The article by Ebrahim Harvey titled Mantashe’s ill temper has hurt the ANC is, if anything at all, a bad reflection on the ability by some among us to analyse. For the most part, it relies on innuendo and anecdotal references to bolster its personal attack on, and character assassination of, Comrade Gwede Mantashe, the secretary general of the ANC.
Our starting point is that the secretary general is not a saint nor infallible. Therefore, in criticising him – and anyone, for that matter – we should be fair, factual and avoid gutter criticism.
The substance and content of the article seem to make us believe that the secretary general is the cause of some imagined woes that have befallen the ANC with the formation of the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (Amcu) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).
If we are to take this to its logical conclusion, with deductive reasoning applied too, we are likely to arrive at some of these inferences:
•?There were neither other people nor constitutional structures in either the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) or the ANC, respectively, when decisions were made with regard to the incidents referred to;
•?Even if the people and structures were there, the person of Mantashe was far more overpowering than all of these put together, and hence his alleged view prevailed; and
•?Instigators of both the Amcu and the EFF were innocent persons who everyone else either supported or sympathised with – except for the secretary general. But, somehow, this individual was able to tower over everyone else so his sole view could single-handedly prevail.
In all fairness, one reads of such omniscient and supremely powerful characters only in ancient mythologies.
Perhaps it is useful to attempt to give a perspective on these issues in the hope of shedding light on the subjects Harvey deliberately ignores.
No matter how much Harvey may wish it, Joseph Mathunjwa was not expelled from the NUM by Mantashe, then the NUM’s general secretary. In fact, it was the Witbank region that expelled Mathunjwa (then the chairperson of the Douglas Colliery branch) after it had charged him on numerous charges. Mathunjwa did not attend the hearing to defend himself.
Contrary to Harvey’s account, and there is a witness to this effect, the national office bearers of the union – Mantashe being one of them – wanted the region to reinstate Mathunjwa as a member. In fact, besides Mathunjwa, there was another person who was expelled at the same time, a person who has since returned to the NUM.
Nevertheless, in the end, Mathunjwa formed Amcu at the Douglas Colliery, where the union was supported by the management structure and then resurfaced during the turmoil on the platinum belt.
In the same vein, the expulsion of Julius Malema from the ANC was the result of a disciplinary process in the party. The constant reference to what the then deputy president of the ANC, Kgalema Motlanthe, would have preferred is arbitrary, really – irrespective of what is ascribed to him in Harvey’s book – because Motlanthe was part of the ANC leadership collective in his capacity as the deputy president of the ANC, and he concurred with the decision to expel Malema.
It is important to recognise that the expulsion followed a period of suspension, a period during which remorse and turnaround are expected from anyone, whether in an ANC process or elsewhere.
As with an earlier editorial in the Mail & Guardian (Mantashe trades straw men for scarecrows), Harvey chooses to do two things. The first is to reduce a discussion within, and a statement by, the ANC national executive committee (NEC) to being Mantashe’s personal views. It is a known fact that the secretary general always hosts press conferences after each NEC in order to communicate what the leadership collective of the ANC and the country deliberated on.
The second is deliberately to belittle the attempt of the ANC to call on South Africans to engage with the vexing question of global regime change.
We should hasten to point out that the mention of the Swedish national married to a South African was addressed long ago, right at the beginning of the troubles in Marikana. Even then, the ANC was clear that this is a matter requiring the attention of the authorities, and home affairs in particular. Why both Harvey and the M&G choose to disregard this fact is anyone’s guess.
The NEC of the ANC, in its deliberations, highlighted certain key global developments pertaining to what it termed regime change. It also considered what was happening in our country, the platinum belt strike being one of them.
One of the factors it noted was that of genuine concerns being used to foment discontent, with the aim being national instability and the overthrow of legitimate governments. It is to this extent that the role of external forces in national political matters was discussed.
We all know about international solidarity, not least the ANC secretary general. Maybe Harvey should look elsewhere to direct his remarks. Like all South Africans, he has the right to challenge and criticise Mantashe if he finds him wanting. But to do so without cause, and in the manner he does, suggests more than what Harvey presents to us.
Zizi Kodwa is the ANC’s national spokesperson