In the early 1990s the African National Congress played a modernising role. South Africa had been held back by the consequences of apartheid, international isolation and a siege economy. From its enthusiastic adoption of information technology to the international exposure of many future leaders, the ANC helped to drive modernisation in areas that went well beyond an expected pre-occupation with racial redress.
Unfortunately, this modernising impulse has not been applied too deeply to the ANC itself.
One of the areas most in need of modernisation in the ANC alliance is leadership selection. For a movement that played such an important part in bringing democracy to South Africa, it is depressing to watch the strange manoeuvring taking place around the process of selecting new leadership.
The Byzantine politics of ”there is no leadership race” or ”I am available to do whatever my party asks” – which fool no one – or the practice of ”deployment” that so influences the ruling party, admirably recall the laudable notion of sacrifice. But they are also relics of undemocratic exile politics, Soviet influence and other unfortunate parts of the ANC’s history that should have been left at the borders when the movement returned to South Africa in the early 1990s.
Smoke-filled backrooms are a part of the environment of any political party, and probably essential. But in a democratic political system there has to be a wider public debate in which candidates for party leadership tout their wares and try to convince party members, supporters and the wider public of their candidacy’s merits. Some countries hold primary elections; others practise rigorous constituency selection; in every democracy, public interrogation is essential.
Instead of an exemplary process of democratic debate and open discussion about presidential qualities, as befits this country’s leading role in the continent, we have something approaching … bad farce?
South Africa has to witness what is a truly rather strange spectacle of grown men and women pretending they are not interested in the pin-nacle of political power, but will somehow reluctantly find the energy, ambition, capacity and vision to become ANC president if there is ”a groundswell” within the party asking them to run.
Please. Even Tokyo Sexwale’s bold move to open this process up had to be couched in terms that make it acceptable to this repressive approach to individual contestation and open debate.
Wouldn’t it be great for the country if there was a crowded field of ANC candidates freely arguing why they should lead South Africa into the second decade of the 21st century? In this heated process they would be forced to clearly articulate why their ideas are superior to those put forward by their competitors. Jacob Zuma has, in an odd way, been forced to do this to keep his ”movement” alive outside the party mainstream.
What could be better for South Africa than its largest political party debating publicly about what kind of leadership is best for Africa’s largest economy, and why? Isn’t such openness one of the things that made this country’s amazing transition work? Who is best qualified and able to provide the cross-cutting, inspiring leadership that would bind our diverse communities more closely into a common nation? Where has South Africa done well or failed over the past 14 years? What are the lessons of the recent past and how should these be applied to the next 10 years? What must change if we are to fulfil our promise as a great African success story?
How good it would be for South Africa if the party that recites the mantra of non-racialism at every opportunity would also demonstrate its commitment to this approach in the debate over who will become its next leader.
Nearly all commentators – black and white – assume that the next leader of the ANC must be an African. Why? I thought we had moved beyond apartheid.
The ANC led the battle for a constitution establishing equal rights, and its history includes many brave individuals who sacrificed so much so that all South Africans could be equal citizens irrespective of race. In this context, why is it assumed that ”race” will necessarily trump character, public service, achievement, or excellence? How do we know that this is in fact how the vast majority of ANC delegates would vote? Not to mention what the majority of ANC members and supporters would support?
Assumptions about race in the ANC leadership contest should be tested. Voting at previous ANC conferences exhibited an impressive display of non-racialism. Has something changed?
In a modern political party individuals would put themselves forward for high office on the basis of their record, their priorities for the country (and the ANC) and their leadership qualities.
Perhaps most important of all, candidates should tell party and country how they see SA in 2020. What is their vision for this remarkable country and how do they intend to get us there? And then we could have an open and revealing debate about national priorities.
I would put five questions to any contender for the ANC presidency:
What is South Africa’s top priority?
The one issue that must trump all others is how to sustain current rates of economic growth and, more importantly, drive them higher. It is only with much higher rates of growth that we will decisively bring down unemployment and continue to generate the revenue necessary to deliver on other priorities.
Therefore, are you in favour of markets as the critical motor of growth and development for Africa’s largest economy? Is this a half-hearted acceptance of something you feel you have no choice in, and will do reluctantly, without enthusiasm or any attempt to persuade others of the benefits of this approach? Or do you see the innovation, dynamism, ability to deliver goods and services across the country, and phenomenal capacity to get things done, as the essence of competitive capitalism? And the surest, strongest and best hand for South Africa to play in its quest to become a society that delivers opportunities and improved quality of life to more and more citizens – urban, rural, black, white, rich and poor?
A new ANC leader committed to growth would need to ”sell” markets and the essential reforms required to make them work effectively with the energy, enthusiasm and skill that are currently conspicuous by their absence. Is this how you see it?
What is your vision for the state?
And how will you deal with the worrying signs of internal collapse in key parts of government?
What is your position on the appropriate line between public service and private enrichment?
What will you do about the abysmal failure of our schooling system?
The single greatest factor empowering individuals is education. The crisis of quality in education is the largest obstacle to skills acquisition and black advancement.
What is your position on ”the racial question”?
Race discrimination denied millions the opportunities they deserved. For the first time in South Africa’s history we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that entrench the principles of non-discrimination – a remarkable achievement that we must take care not to undermine.
South Africa cannot afford to spend another half century getting race wrong again. Although role models are important, poverty and inequality in SA will not change through the hasty enrichment of a small group of mainly urban dealmakers, or the accelerated promotion of urban black professionals. If, through politics and patronage, incompetent, inexperienced people are placed in positions of authority, institutions designed to educate, service and support black South Africans could suffer the most, ensuring the need for another generation of affirmatively promoted citizens.
Important decisions will be made at Polokwane. The ANC has exceeded expectations in the past. Can it do so again?
Ann Bernstein is executive director of the Centre for Development and Enterprise