/ 2 November 2001

A tradition of internal debate

analysis

Pallo Jordan

Hegel once wrote that a political party becomes real only when it becomes divided. This dialectical statement will strike some as odd, but its profundity lies precisely in its paradoxical nature. Provided that it is not brain dead, as a political movement grows, its inner contradictions inevitably begin to unfold. But as these unfold so too the movement and its ideas are enriched and its political and intellectual life becomes more vital.

A similar proposition was advanced by Stuart Hall when he said that “… major intellectual and political figures are not honoured by celebration. Honour is accorded by taking his or her ideas seriously and debating them, extending them, quarrelling with them and making them live again.”

Those in the African National Congress should take comfort from the remarks of these thinkers because what they describe so closely approximates their political experience.

The tired analogy of the ANC as a broad church might prove useful in trying to understand the ironies of the current debates.

A body of religious values holds a church together much as a common programme is the standard beneath which the political faithful are rallied. That programme bound intra-movement debate. Contenders in any dispute seek legitimacy by an appeal to it, but each is expected to respect the bona fides of the others. Episcopates in both the Catholic and Protestant churches have been prepared to accommodate heterodox thought within their folds, provided it could be contained or coopted. Thus was many a potential heresy tamed or emasculated.

In the ANC, on the contrary, within the living memory of many veterans, heterodoxy has regularly become the new orthodoxy. The dissident voice, the innovative strategy and critical ideas have won the argument in the movement on several occasions. While this offers conservatives little comfort, he would be a rash radical who sought to employ it as justification for reckless behaviour.

Any serious political movement necessarily requires its adherents to act collectively on the decisive issues of the day. The whips in a parliamentary party are assigned precisely that role. Movements that have been forced to operate illegally place greater emphasis on discipline, because breaches could result in arrests and even the suppression of the movement. Theoretically such discipline does not extend to the inner political life of the movement, but there have been numerous instances when the requirements of discipline have been abused to repress debate and critical thought.

Before March 1960 ANC practice was to encourage optimal debate within its structures until a collective decision was arrived at. After that, the minority view/s were expected to submit to the majority. Highly vocal dissenting minorities, like the “Africanists” of the 1950s, survived as ginger groups within the ANC for years before they walked out in frustration. The communist movement coined the term “democratic centralism” to describe this practice, which recognised the inevitability of a diversity of viewpoints, but also insisted that they should not impair the movement’s capacity for united action.

During its 30 years of illegal operation, security considerations, distance between centres and the dispersal of its membership across the globe gravely undermined the ANC’s ability to operate in this fashion. The militarisation of the movement as a result of the armed struggle tilted the balance further away from consultative practices. But within those limitations the movement kept alive a tradition of internal debate and discussion that finds expression in its publications, conference documents and other records. Feminism was unheard of or derided in the ANC of the late 1960s. But today it is firmly rooted in the movement. No strategic shifts arrived as a surprise to ANC members and supporters because, in most cases, their views had been widely canvassed beforehand. The relative absence of destabilising upheavals that might have led to disintegration attests to the skill with which such issues were managed. Unity was not conflated with uniformity. But the crystallisation of factions was also firmly opposed.

Achieving the delicate balance that enables the movement to maintain continuity while remaining open to new initiatives and even heretic ideas is a challenge even under the most favourable circumstances. Strong leaders are often tempted to assert their wills. After 1990 there were two well-known instances when the charismatic Nelson Mandela was unable to muster the necessary support among ANC leadership and provincial structures for his view to prevail. There were numerous less-publicised occasions when he was overruled by the executive. Thabo Mbeki initially tabled the central ideas in Joe Slovo’s strategic initiative, now known as the “sunset clauses”, in the national executive committee. Mbeki lost the argument on that occasion. Despite Slovo’s immense prestige, the initiative he authored was hotly contested and radically amended before it was adopted by the ANC.

As a movement that has always cherished ideas, the ANC and its alliance partners sometimes strike outsiders as bodies seething with internal fractious conflicts. A noted columnist characterised this as washing its dirty linen in public. But this is a movement that has always preferred to devote time to intra-movement debates, arguments and polemics, so that when a decision is taken, most members are confident that every possible option has been examined.

During the 1991 national conference, the late Harry Gwala accepted nomination as deputy president, in opposition to Walter Sisulu. When a comrade inquired why he was standing against Sisulu, Gwala explained that the principle of contesting positions in the ANC leadership had to be reasserted after 30 years of illegality.

Since 1912, with the exception of Chief Albert Luthuli, no ANC president has died in office. The majority were voted out of office to be replaced by abler people or to signal a shift in strategy. Thus in 1949 Anton Lembede, Oliver Tambo, Sisulu and Mandela realised that it would be impossible to implement the programme of action with Dr AB Xuma at the helm. They mistakenly thought they had found a more audacious figure in Dr JS Moroka, but their misplaced confidence was repaid in Moroka’s craven defence, repudiating the very aims of the defiance campaign he had led when they all faced trial in 1952. At the national conference that December, Moroka followed Xuma into the political wilderness, unseated by the very lobby that had nominated him in 1949. The highly respected Tambo’s ill health compelled him to retire in 1991. Mandela retired after two terms.

The ANC has remained relevant over 90 years thanks to a political culture that recognised pluralism as among South Africa’s foremost realities. Its willingness to engage with virtually any political current, trend or body of opinion is testimony to its tolerance. This is a tradition forged in the crucible of struggle, where new challenges presented themselves continuously. A brainless, unthinking leadership would have proved incapable of responding creatively.

A monolithic ANC and tripartite alliance, in which no debates are countenanced and intra-movement dissension is suppressed, would reduce the living movement to an apparatus by depriving it of the life-giving oxygen it requires for its very survival.

President Mbeki and his colleagues are as alive to that danger as anyone else.

Pallo Jordan is an African National Congress MP and a member of the ANC’s national executive committee

John Matshikiza is on sick leave; his column, With the Lid Off, will be back once he has recovered