The NWC must be commended for producing this discussion document (Umrabulo no. 11). Through it one can begin to not only understand, but also appreciate, why the NEC has been disbanding some of our structures across the country. It is good that the leadership has seen it fit to take us back to the basics. It is an old wisdom that when things do not go well, one should retrace one's footsteps.
It must have taken the leadership a lot of deep thoughts to have reached the conclusion that to disband certain structures of the organisation was the most appropriate option at this time. More so at the second highest level of the hierarchy of the organisation - Northern Province, Gauteng and Free State. The process has also gone lower to regions and branches and we now have Interim Leadership Cores, Regional Task Teams and Ward Task Teams in some parts of the country. Of course, the political guidelines (Through The Eye Of A Needle...) followed later, almost like an afterthought.
The time period between disbandment and re-launching of these structures may have been meant to be as short as possible. However, the reality is that we may have, in some instances, gone beyond twelve months with the interim management organs, though surely, they were never intended to become permanent (assuming that an organ that lives for as long as the constitutional structure would have lived in a term, is permanent by definition). Unless the life span of these interim arrangements is as short as is only necessary, they will themselves generate their own internal dynamics, not dissimilar to those of the structures they temporarily replaced.
We should not forget that the environment within which they live and operate remains unaltered. The guidelines (of the NWC's) seek to alter this immediate environment. The scope is narrowed down by a variety of factors, amongst them time and capacity. Time, because everything is rushed against the need to establish branches as soon as possible in order to be able to hold regional and provincial conferences. Capacity, because the cadres of the Movement who are still readily available and able to conduct political education workshops are getting fewer and fewer. Both factors militate against effectively altering the environment sufficiently to achieve the desired effect.
Without sounding undynamic, this process (interim arrangements) should be treated like a project:
Cadres who are thoroughly processed and systematically educated as a diminishing proportion
This is an important observation. We should always bear in mind that the number of cadres of the Movement, who are thoroughly processed and systematically educated in its policies, is a diminishing proportion of the number of people joining it. This is not just a quantitative question; it is, disturbingly, also a qualitative one.
The challenge posed by the variety of political sub-cultures found within the Movement does not make the situation any easier: such as the Robben Island; the exile; the underground; the militaristic; the mass organisational / mobilisational; the parliamentary / government; the Marxist-Workerist tendencies; the Africanist; the metaphysical-materialistic tendencies; and the neo-liberal subcultures.
This wonderful diversity, which constitutes the strength of the Movement as the leader of the anti-apartheid struggles, is beginning to pose a very serious threat to its coherence and discipline, both politically and organizationally. The capacity of the Movement to manage this diversity is clearly diminishing. So, even as we centralise internal democratic processes, as we should, we must be acutely sensitive of this diminishing capacity to effectively manage the Movement as we did before.
? The Moral High ground: Those who wage struggles for a just cause often occupy a moral high-ground, relative to their oppressors. This was true, too, of the South African people, led by the African National Congress, in their struggles against the system of Apartheid. It is understood here that there is a direct relationship between one's cause and method of struggle; one's ability to articulate one's cause and method; and, occupying a moral high ground.
Succinctly put - the cause, method, ability to articulate and occupying the moral high ground are critical political factors in any struggle. To consolidate these into a coherent and marketable package requires enormous political and organizational skill and wisdom. This is exactly what our Movement achieved during the execution of Anti-Apartheid struggles.
Being in government, the situation has dramatically changed and has become extremely complex. The dialectics of the complex is so difficult to manage that it not only threatens our coherence and ability to market our vision; it threatens the existence of the Congress Alliance, at least as we have come to know it.
? The Myth: For as long as the Movement was banned, its leaders silenced, jailed, exiled or killed it remained a sort of a myth, sustained by faith.
There was, and continues to be, a lot of faith in the Movement, amongst the oppressed masses of South Africa. Faith engenders belief and hope. These are intangible qualities, which engender bitterness when they evaporate.
A short eleven years ago the Movement was unbanned and its leaders freed to conduct legal political activities. The myth was exploded, but belief and hope sustained. It is these two intangible qualities, which, to a large extent, propelled the masses of our people to the polls in both national elections thus far, to register their overwhelming support for the ANC, the leader of the Congress Movement. It is not their deep political understanding and consciousness which propelled the masses to the polls.
It seems logical, therefore, that it is not going to be political consciousness, in the main, which will sustain the support of the masses for the ANC. It is going to be continued belief and hope reinforced by tangible service delivery towards meeting their basic human needs.
Political organisation constitutes the organic link between the masses and the service delivery instrument, the state. It is the visible symbol, which ought to continuously refurbish the belief and hope; and, it is the reality, which ought to continuously reproduce the political consciousness necessary to serve as yeast that must transform the belief and hope into deliberate and strategic political activism.
While the former is a quantitative function, the latter is a qualitative one, a long-drawn process that needs patience and commitment.
That is why the disbandment of structures of the organisation has such a significant political value. These structures represent the quantitative and qualitative functions, which may cross into different directions at a particular point in time. It is always that moment of potential disjuncture that poses a serious challenge to political leadership. And it ought not to be guessed, or determined only through academic surveys and media speculation. That moment is best determined through direct interaction with the masses themselves; and, there can be no better vehicle than the branch.
This is a thorny issue - political and organizational management. During one of the workshops we are conducting on the NWC discussion document, as part of the preparations for launching "new" branches, the question arose as to whether or not a "mass Communist Party" was a good idea. Amongst the points made was one that said:
"Yes, it is a good idea because it creates a platform for sectors to raise concerns against the ANC."
The follow-up question was whether that meant the ANC did not allow its members to criticise it (refer to p3, par 22 of the document). The responses, which drew a nod from most of the 22 participants, were that:
"As a policy, the ANC allows for criticism. But its leadership tends to be defensive when responding to criticism; even what appears to be fair criticism. That is why people find it easy to criticise the organisation informally, or move into sister organizations to criticise it."
"One is afraid to criticise for fear of being labeled as belonging to this or the other group, probably bent on destroying a leader or the organisation itself."
It is easy to ask people to give living examples to back up their perceptions, and discount them if they fail to do so. At issue here is not whether what was said here is true or not. The fact of the matter is that there is a perception being held by some members of the organisation that in reality criticism is not taken kindly to by the leadership. As President Mandela would say, 'perceptions may be more dangerous than fact'.
But, criticism is feedback; whether good or bad; whether constructive or not; whether it comes from within or outside of the organisation. It is part of the early warning system. Not every member of the organisation will think matters through their heads. Some will think through their hearts.
But all of them are giving the organisation's leadership a feedback, which must help it shape appropriate responses in terms of its political education programmes, and its strategic political posturing.
Let me make two points about criticism: Firstly, the President of the ANC even in his personal capacity has been under severe media attack during the recent past. And, there has been no visible or loud collective response to it. Secondly, because we do not seem to recognise criticism as being part of feed-back to what we do as the ANC and, or, government, we respond to it not with the intention of turning it into our advantage. Yet that should be the strategic thrust of dealing with criticism - at all times.
We are the most powerful social formation in this country and will therefore have to work much harder to occupy the moral high ground. Any apparent intolerance to criticism will not assist us in that regard. It is not always the case that people attack us because they are essentially opposed to us.
As they say in Xhosa, inkokheli yintsika yomkhunyu. That is exactly what the ANC is.
During the days of anti-Apartheid struggles the Movement was able to manage the diverse political sub-cultures within it. Those were the days of a common enemy; the days of colonialism of a special type; the days of the (armed) seizure of state power; the days of the four pillars of struggle; the days when there was one center of power, the ANC-led Tripartite Alliance. Those are the days that were! Frankly speaking, now the center does not hold; and, things are falling apart.
Not only are we having more than one center of power now; these are the days when we no longer have a common physical enemy: the ANC does not see capitalism as its primary enemy, whereas its Alliance partners do; colonialism of a special type has been replaced by globalisation; the seizure of state power has been replaced by the consolidation of state power in the hands of the people; the four pillars ... have been replaced by the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP); and, we now have a Mass Party (SACP), whose constituency is, in the main, exactly the same as that of the ANC. It is only logical that competition between the two would lead to conflict. Part of managing this challenge is not to deny these extremely significant changes which have taken place. It is due to our successful execution of struggle that we are in the current situation. We must manage these unintended consequences. And, it seems to be right here where things fall apart. Once more, it is the ANC that must provide leadership.
The theatre of struggle is wider in scope and much more complex. The ANC is now the governing party, whilst it continues to be a liberation movement. We may want to deny this, but in reality the ANC is now a "split personality".
On the one hand it is the party in government, which must embrace globalisation, neo-liberal macro-economic policies, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. On the other hand, it is a liberation movement, which must mobilise and organise all the social forces in society behind it in the struggle for social and economic justice and a new and equitable world order. Some of these forces are so diametrically opposed to one another that in their quest for mutual destruction or achieving hegemony within the ANC, they may end up destroying the ANC itself. This is a complex which cannot be politically managed by an individual, even the most brilliant of individuals. Collective political leadership, in the old tradition of the Movement, is the only answer. And, this can be achieved only through strong organisation. Where organisation is weak, political management takes on a form of divergent and competing individual brilliance, often with disastrous consequences to the purpose of the organisation.
Effective organizational management nurtures, harnesses and channels these divergent individual "brilliances" into a coherent and cohesive organic mass.
Political divergence and competition are not new to the organisation. They have always been there, and provided it with dynamism and vibrancy. Curse the day when that would stop! What we need is organizational management, not so much organizational structural disbandment. It is not the organizational structure, which commits political crimes; it is individuals who must be dealt with according to the measures provided in our constitution and established through tried and tested political and organizational traditions.
It cannot be true that all members of a Provincial, Regional or Branch executive committee committed the same crime, to the same extent, at the same time. This approach is both sterile and demoralizing to the disciplined and hardworking cadres of the Movement. It is not suggested here that in all instances political criminality has been the cause for the disbandment of organizational structures. It is referred to instances where such was the case.
Reading through the 'Eye of the Needle" it becomes clear that the intention, at least in part, behind the disbandment of certain organizational structures was to provide the membership of the organisation with an opportunity to revisit our political and organizational values and traditions. And to internalise them with a view to enabling members to choose leaders for whom service to the people is primary and personal gains only incidental to rendering such a service - not the other way round.
The risk, however, of disbanding organizational structures at a time when the membership system of the organisation is itself undergoing a major re-organisation, is extremely high. When these processes are underpinned by weak organizational discipline, as it is apparently so across the organisation, the risk becomes even greater.
The myth has exploded; faith is a diminishing quality; and, the cadres of the Movement (ANC, COSATU & SACP) who are well trained in its policies, values and traditions are a diminishing proportion of the population that currently constitutes the Movement. This places more pressure on political and organizational management. Leadership must engage each other across the spectrum that constitutes the Movement; and, the ANC must lead that initiative, always. Otherwise its leadership will become traditional (and soon obsolete) rather than dynamic.
Organisational management, to the extent that we must confront even powerful individuals when they mess up, instead of disbanding organizational structures, must improve. The competing s are an essential feature for the vibrantly and dynamism of the Movement. If we do not manage them properly they become a problem.
Once more, let me re-state, with emphasis, that in the ANC one can make this kind of commentary freely and without fear of retribution. However, as one hopes here, too, such a commentary could generate vigorous and rigorous responses.
Postscript: I have been thinking about a concept, which would fit well, as a description of the complex we tried to sketch above: The dialectics and logic of progression. How about that?