History is replete with examples of individuals who claim to carry the mantle of revolutionary greatness, but end up dismally disappointing the marginalised and downtrodden who place so much faith in them. Does Jacob Zuma represent a similar threat to our constitutional democracy? Can this post-ideological “man for all seasons” really represent the poor and downtrodden, African traditional leaders, communists, trade unionists, Zulu cultural nationalists, Africanists and big business (white and black)?
One of the more striking commentaries on the outcome of the ANC’s Polokwane conference was the rather upbeat political analysis provided by Steven Friedman in his Thought Leader blog (“No, dear, that’s not mob rule — it’s called democracy”). Friedman questions the grounds for alarmist responses to the sweeping victory of the populists of the Zuma camp. He points out that the voting at the conference was declared “free and fair” and was conducted in a vigorous but democratic spirit without any reports of violence or intimidation. For Friedman, Polokwane was an exemplary case of democracy in action.
But surely we should expect more from democracy than simply a “free and fair” ballot. This would be a disappointing hollowing out of the idea of democracy.
One positive outcome of Polokwane could be that it marks the beginning of the end of the Mbeki presidency’s systematic attempts to stifle political debate. Mbeki and his lieutenants regularly deployed a nasty toolkit of Stalinism-lite techniques that included the labelling of critics as ultra-leftists, counterrevolutionaries and so on. The conference demonstrated that political contestation was indeed possible within the ANC-led alliance, and may open the door to a greater influence on government policy by the left.
However, South Africans inside and outside the tripartite alliance have grounds for being concerned about the future of our democracy. Yet the SACP and Cosatu leadership seem remarkably unperturbed about the possible fallout that could result from their support for Zuma, a man whose moral and financial judgement seem to be seriously flawed.
Surely calls from the Zuma camp for the scrapping of both the Scorp-ions and his pending corruption trial should worry all democrats. Equally worrying are statements by some of the more zealous Zuma supporters that there will be “mass resistance” and a “bloodbath” in response to the corruption charges. Some supporters seem determined to quash what they perceive to be excessive media freedom and autonomy. They are also surely aware that their claims of political conspiracies at every turn systematically undermine the integrity of the courts, the rule of law and the entire judicial system.
The muted response of political commentators in response to all this suggests that South African intellectuals may not have the heart to defend our hard-won constitutional democracy. This is particularly worrying given that Zuma has already hinted that he is willing to consider tampering with the Constitution by “opening up” public debate on the right to abortion and the abolition of capital punishment. His public statements certainly put into question his support for women’s rights and gay rights. How can progressives, including those within Cosatu and the SACP, be silent in the face of this potential slide towards patriarchal traditionalism?
South African citizens, it would seem, are being asked to endorse a watered-down version of procedural democracy in which it is sufficient that “the people” at Polokwane are seen to have spoken. But what if “the people” do not share the values and principles of our constitutional democracy? Rather than uncritically celebrating Polokwane as “democracy in action”, it would seem that progressive-minded South Africans ought to be concerned about the potential anti-democratic slide that such a leadership might represent.
Surely ballots and free and fair voting are not adequate on their own. Democracy requires much more than a tally of the number of votes cast. It requires that political actors demonstrate an enduring commitment to democratic values and principles. It remains to be seen whether the new ANC leadership-in-waiting will be able to demonstrate this commitment.
There are some encouraging signs that the new guard will make a break from the claustrophobic, centralising tendencies of the Mbeki presidency. It is also possible that the new ANC leadership will demonstrate a real commitment to fighting South Africa’s social and economic problems. Perhaps they will once again demonstrate the moral leadership and integrity that characterised the ANC of the liberation struggle era. Perhaps they will also demonstrate fierce commitment to defending the constitutional principles of our new democracy.
Or perhaps not.
In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, Karl Marx analysed the presidency of Napoleon’s nephew, Louis Bonaparte — a period in which France’s National Assembly was dominated by what Marx describes as the “reactionary Party of Order”. Marx described Bonaparte as a counterrevolutionary who managed to dupe both the bourgeoisie and the small peasantry into supporting him. Interestingly, in the preface to the second edition, Marx noted that politics in France “created circumstances and relationships that made it possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero’s part”.
Let us hope that we do not end up living out a South African adaptation of The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon — and that the new ANC leadership proves adequate to the challenge.
Steven Robins is professor in the department of sociology & social anthropology at Stellenbosch University