Drew Forrest: What is the relevance of a communist party in the year 2002, and in what sense are you a communist party?
Blade Nzimande: We are being vindicated every day. A new type of global robber baron is emerging –look at what has been happening with all these companies in the United States. For us, this is not a deviation — it’s inherent in the system. The relevance of communist parties worldwide is that they represent an alternative society, an alternative to capitalism.
We are seeing anti-capitalist demonstrations throughout the world, showing the extent to which capitalism has not been a solution. The US protects its own industries while demanding that we liberalise. It spends more than a billion dollars a day on arms.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was a neo-liberal triumphalism that said: it’s the end of history; there is one route for countries to develop. But by the end of the 1990s 20 new countries were on the side of the poor.
Poverty is widening, and particularly since September 11 we are seeing the really ugly side of imperialism — its propensity for violence. Look at the arrogance of George W Bush, who wants to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. We are not pro-Saddam, but no country has that right. The Americans were involved in an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected president in Venezuela. Bush is now prescribing that [Yasser] Arafat does not deserve to be a leader. Look at the Colombia plan, which is being pushed to fight against popular forces that want a more democratic Colombia.
All those things underline that capitalism is in crisis.
Forrest: What do you see as replacing it? Are you talking about a reversion to the Soviet model?
Nzimande: Socialism.
Forrest: What does that mean?
Nzimande: It means that the predominant means of the economy must be in the hands of the state, but a state rooted among the mass of the people, not a bureaucratic state. The challenge is to renew socialism, because the system we have known was too bureaucratic. Society must really serve humanity. At our congress we are going to reflect on how we link up with this mass creative expression of anti-capitalist sentiment in the world. We must contribute towards directing this sentiment towards socialism.
Jaspreet Kindra: Do you see a socialist revolution in South Africa?
Nzimande: A transition to socialism is not immediately on the agenda, but we need to build elements of, and capacity for, socialism. We have made progress providing electricity, telephones, housing, building of clinics — but the government and the parastatals have been central to these achievements. Low-cost housing is not where it should be because we left part of the provision to the private banks, which are just not playing the game. The small business sector is a disaster because banks are not playing along. We want a developmental state that retains its leverage to direct the economy and gives incentives and disincentives to private capital. We have to mobilise those resources.
Kindra: How receptive is the Afri- can National Congress to building socialism?
Nzimande: Quite a number of government policies may not be socialist, but they can be taken from a socialist perspective.
Forrest: Privatisation?
Nzimande: No, not that — I said some policies. Government’s pledge of free basic water is a very progressive commitment. But without communist morality — solidarity, collectivity, hatred of poverty — you are not going to take government’s moral regeneration policy much forward in a capitalist context dominated by a Lotto mentality and dog-eat-dog competitiveness.
Forrest: Are you saying that the broad thrust of the government’s policy is towards socialism?
Nzimande: No, no. But it’s towards the eradication of poverty, which is fertile ground for building a momentum for socialism. That is why I am talking about the organisation of the working class. You can’t have an economic policy without buy-in from the strong working class in this country. You are just seeking trouble. The challenge for us is to strengthen that class, unite it, so it can play a leading role. The ANC is a broad movement with a working-class bias. But we are under no illusion that other forces would like to pressurise it away from that bias.
Kindra: You’ve said there is a possibility of the South African Communist Party taking the ANC over from within …
Nzimande: That interview with The Star really crudified what I said. We don’t see our task as taking over the ANC; we are arguing that the working class must dominate the policy direction of the ANC.
At the moment, the liberation movement has political power — incomplete as it might be — while economic power remains with the same class forces as under apartheid. And the global environment is hostile. That’s the reality.
Some would say: the balance of forces is so overwhelmingly against us, all we can do is to swim with the stream of globalisation. We are saying we’ve got to swim with and against it at the same time. The debates in the alliance revolve around how we advance our goals in a hostile, capitalist-dominated global and domestic environment.
Forrest: It’s not just a debate about tactics. There are anti-socialist elements in the ANC.
Nzimande: They have always been there, but they are a tiny minority. The ANC is the majority of the working people and the poor of this country; many, many of whom support the SACP.
Forrest: Where would you say the president stands on socialism?
Nzimande: No, I would really not like to categorise the president, in that the ANC is committed to the alliance he leads.
Kindra: What about the hostile ANC reaction to your anti-privatisation campaign last year?
Nzimande: That’s part of the struggle. Our support for the strike was not just directed at aspects of government policy, but was for the working class against the vultures who want to swallow our public companies.
Forrest: You say that anti-socialists are a tiny element. But last year’s briefing document, claiming a left-wing plot against ANC leaders, came from the ANC’s national executive committee.
Nzimande: Fine, that document emanated from the NEC, but the overwhelming response of the regional general councils of the ANC was: don’t bring your problems here; sort them out at the top. On the ground we work together well. That says the ANC membership is committed to the alliance.
We disagreed with the thrust of the document, but we can’t stop the ANC from communicating with its own structures in the way it sees fit.
Forrest: How would you describe the state of relations in the alliance now?
Nzimande: Because of the message from the ground, it’s improved. At the end of last year, it reached its lowest level maybe ever …
Kindra: Even worse than when the government switched to the growth, employment and redistribution strategy [Gear]?
Nzimande: That was the basis of the tensions. But now we have agreed to forge a joint programme at a growth and development summit, called by the president. That’s very significant. Since the adoption of Gear there has been no commitment to jointly develop a strategy on how to turn the economy round. We’ve not dealt with the content of the differences, but we’ve set the framework that allows us also to deal with them in a forward-looking and positive way.
The question will be: what are the elements of that strategy? Obviously one will be the role of the parastatals. In that way we can deal with the differences around restructuring and privatisation, in a context of saying what Telkom, Spoornet should be doing in a South Africa committed to creating jobs.
Forrest: You’ve got two diametrically opposed approaches. What compromise is possible?
Nzimande: We need an overarching industrial policy. What is the state of each sector of the economy? Is it creating or losing jobs? How can we restructure that sector so that it can play a positive role in creating jobs, growing our economy, tackling poverty? Then you say … what then is the role of a para-statal like Spoornet towards that objective, rather than saying: we have to restructure Spoornet. We can’t say we want to restructure Spoornet to bring in black business. It can’t be an objective.
Kindra: There has apparently been a positive response from Minister of Trade and Industry Alec Erwin. Has there been a shift?
Nzimande: Alec produced a discussion document that is inadequate, but it’s far more advanced than what we’ve seen. We would like to see Spoornet much more under the Department of Transport, Telkom much more under the Department of Communications.
We must also say: in the light of our objectives, which parastatals must remain in the hands of the state? Many countries have done that. If we say water provision is critical and the private sector is not playing a role, water provision must remain in the hands of the municipalities. That’s what we need to agree to, and we believe we can find one another then.
Kindra: In your discussion documents on the conference you say you must keep reminding the ANC of the Freedom Charter …
Nzimande: We are not saying that there are no ideological differences. You wouldn’t have a broad movement without ideological differences. But we don’t see these necessarily as an obstacle; they are a challenge.
Kindra: In the discussion documents, you criticise the Africanist trend in the ANC.
Nzimande: These are paradigms that have always been there, not factions. They are not unlinked to different class realities. We are saying: in what way are they manifesting themselves in the movement, what challenges are they posing? Let’s just be frank rather than talking behind the scenes.
Forrest: Are you suggesting that Africanism has petty bourgeois class roots?
Nzimande: No, no. It can be revolutionary. The African nationalism of the ANC has always been revolutionary, but it doesn’t mean you don’t find backward elements. At some stage these things have raised their ugly heads. The Pan Africanist Congress broke away because it represented right-wing Africanism.
Forrest: The document identifies an Africanist tendency within the ANC with a very soft line on [Robert] Mugabe, Aids denial, conspiracy theories, superficial projects like hosting the Olympic Games. It’s difficult not to see a finger pointed at the president …
Nzimande: No, don’t individualise this.
Forrest: Was there an attempt to try and get you and [deputy general secretary] Jeremy Cronin out of the ANC NEC last year?
Nzimande: No, no. Some people were saying we can’t sit in the NEC, but it was raised in the context of the dual-membership issue. There were no moves to oust us. Everybody in the alliance was under pressure — not least the ANC itself.
Kindra: There is this talk that the SACP may send its own representatives to Parliament. Do you think that’s possible in 2004?
Nzimande: No. Not in 2004. We would not like to see this alliance breaking for a long time to come, because we think the global and domestic terrain requires maximum unity. What people don’t realise is that breaking the alliance means splitting all three organisations. You are talking of two million Congress of South African Trade Union workers, more than 80% ANC members.
The discussion at the conference that will be over whether the alliance is structured to reflect the challenges of the period, or in the old sentimentalist way of the days of exile. The ANC is government; conditions have changed.
Forrest: What needs to happen to the alliance?
Nzimande: One of the weaknesses is that we don’t have joint programmes of action outside of election campaigns. Joint programmes narrow differences.
Also, it may be important to find a way, in a context of an ANC-led electoral front, for communist voices to be heard more in the legislatures. Some people think the SACP has become too independent. Others say no, it must come forward more forcefully. The party would say … yes, under certain conditions the communist party will now have to state its criticisms when it doesn’t agree with the government.
Forrest: Are you talking about reserving seats for SACP members?
Nzimande: No, no, that’s not what we are asking for. The point is that the ANC in opposition, fighting the apartheid government, is not the same as an ANC in power.
Forrest: We understand the presence of government ministers in the SACP leadership — particularly those driving privatisation — is a problem for some of your people.
Nzimande: We’ve always said: if you’re a government minister, implement government policy. Where there is a clash, it means there are differences between organisations. Rather than individualise the matter, the SACP must raise the matter with the ANC and say, look, we are diverging.
Our members understand that, but say it’s not adequate, that we need to ask what the responsibilities are of communists expected to implement policies that contradict those of the SACP. We need to discuss these questions, but not to undertake a witch-hunt or isolate comrades in government. How do you reconcile accountability to your area of deployment and accountability to the SACP?
Forrest: How seriously do you think government leaders take the growth summit? It was supposed to happen in April; now it doesn’t look as if it’s going to happen this year.
Nzimande: If the growth summit hasn’t happened it’s because of government’s other responsibilities this year, not lack of commitment.
Forrest: Do you see Stalinist currents in the ANC, as Cronin is reported as suggesting in his interview?
Nzimande: What Jeremy, and all of us in the communist party, have been saying is that one of the lessons of Zimbabwe for any liberation movement is the danger of getting bureaucratised when you get into power, of dispensing favours because you have power.
One of our biggest challenges is to maintain the revolutionary morality that characterised our liberation struggle. Traces of corruption and self-enrichment are emerging.
Forrest: For me, Stalinism implies intolerance of divergent opinions.
Nzimande: There is that trend, but I wouldn’t say it’s dominant. One of our contributions is to constantly force open and friendly debate, without fear.
Forrest: Stalinism also implies the imposition of one man’s thinking and will. Are there such tendencies? Was the Aids policy not heavily coloured by the president’s views over a two-year period?
Nzimande: There was a continuing debate inside the ANC about that. That is why the Cabinet took a decision on Aids that would unite the country. Some people may fear that if they speak out they could lose their position. But the day the ANC stops debating within itself, it’s red lights flashing.
Kindra: A more recent example is of the Youth League saying that the top two positions of the ANC will not be contested at the national conference.
Nzimande: That was a view of the Youth League.
Kindra: It was not repudiated by ANC leaders.
Nzimande: Maybe people didn’t take it seriously. Nothing in the ANC says positions are no-go areas.
Forrest: What is your view of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development [Nepad] and the African Union?
Nzimande: We welcome the AU, which captures a new determination for Africa to act together and explore things: an African parliament, harmonising regional blocs, the possibility of a central bank at some stage. It may take a long time, but there is commitment. Of course, we wish Swaziland was not admitted to the AU unconditionally, without a timetable for democracy …
Forrest: And Zimbabwe … ?
Nzimande: Well, there are processes in place to deal with Zimbabwe, under the Commonwealth, this initiative of [Olusegun] Obasanjo and our president.
Forrest: It’s also a softer target… it’s much easier to say let’s exclude Swaziland, isn’t it? The human rights abuses in Zimbabwe are in many ways much more flagrant; there has been far more violence.
Nzimande: That’s true.
Forrest: Hundreds and thousands of farm workers have been driven off the land…
Nzimande: I know … but there’s been an election, no matter what its deficiencies were. Political parties are allowed to operate. In Swaziland there’s nothing like that.
On Nepad we welcome the principles and the concept, because it’s an attempt by Africans to confront the deep structural economic crisis on the continent. It’s driven by Africans themselves. But much as we welcome the concept and some core pillars — investment in infrastructure, poverty eradication — the challenge is mass popular involvement; it must be a people-driven programme. We are going to engage with Nepad on that basis.
Already you can see attempts by powerful countries to appropriate Nepad, to impose the very same old conditionalities that have taken Africa nowhere.
Fundamentally Nepad must be a partnership between the governments of Africa and their peoples. And the basis of that is democracy and an anti-imperialist outlook.