Our national Constitution provides all our people with the broad framework for the reconstruction and development of our country. Its objectives enjoy the often-stated general support of the nation and our various political and other organised formations. We put in place a Constitutional Court mandated to ensure that this Constitution is respected and implemented.
The virtually unanimous support for the Constitution would suggest that we should experience minimum controversy with regard to the national programmes needed to effect the political, economic, social and other changes visualised in it.
Experience, however, tells us that even the mere interpretation of the objectives indicated in the Constitution is itself a subject of political and ideological struggle. Naturally, this also affects the programmes we have put in place to ensure the translation of these objectives into reality.
In the 93 years of our existence, we have obviously been engaged in an uninterrupted political and ideological struggle against the forces of colonialism, racism and apartheid.
At the same time our movement had to wage a similarly intense political and ideological struggle against various formations that, like us, defined themselves as part of the non-racial or democratic or national liberation movement of our country.
For instance, in a new year address in 1971, Oliver Tambo spoke about a white South African liberal politician who had visited Zambia. He said: ”This sweet bird from the bloodstained south flew into Zambia and sang a singularly sweet song: ‘I am opposed to apartheid; I am opposed to the isolation of South Africa; I am opposed to violence; I am opposed to guerrillas; I am opposed to the Lusaka Manifesto; I am opposed to the decision of the World Council of Churches; I know the Africans can do nothing to cause political change in South Africa; I am in favour of change; I am clearly in favour of change, but determined to prevent change.”’
In these words Tambo exposed the gulf that existed between ourselves and others in our country who, like us, said they were ”opposed to apartheid” and were ”in favour of change”.
Simultaneously, these ”opponents of apartheid” were opposed to the international campaign to isolate apartheid South Africa and to the armed struggle. While claiming that they were ”in favour of change”, these people objected to the support of the frontline states for the Southern African liberation movements, and the similar support of the World Council of Churches.
They were so convinced of the invincibility of the apartheid regime, that they sought to discourage independent Africa from supporting the mass struggles of the oppressed African majority in our country, seeing this as a hopeless venture. Correctly, Tambo concluded that, despite their protestations about being in favour of change, such people were objectively ”determined to prevent change”.
Today we have the situation that absolutely everybody in our country is ”in favour of change”. The sweet birds continue to sing particularly sweet songs about what needs to be done to bring about this change, to which, objectively, they are opposed.
They say they are ”in favour of change, and clearly in favour of change”. They say they support the objective of building a democratic country, but view the popular support the movement enjoys as a threat to democracy.
They say they accept that, like all others elsewhere in the world, our democracy should be based, in part, on political parties that contest democratic elections to win power. Nevertheless, they are opposed to the unity and cohesion of our movement, preferring, ”in the interest of democracy” that it should be composed of factions that fight among themselves, ignoring its own internal democratic procedures.
In this context they say they accept that democratically elected governments have the right and duty to implement their election manifestos. Nevertheless, they are opposed to our movement deploying within the state machinery people who understand and accept our manifestos, denouncing this as representing a ”totalitarian” blurring of the distinction between state and party and an undemocratic centralisation of power.
They say they support the creation of a non-racial society, but are opposed to affirmative action and black economic empowerment, which they denounce as being the perpetuation and entrenchment of ”crony capitalism”.
Similarly, while professing support for the emergence of a non-racial South Africa, they deny the persistence of the legacy of racism and apartheid in our country. Accordingly, they denounce our determined effort to address this challenge as an unacceptable ”re-racialisation” of South Africa and ”playing the race card”.
Like the ”sweet bird” about which Oliver Tambo spoke in 1971, what the contemporary sweet birds are about is setting our national agenda. They fight to ensure that they, rather than us, should set this agenda. They fight to ensure the dominance of their ideas about what constitutes change, and about the ways and means that should be used to bring about such change.
To ensure the victory of the national democratic revolution, this is a struggle we must continue to take on, namely, the political and ideological struggle to determine the dominant ideas for the transformation of our society.
This is an edited version of the Letter from the President, ANC Today, January 7 to 13, which appears on www.anc.org.za