Precisely because factionalism and conspiracy theories do not allow for rational and measured debate, ANC members and leaders need to constantly reaffirm the democratic and disciplined practices of the movement, letting a thousand flowers bloom in discussion of the fundamental issues of transformation, writes Joel Netshitenzhe.
In 2005 Seven Network, an Australian television station, ran a gripping episode on the brutal stabbing of Kathleen Marshall, President of the Queensland Cat Protection Society. The episode, which was part of a series on forensic investigations, unearthed a web of intrigue, rumours and fortune-telling attached to the murder. But central to the story was a problem of factionalism within the Cat Protection Society.
Around what fundamental issues, one may ask, could members of a cat protection society so differ that some of them could decide to take the life of one of their own? If so "eccentric" an organisation with so little at stake could go this far, what should be expected from institutions dealing with huge resources, political power and social prestige?
Is factionalism an inherent feature of social organisation, and thus are attempts at suppressing it a vain exercise in negating human nature?
It is perhaps because they have so little to do, with such inconsequential implications, that the Queensland protectors of cats sometimes fight their battles with such passion and intensity. They are classified anarchists and eschew serious organisation and discipline.1 Their bond of common interests is so infinitely tenuous compared to the personal egos that dictate their individual conduct.
But is this explanation adequate? Should things be inherently different in a political organisation such as the ANC, which is leading fundamental social transformation? Or should we expect that, even in a National Democratic Revolution, there will be shades of grey?
One thing is certain: we cannot just shout "democratic centralism" and hope we will toyi-toyi the problem of factionalism away. We cannot just throw the ANC constitution at the problem and hope it will disappear. Is it after all not human nature to socialise and empathise with the like-minded, in pursuit of individual and collective self-interest?
Factionalism and politics
This goes to the very heart of the debate on factionalism especially in the political sphere. Firstly, political scientists will argue that, at a generic level, if we were to take a state entity as a broad canvass, political parties are in fact factions within society vying for political office.
Secondly, in a narrower sense, history of the world revolutionary movement is replete with instances of factions vying for control. Take the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) for instance, which later became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU): in the early 1900s, it was divided into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks locked in continuous ideological combat. The factions were recognised, with public platforms and leaders who mobilised within the party and across society for their points of view.
Though Lenin argued for a party of revolutionaries with democracy but also a strong dose of discipline, it was only after the decisive ascendancy of the Bolsheviks that he led, that the RSDLP/CPSU took serious steps against factionalism. By 1921, the CPSU had decided to outlaw factions within the Party. No group was allowed to put forward ideas that contradicted official party policy; and anyone who promoted factionalism would be expelled.
Some accounts of the history of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) assert that, during the time of Chairman Mao, the leadership was constituted in the form of a so-called "Yan'an Round Table", with "factions, each built up in one of the pre-revolutionary base areas and comprised of a network of military or civilian officials loyal to a particular leader... Horizontal communication among factions was forbidden, making the top leader into a bottleneck through whom all political coordination flowed". 2 Liberal discourse is wont to reduce these instances to "undemocratic practices of authoritarian" Communist parties. This is shallow and deceitful. The current turmoil around leadership succession in the British Labour Party - or what happened among the Conservatives during the last days of Margaret Thatcher's leadership - is just one extreme example of factions leaving no quarter in pursuit of their aims.
In an analysis of battles that were raging within the Australian Labour Party in 2005, The Australian newspaper writes: "Throughout history, politics has involved factionalism. Even in the age of monarchies, tyrannies and warlords, factionalism prevailed. Courtiers and supporters divided into groups seeking to influence the ruler, seeking advancement, pursuing their own agenda. It is no different in Western democracies today, on both the social democratic and opposing conservative side of politics... Whenever you hear someone suddenly sound from the rooftops about factionalism ... be careful. You'll hear someone who has just lost a factional battle."3 At a more serious level, Palestinian intellectual Edward Said decried factionalism among Palestinians and its destructive effects on their cause: "It's always the same thing, factionalism, disunity, the absence of a common purpose for which in the end ordinary people pay the price in suffering, blood and endless destruction. Even on the level of social structure, it is almost a commonplace that Arabs as a group fight among themselves more than they do for a common purpose. We are individualists, it is said by way of justification, ignoring the fact that such disunity and internal disorganisation in the end damages our very existence as a people."4 Indeed, over the years, the devastating effects of factionalism, ill-discipline and agents provocateur on revolutionary struggles impelled left movements to evolve organisational principles to protect their integrity. Critical among these are: elections, consultation and mandates, collective leadership, branches as basic units, criticism and self-criticism, majority decisions as binding on all, and subordination of lower to higher structures.
Though associated with left movements, most of these principles of "democratic centralism" are logical organisational measures used - with varying degrees of balance between democracy and centralism - by any serious political organisation.
How then does all this relate to the current experiences of the ANC and its Alliance partners? What is the nature of current tensions and what are their root causes? Is the attempt to deal with manifestations of factionalism a vain exercise in negating human nature?
Drawing from history What does history teach us in this regard? One of the critical lessons from the ANC's own history is that differences of view do not per se constitute factionalism. In an NEC Discussion Document published in Umrabulo 23 (June 2005) the point is made that differences of opinion have always existed in the ANC, and these have not undermined the organisation's capacity for collective action. There were instances such as in the 1950s where like-minded members lobbied as caucuses for specific policy directions. As long as they were not organised into factions, they were allowed.
The document also argues that the ANC has avoided expelling individuals simply because they held a different point of view. It debates issues; but once a majority view has been formally adopted, it is expected that the minority should submit to the majority.
Yet at some moments, such as in the late 1950s, the situation became so intractable that the ANC had to take action. Walter Sisulu, then Secretary-General of the ANC, described the situation thus: "When the Africanist leaders Madzunya and Leballo joined in this all-out campaign against the people, they were hailed in the daily papers as 'the most responsible and powerful Native leaders'...
"Congress is a broad and tolerant organisation, firmly wedded to democratic principle and refusing to impose any single ideology upon its members. But, at the same time, the ANC is not merely a debating society, and cannot tolerate open sabotage of its struggle. The National Executive promptly expelled Madzunya and Leballo for their treacherous activities, and it is notable that this action was warmly applauded by branches throughout the country...
"For a few days some newspapers tried to build up the 'major split' in Congress as a sensation. It soon became apparent, however, that the departure of this faction had strengthened the organisation, not weakened it, and that they commanded no support inside or outside Congress. The 'sensation' petered out. The national conference of Congress in December proved to be a remarkable demonstration of the confidence of the people in the present leadership, the Freedom Charter, and the Congress alliance."5 The second lesson from the ANC's own history is that, even in the management of ideological differences among the ANC, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the then SA Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU), there was maturity of leadership across all the three organisations. This leadership ensured that the bonds of common ideals were strengthened, and the dialectic of unity and contestation was managed in a manner that strengthened the people's cause.
Then ANC President, Oliver Tambo, succinctly articulated this dynamic at the funeral of Moses Mabhida who at the time of his death was General Secretary of the SACP: "In the ANC, Moses Mabhida rose from the lowest levels to become a national leader, serving as a member of the people's army, Umkhonto we Sizwe, Secretary to the Revolutionary Council, and one of the Chairpersons of the Politico-Military Council. He was an international representative and an underground organiser.
"He rose through the ranks of the Communist Party to become its General Secretary, while for many years he was Vice President of the South African Congress of Trade Unions.
"This combination of functions sometimes surprised and puzzled our friends who wondered why Comrade Mabhida had to serve in so many senior positions in different organisations. But, above all, it enraged our enemies. This combination of functions in one leader of our people upset our adversaries because it reflected the permanence and acceptability among our people of the idea and the practice of the unity of the revolutionary democratic, the socialist and the trade union movements in the South African struggle for national liberation.
"It was part of Comrade Mabhida's greatness that, having quite early on understood the importance of the unity of these great movements, he succeeded in ably serving each one of them individually, and all of them together, as a collective front for national and social emancipation."6 The third lesson from history is that the movement has always deeply appreciated the negative impact that factionalism could have on its own survival and the cause of liberation. It was always keenly aware that the enemy would conjure up images of an ANC divided as cover to carry out its campaign of murder and mayhem.
Indeed, in the 1980s, after assassinating Joe Gqabi, a leader of the movement based in Harare, the apartheid regime spread the rumour that his death was a consequence of divisions within the ANC: that there were two factions led by Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo, and that Gqabi had been murdered because he had deserted the Mandela faction.
In 1989 the British Intelligence Digest carried a story claiming that the ANC had hatched a plot to assassinate Nelson Mandela. No evidence of this was adduced. The ANC warned then that the libel in the scandal sheet should not be lightly dismissed because such rumours could be an attempt to prepare public opinion "for some act of foul play being plotted by enemies of the oppressed people of our country".7
Logic of balances: democracy and centralism This experience of history teaches us today to fight factionalism; to reject the notion that factionalism is an inherent part of all politics; to differentiate between genuine debate on any issue and even lobbying for particular policy stances on the one hand and the setting up of organised groupings to subvert collective decisions taken by the movement on the other; and to expose factional politics hidden under the guise of freedom of speech and exercise of democratic rights.
The ANC constitution defines as misconduct, participation "in organised factional activity that goes beyond the recognised norms of free debate inside the organisation and threatens its unity". It also prohibits actions by any member which prejudices the integrity of the organisation and its operational capacity by "creating divisions within its ranks or membership".8 What is critical in these and other formulations in the constitution of the ANC is more than just the prohibitions. It is that these are juxtaposed to the rights that members have. Reference to factionalism is affixed with such qualifications that the rights of members reign supreme. Thus, there should be free debate within the organisation; any activity to pursue a point of view even if it may somewhat breach the norms of free debate should be dealt with if it is of such a nature that it threatens the movement's unity.
What the movement seeks to prevent is the formation of organised groups that actively subvert the integrity of the organisation and threaten its unity.
It seeks to prevent conscious activity that has the effect of undermining decisions collectively taken by the movement. In the balance between "democracy" and "centralism", the movement leans towards the former. This is how the ANC has handled difficult moments in its history. Again, in the words of Walter Sisulu: "Congress is a broad and tolerant organisation, firmly wedded to democratic principle and refusing to impose any single ideology upon its members. But, at the same time, the ANC is not merely a debating society, and cannot tolerate open sabotage of its struggle."
Challenge of political incumbency What then is unique in the current environment that makes the challenges we face so novel for the ANC? What is the common factor running like a thread through the problems we currently face? The one generic factor in the environment is access to government office or political incumbency.
For all the long 94 years of its existence, the ANC has been a leading party in government only for the last 12 years. In a sense, this great platform to change people's lives for the better also comes with its own curse; and this is what we have to learn to manage.
The discussion document, 'Through the Eye of a Needle' (Umrabulo 11), identifies the essence of this problem: "Because leadership in structures of the ANC affords opportunities to assume positions of authority in government, some individuals then compete for ANC leadership positions in order to get into government. Many such members view positions in government as a source of material riches for themselves. Thus resources, prestige and authority of government positions become the driving force in competition for leadership positions in the ANC.
"Government positions also go hand-in-hand with the possibility to issue contracts to commercial companies. Some of these companies identify ANC members that they can promote in ANC structures and into government, so that they can get contracts by hook or by crook. This is done through media networks to discredit other leaders, or even by buying membership cards to set up branches that are ANC only in name.
"Positions in government also mean the possibility to appoint individuals in all kinds of capacities. As such, some members make promises to friends, that once elected and ensconced in government, they would return the favour.
Cliques and factions then emerge within the movement, around personal loyalties driven by corrupt intentions. Members become voting fodder to serve individuals' self-interest."9 In his report to the 2005 National General Council, ANC Secretary General Kgalema Motlanthe elaborates on how some branches of the movement can sometimes become paralysed by this phenomenon: "They are conflict-ridden and unstable and in many instances fraught with fights over leadership positions, selection and deployment of councillors, tendering and control of projects and recruitment of membership in order to serve factional or selfish interests.
"In many cases, the reasons for division and the resulting lack of coherent and consistent branch organisation are not rooted in ideological differences."10 Does this mean that members and leaders of the ANC are unique in their response to the reality of access to political office? As indicated earlier, these problems afflict parties of both the left and the right across the globe. The challenge is to have in place the organisational principles and practices as well as instruments to ensure transparency and accountability so that integrity of both the party and the government are not compromised.
Factionalism, careers and battle for resources Two instances, one from ancient history and another from recent developments help to illustrate this challenge. The first one is from the 1340s in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in old Britain where democracy did not fully obtain and there were no proper rules governing the management of national and local resources. Thus, business-people competed for positions of political authority to extract as much material advantage for themselves as possible.
Factions emerged around open competition for resources and influence with royalty. An analysis of this history by various authors contains the following description:
"It has been suggested that this conflict was essentially one between the merchant gild and the craft gilds, because of the power accorded the latter in the 1342 ordinances. This was doubtless one dimension of the affair, but things were more complicated than that. There was evidently a struggle for control of government between the empowered and disempowered. The former being, it appears, some of those who had dominated government in recent years, backed by a portion of the enfranchised residents, who were themselves among the better-off townsmen and probably predominantly merchants. The latter included non-freemen, some craftsmen, and some of the town merchants who may have objected to [John] Denton's recent domination of the mayoralty, and been at once envious of his financial success and resentful of how he had achieved it as the king's purveyor, and collector of customs and taxes." 11
About succession struggles, the authors describe the relationship between major actors, John Denton and Richard Acton thus: "It can be argued that, in the years following Emeldon's death, Acton appears to have been denied the access to the mayoralty he might have expected, given his seniority and experience; this could have been blamed on the economic success, and corresponding political influence, of Denton and his supporters. Acton's response to this peripheralisation was ultimately to resort to extraordinary measures to obtain power." 12
The second instance is from the experience of the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE) in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In his paper on this experience, Richard Gillespie of the University of Warwick identifies a number of factors that precipitate factionalism within a ruling party.
However, there is a strong element in both cases of internal democracy being campaigned for only when Socialist officials have suffered personally from a loss of patronage or have become victims of party disciplinary procedures."15
Some of these descriptions resonate with our current experience. What they indicate is that political office throws up generic problems for ruling parties that they have to learn effectively to manage.
A poisoned atmosphere
Closer to home, beyond these generic challenges of incumbency, what are the specific manifestations of tensions we are experiencing within the ranks of the ANC and the rest of the Alliance today?
If you conducted a search on the worldwide web for "pro-Mbeki", "anti-Mbeki", "pro-Zuma" and "anti-Zuma" you will come up with more than 5,000 results! What this means is that this "pro-/anti-" paradigm has become an entrenched part of public discourse. It has effectively become a template within which everything to do with activities of the Alliance and even private lives of leaders is analysed, particularly in the media. Each action and each pronouncement is seen as a factor in a grand conspiracy. It is as if members have lost their individuality and capacity for rational thought; it is as if even confirmed violent crimes can be reduced to political machinations; it is as if today's activists, even in their intimate personal relationships, "do it" for a factional cause, wearing "pro" or "anti" t-shirts and shouting corresponding slogans.
Now we can blame this on the media, shoot the messenger so to speak. But in this instance, the most that we honestly can do in criticising the media is to argue more about embellishments rather than essence.
For we would do well to ask ourselves whether individuals from within the Alliance are not responsible for this frenzy. Don't some of us, faced with inviting possibilities or uncertainties about future careers, or with the spectre of being investigated for one misdemeanour or another, or with doubts about our competence, conveniently nail our colours to an imaginary mast, claiming allegiance to individuals who may not even know of our existence or who may not necessarily agree with the things we do. And so, the behaviour of some of the movement's cadres may in fact be fuelling factionalism and encouraging the fun being poked by all and sundry at a pitiful caricature of the ANC and its allies. And so, steadily but surely, we squander the moral and political capital accumulated over many decades of struggle and sacrifice.
Have we degenerated to the level of the Queensland Cat Protection Society?
Or at least, are we approaching a state of paralysis, stagnation and degeneration, where none of us can open our mouths, express a view on any matter, and critically raise an issue for debate, without our foreheads being branded with the label of being pro-this or anti-the-other?
We may not be fully there yet, but the fact that elements of this have started to manifest themselves in our ranks signals a crisis in the making.
Critical issues of strategy and policy are on the agenda of major ANC conferences and the SACP congress in the coming 15 months, issues that will define the very existence and character of each of the allies and the Alliance as a collective for many decades to come. And none of us can confidently say that the content and tone of debate and leadership contestation in some COSATU affiliates and in the build-up to COSATU's 9th Congress are very encouraging in this regard. Nor is the drama that recently unfolded in the SA National Civics Organisation (SANCO) around leadership expulsions, counter-expulsions and court cases very flattering either.
In simple terms, the question is whether this generation of leaders and members wishes to carry on its shoulders the historical curse of having been the ones who destroyed, in an act of self-serving irrationality, a movement that is the hope of a nation and a continent.
As Sisulu said, the ANC is a broad and tolerant movement, "firmly wedded to democratic principle and refusing to impose any single ideology upon its members". It however has a historical mission to fulfil and it needs to ensure collective action to realise its objectives.
Resilience of revolutionary organisation
In this period, as the ANC approaches 100 years of its existence, with slightly over a decade of experience in democratic and transformative governance, there are many fundamental issues that the ANC and the rest of the Alliance have to grapple with. These include: the National Democratic Revolution and how it addresses the issue of property relations; utilisation of fiscal resources, state-owned enterprises and relationship with private capital; the macro-social dynamic of capitalist accumulation in the context of striving to build a caring society; changing social structure of South African society and how the ANC and other components of the Alliance should respond to this; role of the working class in the process of change, labour market dynamics and their implications for trade union organisation; and the social pathologies related to crime.
It is in this context that the ANC will need to define its role and elect a leadership collective required to attain its objectives. The SACP is faced with the same challenge.
During such moments, the movement needs to let loose its searching minds. It needs to encourage a festival of ideas. And in the mix of thesis and anti-thesis, the dialectic of profound synthesis will emerge.
Factionalism and conspiracy theories do not allow for rational and measured debate. They conspire to make revolutionaries miss moments when utmost creativity is needed. Members may keep their ideas to themselves to avoid being labelled; some may conform in fear; others may simply stay away to avoid the din of threatening noises.
Can this be avoided? The answer, informed in part by revolutionary optimism and more importantly by confidence in the mass of ANC members, is: yes, we can yet in actual practice let a thousand flowers bloom, unencumbered by considerations of narrow self-interest. That is, if the movement consciously spikes the guns of senseless politics and confronts any tendencies of factionalism.
The ANC can and shall recoil from the brink and fulfil its historic mission.
Most branches across the country have been soldiering on despite the challenges: in their meetings discussing the hierarchy of issues from local and provincial to national and international matters, informed by the basic question: how to build a better life for all.
They do know that we differ from a Cat Protection Society because ours is a collective national struggle about the human condition, and our bond of common interests is infinitely stronger than our personal egos.
Informed by the principle that we are a voluntary association, these members understand "democratic centralism" not as a theoretical supposition but a lived experience of their organisational lives. They respect the collectives to which they belong and other constitutional structures of the movement because they know that their hopes lie in the continued strength and integrity of the ANC. And they are determined to ensure that, beyond 2012, well into the second century of its existence, the ANC shall continue to live and to lead.
* Joel Netshitenzhe is a member of the ANC National Executive Committee (NEC) and Chairperson of the NEC Political Education Committee.
Notes
[Contents]