XPost: za.politics, za.misc

On Whom Do We Rely For Our Democratic Future? (South Africa)

The ANC is in crisis as the “new dawn” stalls. But are other parties
ready to drive the democratic project? The DA has lapsed into
continued internal conflict. The EFF is not interested in debate.
That, too, is unconducive to democratic life.

August 23, 2018 Raymond Suttner

Who is the custodian of our democratic and transformational project,
who do we look to in order to see it through and safeguard its
integrity and potentially emancipatory qualities? Whenever one
embarks on or supports a venture, whether it is political, social,
cultural, economic or involving any other sphere of life, one looks
for leadership on whom one can rely, whom one trusts to ensure that
the programme succeeds and that blockages along the way are avoided.

In 1994 many did not ask such questions because they were optimistic
about what lay ahead. Even many whites who had benefitted from
apartheid were reconciled to the emerging order. Under the leadership
of Nelson Mandela, there was a large reservoir of trust and the ANC
also benefitted to a large extent from these sentiments, for the first
decade or more of democracy.

This issue has come under focus in recent years with the doubts that
many have come to feel in the ANC as the primary bearer of this
political responsibility. This loss of trust was manifested
electorally in reverses it experienced in the 2016 local government
elections. The general sense of disquiet related to a substantial
extent to the actions of the Jacob Zuma presidency, supported as it
was by his organisation, the ANC, and its allies in the SACP and
COSATU until very late in the day.

The ANC may no longer be seen as the primary political force in South
Africa -despite some important steps taken to regularise state
functioning. It remains in crisis, despite a change of leadership.

There is a vacuum that the ANC no longer fills nor is this met by any
other political party. There is no going back to the days of
apartheid. It is a question of going forward to realise the hopes of
1994, hopefully enriched in various ways by what we have come to
understand in the 24 years that have passed. Who can be entrusted with
that task?

While some confidently suggest that the answer is to “vote them out”
is that an answer that will provide us with a sense of a secure
democratic future, with people’s lives improving?

The DA and the EFF

The two strongest opposition parties have both experienced identity
crises since the resignation of Zuma as state president. In the case
of the DA, the problems that have surfaced are mainly old ones, but
they were less obviously present when the battle to topple Zuma
preoccupied the DA and the public.

The DA has eroded much of the confidence that it elicited after the
2016 local government elections through problems in managing
coalitions, especially in Nelson Mandela Bay, how it has handled
questions related to race, “diversity”, inequality, and the de Lille
saga in Cape Town. The organisation is gripped by internal turmoil
over leadership contests.

The DA wants to increase its support amongst black communities, but it
does not appreciate that it cannot do this while treating race as an unfortunate and artificial invention of apartheid, allegedly colluded
in by the ANC. Racial categories have real social consequences for
people, conditioning the opportunities they have in life. Any party
that underestimates this, invites failure.

The DA is correct in being critical of abuse of race, but it remains
the dominant fault line between rich and poor, privileged and
dispossessed in South Africa. The DA’s tone deafness on race is seen
in the ambiguous position that black people have inside the DA, how
they are represented or inadequately represented as delegates in their congresses, how they fare in leadership contests, who is seen or
believed to take decisions in the organisation and conflicting
messages on questions that have a lot of significance for black
people, for example, steps by government to remedy disadvantages
inherited from the apartheid era. There is no need to agree with the
ANC, but to dismiss questions of black empowerment as some do, is
insensitive to what many of its members believe need to be addressed,
one way or another.

Two years ago, the DA appeared unified as the leading factor in a
range of local government alliances, holding the prospect of
displacing the ANC as national government. Since then that unity is
tattered and indeed, apart from de Lille, other mayors and office
bearers have been removed from office. The DA seems to be at war with
itself.

The paralysis induced through its handling of the de Lille saga and
the Cape Town water crisis has punctured the image that the DA sought
to project as an efficient government that gets things done. Taken
together with its unwillingness to unambiguously stand against
inequality, its electoral appeal and its message have lacked appeal
and coherence.

And what of the EFF, which played a very important role in defeating
Jacob Zuma, though this was not his final defeat with remnants of his
followers remaining (and the EFF paradoxically involved in protecting
some of these)?

The EFF joined with other parties in holding Zuma accountable for
Nkandla and other acts of corruption and sought to enforce
answerability for his acts of state capture, in parliament and the
courts. Many who were not EFF supporters nevertheless admired their inventiveness in disrupting Zumaism as well as facing beatings from
bouncers hired by parliament.

But since the fall of Zuma, there have been a range of actions by the
EFF that cast doubt on its reliability in cleansing South Africa of
the scourge of corruption and state capture and also building a
non-racial democratic society

The EFF has always embodied elements of the Zuma project, in their
patterns of conduct. One of these is a celebration of macho
masculinity and militarism. It is notorious that Julius Malema was
one of those who was prepared, not like Nelson Mandela “to die” for
his beliefs, but to “kill for Zuma”. In forming the EFF, the
organisation copied Fidel Castro in designating its leader’s primary
title as Commander-in-Chief, above being president of the EFF. This
together with a range of military titles used to designate
organisational structures at all levels and in a range of spheres,
creates the impression that the EFF is as much a military formation as
a political one.

While they are not engaged in war, there is something intimidatory in
the way in which the EFF engages in politics. There are continual
threats emanating from leading figures, sometimes carrying ambiguous
meanings. For example, Malema said, in relation to Mayor Athol
Trollip, that one must cut the throat of whiteness. This is not
intended as a sophisticated formulation, drawing the distinction
between whites and whiteness, whiteness referring to a range of
structures and cultural patterns that are embodied in white power over
black people. It was meant to appeal to the most racially chauvinist
amongst his potential followers as a real threat to whites,
represented as an undifferentiated group of exploiters and oppressors.
There is also the ambiguity in statements referring to taking land by
force, but “not yet”. The EFF is quick to deny a violent meaning to
its words, but it continually trades in this ambiguous and dangerous
language. In short, it does not act responsibly in relation to the
question of peace and non-violence, as principles or it does not in
fact value these.

(On the principle of non-violence, see: http://www.polity.org.za/article/non-violence-is-essential-to-respect-h…
and
http://www.polity.org.za/article/non-violence-the-foundation-for-dialog…
and http://www.polity.org.za/article/we-must-entrench-the-principle-of-non-…).

The importance of this use of ambiguity is that it is intended that
statements bear a meaning that is unclear to listeners. The EFF is
not keen to provide the public with clarity regarding what they stand
for and how it will be realised. They resent the appellation
“populist”, but it is characteristic of populism that one focuses on popular phrases without addressing modalities for realisation. That is
why they have successfully mobilised (not organised) around the notion
of expropriation without compensation, without clarity on who can
claim land, how people will get land and how they will be assisted, in
the different places where these are located.

It is significant that the EFF has never engaged in debate over what
the constitutional provisions on land acquisition provide, the extent
to which it already provides scope for expropriation without
compensation. It has preferred demagoguery to debate. Nor has it tried
to create the political will that could unblock the stalled land
restitution process.

Some of the threats need to be taken seriously, given that they come
from leaders. Some members may believe that they have licence to
assault or kill people. We have seen the unprovoked resort to violence
by EFF Deputy President Floyd Shivambu against a journalist who, quite legitimately, photographed him. What do ordinary members or followers
learn from this?

There is another serious area of ambiguity that amounts to an attack
on the Treasury and efforts to institute a clean-up of corrupt
individuals and state-owned entities. It has, however, emerged in the
EFF focus on Indians, in this case Ismail Momoniat and Pravin Gordhan,
now Deputy Director-General in the Treasury and Minister of Public
Enterprises respectively, suggesting that Momoniat has no respect for
African leadership, notably embodied in the Director General, Dondo
Mogajane, whom he allegedly undermines. The EFF alleges that Momoniat
runs the Treasury, a claim denied by Mogajane. Gordhan is said to be
engaged in a reign of terror against allegedly corrupt people and the
EFF has written offering support to some of those fingered in state
capture reports, just as it has come out in support of SARS
commissioner, Tom Moyane, in his allegation of irregularities in the
enquiries he faces. See articles by Carol Paton:
Tarnishing Treasury latest in chameleon EFF’s dubious moves and EFF
acts as warrior for the wounded in bid to divide ANC

There are two issues here. The one is that there remains tension
between Indians and Africans in KZN and parts of Gauteng, with the identification of Indians as relatively successful traders and
wealthier than Africans, although many Indians are poor or wage
workers. There are ambiguous EFF statements about Indians being
racist or sometimes that “most” Indians are racist. The truth is we do
not know how many Indians or Africans are racist and generalisations
do not assist us to build a consciousness that shows respect for all
the people of South Africa. How does the EFF square this with its
claim to adhere to and advance the Freedom Charter and the
constitution? The statements of the EFF, in this respect, again feed
into narrow African chauvinism, rather than trying to build unity. It
is a dangerous game, we know, from the 1949 African-Indian conflict.
We also know from that period how mature leaders like Chief Albert
Luthuli and Dr Monty Naicker responded, in rebuilding trust between communities.

We may also ask, what is behind the EFF rising to the defence of the
VBS bank against its being placed under curatorship? It would be
interesting to know, whether the EFF has any connection with the VBS
bank, that it has risen so stridently in their defence?

Also, what exactly is the connection between the EFF and gangsters
that have been named and not denied as funders of the organisation?

What emerges from the EFF in its 2018 incarnation, is that it is
impatient with debate. It prefers threats and slogans. This is
unconducive to building the type of democratic life that is needed for
an emancipatory political life. It contributes little to public
debate.

Who can we trust?
If we cannot trust or rely on existing political parties to safeguard
our democratic future, in whom should we place our trust? In the
1980s the answer would have been, to rely on ourselves, as the people
of South Africa, on our own power to set ourselves free, referring
primarily here to black South Africans, (by the word “black”, I follow
the usage of the black consciousness movement referring to Africans,
Coloureds and Indians).

The democratic movement, united against apartheid, built organisations
in a range of spheres -schools, universities, trade unions, community organisations, cultural and women’s organisations, organisations of
traders and many others, all of which played a crucial role, along
with other places of struggle in bringing down apartheid.

In post-apartheid South Africa, however, the idea was encouraged that
we should look to government to deliver the improved lives that so
many longed for. The Freedom Charter clause “The people shall
govern!” has come to mean, govern indirectly through those who became
elected representatives. The people were to be embodied in the
government, which is common in national liberation movement discourse, referring to ANC or SWAPO as “the nation” or as “the people”.

With the outrage that erupted around the abuses of the Jacob Zuma era,
we saw a renewed resort to popular power, with a range of people
protesting in gatherings in many parts of the country. What was
distinct about these manifestations was the broad non-sectarian basis
of the protests. Some were ANC supporters, many were from other
political parties and others belonged to a range of political
formations and organisations of civil society and sections of
business. It was not driven by the poor, to anything like the extent
that was the case with the UDF but included broad sections of society, including many whites. They shared limited goals, primarily removing
Zuma and ending corruption and restoring legality

In truth the problems of South Africa and the issues on which we need
to build consensus needs to be conceived more widely and anyone who
cherishes democracy will know that it involves slow, patient
organisation. Discourses of violence and pseudo radicalism do not
substitute for slow, patient building of organisation and
understandings. That may include existing political parties, but the participation of social movements and other organisations in civil
society is now crucial. Involvement in a march or public meetings is
powerful mobilisation. That must be sustained and expanded through organisational forms in a range of spheres of society so that we can
truly rebuild our democratic order and continue to enhance its
qualities.

(Raymond Suttner is a scholar and political analyst. He is a Part-time Professor attached to Rhodes University and an Emeritus Professor at
UNISA. He served lengthy periods in prison and house arrest for
underground and public anti-apartheid activities. His most recent
book is his prison memoir Inside Apartheid’s prison reissued in 2017,
with a new introduction covering his more recent “life outside the
ANC” by Jacana Media. He blogs at raymondsuttner.com and his twitter
handle is @raymondsuttner )

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)