedicated focus on the state of the organisation.
How does one discuss the precarious state of the party without identifying the problems that afflict it?
The intention was to escape liability.
Mantashe’s Diagnostic Report put the blame for the party’s decline on the moral lapses of leadership.
Zuma didn’t want the spotlight shone on him. Doing so would illuminate clearly the reasons why he must resign – a call which he has consistently resisted.
Reason prevailed nonetheless. Zuma’s supporters could not mount a convincing argument against discussing organisational problems, which they all agreed were the root cause of the party’s decline.
This showed that, contrary to what Zuma thought, his provincial backers do not have control over the majority of branch delegates. That’s where Zuma figured he was most secure. Branch delegates are prone to manipulation by money whilst veterans are independent of his manipulative influence. That’s why he resisted having his fate decided at a consultative conference steered largely by veterans, preferring to take his chances with branch delegates instead.
But he got it wrong.
Actually, Zuma’s failure to prevent the tabling of the Diagnostic Report reveals a bigger weakness than a lack of majority support in the branches. His platform simply lacks a superior argument.
Consider, for instance, the proposal by the Zuma lobby on land and their characterisation of South Africa’s economic problems. They want land expropriated without compensation. That measure has the potential appeal of vengeance against dispossession, but its results are unappealing. Zimbabwe shows such a path is ruinous.
Radicalism doesn’t gel with self-enrichment either. Zuma and his associates are beneficiaries of the Gupta largesse looted from the state coffers. For weeks the public has been inundated, day after day, with a deluge details of how state money has been siphoned off by the Zupta cabal. In one instance, R30-million of state money was embezzled to pay for a Gupta wedding.
Parading as radical, whilst feeding off state resources and being the proxy for expatriate capital, is to expose oneself as fake. Zuma and his backers simply lack credibility.
That’s why their characterisation of South Africa’s economic problem as “white monopoly capital” didn’t hold. This was correctly seen as a tactic to divert attention away from the existing problem of state capture.
The conference rightfully resolved that the struggle is against monopoly capital, not whites. Labelling whites a problem goes against ANC policy of non-racialism and social cohesion. This is not a denial of white hegemony. Striving for social cohesion doesn’t imply acceptance of white dominance that persists. The conference reiterated the ANC’s commitment to racial redress.
Neither did the conference denounce private capital as the enemy. The ANC could never have settled on such a position for it resolved, decades ago, to embrace a mixed-economy. Black business, for instance, is considered one of the primary beneficiaries of transformation. That’s why government is creating black industrialists.
That said, the ANC continues to regard monopoly as a problem. It leads to collusion, price inflation and bars new entrants to industry. This doesn’t mean, however, that the organisation disapproves of conglomerates. Large-scale companies are needed because of their superior technology and abundant financial resources. They play a pioneering role. Where they resort to monopolistic practices, the Competition Commission is there to intervene, which entails imposing penalties and creating competitive conditions.
What we are seeing, therefore, on the economic policy regime, is a reinstatement of the old, moderate ANC policies. Acceding to the proposals and characterisation by Zuma’s backers would have meant altering the character of the liberation movement.
Targeting whites would have made it a chauvinist and populist nationalist movement. This is precisely what the organisation swore never to become, but to remain a universalist, progressive movement, whose policies are guided by an objective analysis of social challenges.
In other words, Zuma’s forces had no rational ground to stand on. Instead, they demanded that one of the rapporteurs, Joel Netshitenzhe, withdraw a proposal reached after long deliberations to reject the term “white monopoly capital”. They had been unable to win the argument and thought they could intimidate Netshitenzhe into retracting. He rightfully refused.
That’s why one must sympathise with another stalwart, Derek Hanekom, who was pilloried for saying the Zuma lobby was talking nonsense on land expropriation without compensation.
Sanity won the day. ANC members demand integrity. Without integrity they realise they’ll lose power in 2019.
That’s also why combining the slates won’t work. Having Cyril Ramaphosa as deputy president to Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma would be a continuation of the status quo. It would give a veneer of legitimacy to a comprised leadership, the same way Ramaphosa has been doing for Zuma.
Ramaphosa’s presence has given Zuma’s presidency some respectability. It has degenerated nonetheless.
Durable unity is forged around principles, not pretentious co-operation. That’s not a new start, it’s concealment of a stalemate. The ANC needs a complete break with the status quo, or it will sink. Salvation lies in renewal!
Mcebisi Ndletyana is an associate professor at the University of Johannesburg.
Fake adherence to fake values won’t build unity
Composed by the Reverend Tiyo Soga around 1857, this hymn was sung, alongside Nkosi sikelel i-Afrika at the ANCs founding congress more than a century ago.
In singing the historic hymn in 2017, umfundisi was reminding fellow members of their genealogy. He was saying they were not imigqakwe (without parentage) but had a long and illustrious ancestry, which they dared not disgrace.
Delegates sang with gusto, seemingly responding to the spiritual forces that umfundisi invoked.
In similar fashion to the distinguished line of clergy who have served in the chaplaincy of the liberation movement, Mehane pleaded for divine intervention in the proceedings that were to follow over the next six days.
As those gathered, including the communists, bowed their heads for the prayer, the reverend underlined the importance of unity: “Unity, oh Lord, is not a commodity. As your son Jesus said, I am one with my father. Let the delegates of this conference be one with each other. Let them be one with you. … let them be mindful of the foundations of this movement. Let us not go astray from the foundation left by our forebears. Yenza ukuba singawuyilizeli umlimandlela esawunikwa ngobawo nomama bethu …”
The choice of words in the prayer was deliberate. The priest was pleading with the warring factions in the ANC to find each other. But it didn’t take long for one to realise that not all who were gathered at Nasrec were true believers. As they opened their eyes, it was back to realpolitik. Sentimentality made way for cold calculation. The delegates focused on the issues of the day, with one lot determined to prevail against the other.
What followed over six days was not remotely an attempt to recapture what once was, but a battle between contending factions, one keen to regenerate the organisation, the other to preserve the status quo under the guise of pseudo radicalism.
The first indication that the conference would be a bruising feud came from the outset, with the first address by the president, Jacob Zuma.
Whilst purporting to call for unity in the ranks, Zuma was scathing of his critics and the public institutions that sought to rein him in. Zuma also mocked those veterans who had urged him to step down, saying they were pretending to be greater than what they actually were.
He even ridiculed one who apparently phoned him from a hospital bed distancing himself from the rest of the group of 101 veterans.
Then Zuma incited branch delegates against their own pioneers saying the veterans thought very little of them.
Zuma did not want delegates to heed the advice of those who have dedicated their lives to the cause of freedom, but to shun them as charlatans.
The gloves were off and so was any pretence at seeking unity in the ranks.
The judiciary was also in the president’s line of fire. Judges have provided the last line of defence against Zuma’s abuses of power. Rather than acquiesce in the same manner as parliament has done, the Constitutional Court ruled that the state president had violated his oath of office.
Zuma claims this is “judicial over-reach” rather than a legitimate exercise to check the excesses of the executive.
He denounced the judicial decisions over the executive as anti-democratic and instigated by the opposition. And Zuma urged delegates at Nasrec to look into curbing what he referred to as “judicial intrusion”. In other words, what most people consider to be misconduct, President Zuma defines as proper behaviour.
This explains why his supporters resisted the tabling of the secretary-general Gwede Mantashe’s Diagnostic Report in the first session of the opening day.
The report had been approved by the national executive committee (NEC) and laid out problems which was for discussion by the conference for the opening two days.
It was the most bizarre thing. So serious are the problems in the organisation that a substantial part of the Strategy and Tactics Document was, for the first time since its introduction in 1969, dedicated to organisational challenges. Yet, Zuma’s supporters did not want a dedicated focus on the state of the organisation.
How does one discuss the precarious state of the party without identifying the problems that afflict it?
The intention was to escape liability.
Mantashe’s Diagnostic Report put the blame for the party’s decline on the moral lapses of leadership.
Zuma didn’t want the spotlight shone on him. Doing so would illuminate clearly the reasons why he must resign – a call which he has consistently resisted.
Reason prevailed nonetheless. Zuma’s supporters could not mount a convincing argument against discussing organisational problems, which they all agreed were the root cause of the party’s decline.
This showed that, contrary to what Zuma thought, his provincial backers do not have control over the majority of branch delegates. That’s where Zuma figured he was most secure. Branch delegates are prone to manipulation by money whilst veterans are independent of his manipulative influence. That’s why he resisted having his fate decided at a consultative conference steered largely by veterans, preferring to take his chances with branch delegates instead.
But he got it wrong.
Actually, Zuma’s failure to prevent the tabling of the Diagnostic Report reveals a bigger weakness than a lack of majority support in the branches. His platform simply lacks a superior argument.
Consider, for instance, the proposal by the Zuma lobby on land and their characterisation of South Africa’s economic problems. They want land expropriated without compensation. That measure has the potential appeal of vengeance against dispossession, but its results are unappealing. Zimbabwe shows such a path is ruinous.
Radicalism doesn’t gel with self-enrichment either. Zuma and his associates are beneficiaries of the Gupta largesse looted from the state coffers. For weeks the public has been inundated, day after day, with a deluge details of how state money has been siphoned off by the Zupta cabal. In one instance, R30-million of state money was embezzled to pay for a Gupta wedding.
Parading as radical, whilst feeding off state resources and being the proxy for expatriate capital, is to expose oneself as fake. Zuma and his backers simply lack credibility.
That’s why their characterisation of South Africa’s economic problem as “white monopoly capital” didn’t hold. This was correctly seen as a tactic to divert attention away from the existing problem of state capture.
The conference rightfully resolved that the struggle is against monopoly capital, not whites. Labelling whites a problem goes against ANC policy of non-racialism and social cohesion. This is not a denial of white hegemony. Striving for social cohesion doesn’t imply acceptance of white dominance that persists. The conference reiterated the ANC’s commitment to racial redress.
Neither did the conference denounce private capital as the enemy. The ANC could never have settled on such a position for it resolved, decades ago, to embrace a mixed-economy. Black business, for instance, is considered one of the primary beneficiaries of transformation. That’s why government is creating black industrialists.
That said, the ANC continues to regard monopoly as a problem. It leads to collusion, price inflation and bars new entrants to industry. This doesn’t mean, however, that the organisation disapproves of conglomerates. Large-scale companies are needed because of their superior technology and abundant financial resources. They play a pioneering role. Where they resort to monopolistic practices, the Competition Commission is there to intervene, which entails imposing penalties and creating competitive conditions.
What we are seeing, therefore, on the economic policy regime, is a reinstatement of the old, moderate ANC policies. Acceding to the proposals and characterisation by Zuma’s backers would have meant altering the character of the liberation movement.
Targeting whites would have made it a chauvinist and populist nationalist movement. This is precisely what the organisation swore never to become, but to remain a universalist, progressive movement, whose policies are guided by an objective analysis of social challenges.
In other words, Zuma’s forces had no rational ground to stand on. Instead, they demanded that one of the rapporteurs, Joel Netshitenzhe, withdraw a proposal reached after long deliberations to reject the term “white monopoly capital”. They had been unable to win the argument and thought they could intimidate Netshitenzhe into retracting. He rightfully refused.
That’s why one must sympathise with another stalwart, Derek Hanekom, who was pilloried for saying the Zuma lobby was talking nonsense on land expropriation without compensation.
Sanity won the day. ANC members demand integrity. Without integrity they realise they’ll lose power in 2019.
That’s also why combining the slates won’t work. Having Cyril Ramaphosa as deputy president to Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma would be a continuation of the status quo. It would give a veneer of legitimacy to a comprised leadership, the same way Ramaphosa has been doing for Zuma.
Ramaphosa’s presence has given Zuma’s presidency some respectability. It has degenerated nonetheless.
Durable unity is forged around principles, not pretentious co-operation. That’s not a new start, it’s concealment of a stalemate. The ANC needs a complete break with the status quo, or it will sink. Salvation lies in renewal!
Mcebisi Ndletyana is an associate professor at the University of Johannesburg.
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