The challenge for all card-carrying ANC members at their national conference is how to deal with the fact that the ANC has brought South Africa into disrepute as a result of internal squabbles — and how to prevent that from happening in future.
Regrettably, South Africa has failed to create an electoral act that allows citizens to elect their own president directly, making him or her accountable to the public as opposed to a party or party faction. So most South Africans will continue to watch from the sidelines. In another country, with a more established culture of democratic voting and where partisan loyalty does not override all other considerations, voters would already have punished the ANC at the polls for damaging the national image.
It is of paramount importance for the delegates at Polokwane to take note of the manner in which some ANC members have soiled the reputation of their organisation and this country.
Consider one example: the arms deal. The ANC should have listened to the United Democratic Movement and other organisations many years ago, when we called for a judicial commission of inquiry into the arms deal. The internal problems were evident even then. But the ANC refused and would not acknowledge that some among them, such as Schabir Shaik and Tony Yengeni, were involved. In fact, these ANC members were staunchly defended, bringing both the ruling party and the country into disrepute. In the process the judiciary was vilified and publicly attacked. This arms deal eats away at the ruling party like a cancerous tumour.
When he takes the podium in December, President Thabo Mbeki will be expected to account for how the ANC national executive committee has dealt with the manner in which the image of his party, the government and the country has been damaged in a number of areas.
If the delegates endorse the president’s performance over the past five years, it will obviously represent a vote of confidence in his leadership. But if the party structures are not satisfied, they will be reluctant to give him a mandate to lead the ANC for another term. This depends, of course, on whether he is still confident in himself to lead the party, given the deep divisions that characterise the organisation.
If delegates have confidence in Mbeki then the conference will have more time to focus on party building and policy matters. If Mbeki fails the test of confidence, then it will immediately be apparent as the conference begins, and factionalism will dominate all proceedings.
There are clearly two factions in existence, one allegedly led by Mbeki and the other led by ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma. Of course, delegates may decide that Zuma has also failed the organisation. Under such circumstances the structures will have to ponder whether to allow either of them to contest for the leadership.
Between now and December, nonANC members of the public will find it difficult to determine what is going on within the ruling party, because the ANC has been quiet on this matter. The people who have been vocal are the ANC Youth League, Cosatu and the SACP, but to what extent do they control or influence the ANC? Time will tell.
In my experience, the ANC has a culture of leadership selection that is rarely understood. This method is generally attributed to the style of the late OR Tambo. We saw this on display in 1994 when then-president Nelson Mandela thought that Cyril Ramaphosa should have become deputy president of the country. But Mandela was advised differently, and Mbeki was chosen. The advice Mandela was given was that Mbeki was always the heir apparent. This culture of selecting the leader seems to have only been known among the exiles. Madiba and those who were in jail or in the country were apparently caught off guard.
Since 1994 certain sections of the ANC have sought to change the way things are done. And to a degree they have succeeded: the leadership that was in exile has split into separate, feuding factions. In the ANC of old the matter would have been handled in a different manner, out of the public eye. But this is not the same ANC.
Members of the party might have their own opinions about who they want to lead them — and they might want to debate succession openly, precisely because they realise that they are no longer in exile and now have influence over government and government policy. They will expect their leaders to take them into their confidence and be open about the direction of both the party and government. The old culture of the leadership prescribing and the members blindly following has been seriously undermined.
Already there are members of the tripartite alliance who are openly campaigning for another ANC president to replace Mbeki. Names mentioned include Zuma, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Kgalema Motlanthe, Joel Netshithenze, Cyril Ramaphosa and Tokyo Sexwale. Over the next four months there will be much speculation and horse-trading, but at the conference they will be left with one person to lead the ANC.
Depending on how things play out, the post of deputy president could prove crucial. If Mbeki is elected president, the conference will essentially expect him to groom the deputy president to take over as president of the country in 2009. This way the structures that are campaigning for a change in the culture of leadership by annointment will be comfortable. It would be a neat compromise in line with the recent ANC policy conference resolution.
Contrary to the view widely expressed in the media, I have serious doubts about whether Mbeki and Zuma will challenge each other at Polokwane. Instead, I believe both men are being used as decoys to disguise the candidates who will lead the party and the country in 2009.
One thing is certain: whoever becomes president will have to go beyond ANC factions and look at how service delivery can be accelerated. The ANC’s infighting has not only embarrassed the country, it has also affected delivery. At provincial and local levels, ANC structures are completely divided and their conflicts have spilled over into government.
The winning faction may be tempted to remove its political opponents from government, but continuity is crucial for our country’s economic and social stability.
The new president of South Africa should not appoint a deputy to please a certain faction but consider those among the current Cabinet who have demonstrated leadership and vision. Hypothetically, you could have Trevor Manuel as deputy president in charge of the economic cluster and another deputy president focusing on the social cluster. Imagine a Cabinet that includes tried and tested specialists such as Pravin Gordhan, Tito Mboweni, Gwede Mantashe and Jabu Moleketi. The president could perhaps take direct responsibility for foreign policy and security — partly to counter the infighting between security organisations that has undermined the fight against crime.
But South Africa needs to see a demonstrable shift in the way government appoints people. The time of rewarding cronies should come to an end and government should open the door to specialists who understand and agree with government policy.
We are running out of time. If you look carefully you will notice that some provincial and local leaders who do not understand government’s policies are lying to communities, creating expectations that in some cases have led to violent protests.
The outgoing government has relied too much on spin doctors and spokespersons. When dealing with serious matters South Africans want to hear the president or relevant minister speaking out on Khutsong, for example, or on many other areas plagued by violent protests.
The new executive will have to bring a new sense of leadership, decisiveness and discipline to halt the current slide into lawlessness.
Bantu Holomisa, MP, is the leader of the United Democratic Movement