ONE of the curious aspects of the African National Congress in government is its paradoxical insistence on exercising its authority when it is not needed and failure to do so when it is. The paradox was on display again this week, with regard to Zaire and the leadership struggle in the Free State.
When Nelson Mandela fired Bantu Holomisa the president’s office reacted sharply to protests against the decision, accusing critics of improper interference in a presidential prerogative.
When Terror Lekota similarly attempted to get rid of members of his cabinet in whom he had lost trust, the national leadership of the ANC not only told him he could not do it, but attempted to tie him to an “agreement” on how he behaved towards the rebels in future and eventually fired him for the breach of it.
What, precisely, they believe they have gained by the exercise is difficult to fathom. Their interference in the affairs of the province has reinforced the national leadership’s reputation for an overfondness for centralism. Their plans to impose an “interim” administration on the province – and the gerrymandering they will have to do to make it legal – is a negation of democracy.
Odds are that when the provincial congress is eventually held, Lekota will be re- elected premier and it will all be back to square one.
It would have been far better if the national leadership had given Lekota their unstinting support from the start and invited the rebels – whom he has accused of corruption and suchlike – to demonstrate their innocence of the charges in the courts.
If they had succeeded in doing so, Lekota’s political career would have been snuffed out and the party in the province could have gone ahead to elect a new premier who, in turn, could have appointed a cabinet in whom he or she had confidence. If they had failed to do so, they themselves would have been consigned to political obscurity, leaving Lekota to run the province with the help of a supportive ministerial team.
Where Zaire is concerned, the behaviour of the ANC in government is the exact opposite. Countries in Africa and beyond are crying out for a lead from Pretoria. Daniel Arap Moi calls a summit in Kenya to discuss the crisis. Our government fails to send the president, or his deputy, or even the foreign minister. Instead it dispatches a “special envoy” to act as an observer, along with a bizarre message to African heads of state that South Africa will agree to anything they decide. There can hardly be a more startling demonstration of an abrogation of responsibility in the field of foreign affairs.
Of course it is possible to explain this contradictory approach to the exercise of power. The ANC – as has been demonstrated by the Holomisa affair – is obsessed by a desire for party unity at all costs. This seemingly reflects its failure to make the transition from liberation movement to political party. It’s intolerance of dissent smacks of a government at war. Despite their massive majority, they are unable to act with the confidence demanded by peace.
Lack of confidence similarly blights our foreign policy. There are, obviously, dangers in being caught up in foreign wars. But the feeble gestures we have been making towards the peace-keeping process — and the equally feeble excuses we have been offering for avoiding material engagement – threatens to make us a laughing stock in Africa. When the Lekota controversy blew up in the Free State, the ANC dispatched a high-level crisis-management team south to Bloemfontein. They would have been of more service if they had gone north.