Niren Tolsi’s ‘On the far side of left†(December 8) fails to delve into the events that culminated in the ‘invasion†of the national meeting of the Social Movements Indaba (SMI) by some members of Abahlali baseMjondolo and the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign (AEC).
And Tolsi does not analyse the crisis in the national social movement resulting from Abahlali’s actions, which many delegates described as ‘tsotsi†politics.
Abahlali’s leaders took part in democratic decisions at meetings about hosting the SMI meeting in Durban and agreed to be part of the organising committee. They suddenly pulled out of the planning process without explanation, other than to claim that ‘people were trying to divide the movementâ€.
The rest of the organising committee asked: shouldn’t divisive elements be exposed? Abahlali leaders have not replied.
The three-hour interruption of the meeting on December 3 by 50 Abahlali members shocked delegates. Many left the room in disgust or fear.
Abahalali spoke as if to councillors and government officials, rather than comrades who had themselves suffered from evictions, service cut-offs and arrests.
The organisation objected to three academics no longer being employed at the Centre for Civil Society (CCS), and claimed one of them, Richard Pithouse, was unemployed — an outright lie.
If Abahlali objects to academics, NGOs and intellectuals ‘hijacking†the SMI’s agenda, why is it fighting for academics who have benefited from writing about its struggle and being flown to international conferences to speak on its behalf?
The claim that campus security was ‘warned to keep out black and coloured people arriving in taxis†is propaganda. Security was only alerted after SMI delegates expressed fears about their safety and concern about time being wasted.
Members of the Western Cape AEC delegation did not attend the SMI meeting, as they had agreed to do, and spent all their time with the Abahlali boycotters.
The coordinating committee and delegates strongly condemn the actions of Abahlali and AEC members. They shamed their communities and struggles by behaving in an immature and destructive manner, and turning on fellow community members and social movement activists for reasons unrelated to genuine people’s struggles.
A relationship of financial patronage between Abahlali leaders and certain individuals is the root cause of many problems, and partly why the SMI was targeted. That relationship is now threatened, as the patrons have moved on and many independent struggles around the country blossom.
Abahlali is no longer fighting for its original concerns, such as housing and basic services. It is now working against those it perceives as threatening its role as the ‘foremost voice of struggleâ€, which its former patrons encouraged it to believe it plays.
The leaders clearly do not want to work with other communities and movements as equals and comrades in a common struggle, which is what the SMI is all about.
However, the SMI and its affiliates are committed to engaging it, given that its members suffer the harshest effects of social exclusion and marginalisation. They should not suffer because of their leaders’ irresponsibility. — SMI national coordinating committee
The Abahlali members who disrupted the SMI meeting gave suspicious reasons. One old lady chanted: ‘We voted for you. You promised us houses. You promised to build roads.†Another protester attacked homosexuals. An Abahlali leader ranted against NGOs and academics — even though NGO types had just lectured the group at their own workshop.
Abahlali leader S’bu Zikode’s final explanation was that his organisation had been ‘humiliated†by the ‘firing†of Richard Pithouse, Richard Ballard and Raj Patel from the CCS, where the three had worked. He demanded an apology.
The aggression was ugly; I was pushed aside by the bodyguards Zikode now keeps. No one else was permitted to say a word in reply to the outrageous things howled over a loudhailer. The debacle played into nasty stereotypes of left infighting and the thuggish ‘lumpenproletariatâ€.
Abahlali could learn from Steve Biko, who led a black student walkout from white-dominated Nusas in the 1970s. Ashwin Desai recently warned of the insidious role played by mainly white, middle-class academics in dividing social movements. Disunity among the poor often functions to preserve lucrative funding and research, as well as academic and activist prestige. The academics Abahlali champions are central players in a R500 000 foreign-funded research endeavour centred around it.
Zikode praises his chosen academics for coming as ‘servants not mastersâ€, showing his youth and naivety. Servants do not fly overseas to deliver papers on their masters. Africa is replete with do-gooders who actually control.
Zikode expects outside activists to relate to him as subordinates. Such self-importance is a byproduct of the exaggerated praise Pithouse, in particular, has heaped on Abahlali, suggesting it is the ’embodiment of truthâ€. Such romanticisation is dangerous. Social movements, and people’s heroes, rise and fall.
Initially involved in militant, direct action, Abahlali has now become bureaucratised, lacks a clear programme and is chiefly pursuing legal remedies for municipal delivery.
Is the latest fight in the left comparative advertising, which says: ‘Buy us, academics and NGOs, we are a more user-friendly social movement than the SMIâ€? — Virginia Setshedi
By focusing on a small group of misinformed activists rather than the intense discussions at the meeting Tolsi denies the significant voice the SMI has become outside traditional civil society.
He misses the tragic manner in which the Abahlali has become a pawn of ‘academic activistsâ€. He gives disproportionate space to Abahlali and two small, fractured groups that supported it, denying the concerns of more than 30 other community organisations and social movements that continued meeting after Abahlali’s performance.
By raising its problems with the Centre for Civil Society through the SMI, Abahlali lost the opportunity to join discussions with activists involved in community struggles countrywide.
Abahlali’s critique of the role of NGOs and academics in the SMI is surprising, as it is the only SMI member with a direct relationship with an academic institution.
Was Abahlali’s critique dependent on the value of NGOs to its specific interests? Or was it being used by disgruntled CCS academics to de-legitimise the centre; to even scores with other academics?
Tolsi also focuses on Abahlali’s unsubstantiated claim that SMI funding is misspent. In fact Abahlali, perhaps more than other movements, has enjoyed resource streams opened up through the SMI network, specifically for legal defence. — Prishani Naidoo