The Need for Real Debate on South Africa's Future

by Raymond Suttner

This article was previously published in History Matters.

"If something has gone wrong one must
name it."

In the face of the
substantial social, economic and political challenges facing this country, ANC
members - and indeed the great majority of South Africans - are today being fed
a diet of slogans. This has nothing to do with the proud legacy of civil debate
bequeathed to us by Chief Albert Luthuli, Walter Sisulu, Lillian Ngoyi and many
others.

When Lungi Sisulu, then
working in the ANC underground, visited his father Walter in prison in the
1970s, he warned that the newly formed Black Consciousness Movement sought to
supplant the ANC. The elder Sisulu took a more positive view. "We in the ANC
did not regard the emergence of the Black Consciousness Movement as hostile,"
but "part and parcel of the struggle and welcomed it as a progressive idea."

Walter Sisulu recognized that
the liberation movement could not read from one script, even though it was
necessary to unite against the apartheid regime. Obviously the boundaries were
narrower within the ANC itself, as with other political organizations, and
members had to abide by existing policies.

Interestingly, Nelson Mandela himself
was fairly often "out of line" and considered reckless in the 1950s when he
made statements apparently condoning or advocating resistance through force
before that was official policy. He was forced to apologize.
Characteristically, in his autobiography, Mandela says that he was correct and
the leadership was wrong. The main point, however, is that there was no attempt
to drive him out of the fold; nor was he dismissed or threatened with the sort
of phrases that are in currency today.

"Since 1994 the
role of the masses of South Africans, and the ANC membership in general, has
been mainly that of spectators."

It is true that since the 1990s, centralization
has made people who desired positions mute their individual views and wait to
hear what their leader would say. It is
true that the leadership has not actively encouraged independent popular agency
except, at one stage, to break deadlocks and to bring the apartheid regime to
its senses. Since 1994 the role of the masses of South Africans, and the ANC
membership in general, has been mainly that of spectators.

The near-universal model of
national liberation, where unity is the watchword against the colonizers, has
been stressed throughout the continent. But this appropriate emphasis on unity
has also sown the seeds of intolerance of pluralism. In South Africa's case,
sometimes the vagueness of the notion of a "broad church" has been supplanted
by displeasure at formation of organizations outside of the ANC's sway. Individuals
who have acted on genuine grievances and formed sectoral organisations have
often been dismissed as disgruntled.

One of the reasons listed for defeating Mbeki as
ANC president was to release the "democratic genie," to provide an opening, to
give voice to those who had been excluded, to combat centralization and to
allow space to the previously marginalized. But if all that is true, what are
we to make of the current upheavals in ANC structures and the profusion of
intimidating rhetoric in the alliance?
Possibly one can dismiss much of this demagoguery, since many are young and
obviously know little about history, struggle or revolution, and more about
acquisition of wealth and positions. Nevertheless, the air is filled with
revolutionary and pseudo-revolutionary phrases, uttered often as (ultimately
violent) threats against anyone who might wish to stop the Zuma "advance."

Many of the ANC and alliance
leaders are watching in silence as the inherited traditions of the organization
are destroyed. I do not suggest that the legacy is unproblematic and that what
it means "to be ANC" is the same at all times. But who is grappling with this,
as we tried to do in the early 1990s, after unbanning, when it was not possible
to simply pick up from 1960? Are shortcuts not being taken at the expense of
the very masses in whose name the Zuma project purports to speak?

Why is there little real debate over the
country's problems and alternatives? How is it that no one in the alliance is
debating what the Zuma phenomenon may mean as a programmatic question, and
whether and how his leadership differs from that of Thabo Mbeki? Why is it that
Zuma has attracted a range of people who do not have clear ideological reasons
for their affiliation, but attribute "leftism" to the ANC president? Has the
left project absorbed Zuma - or has the official left dissolved in the Zuma
"tsunami"?

"The fact is that
Zuma and Mbeki had no programmatic or ideological differences."

Why is there a conscious
blindness to Zuma's actual positions? The current ANC president abandoned the
SACP in 1990 and was a comrade in arms and close collaborator of Thabo Mbeki
for decades. There is no record of any disagreement with Mbeki, and the words
"working class" were not regular features of Zuma's vocabulary from 1990 to his
dismissal as deputy presidency of the country in 2005. The fact is that Zuma
and Mbeki had no programmatic or ideological differences.

Is it not true to suggest
that Zuma's utterances and actions may in fact now be more rightist and
threatening to democratic liberties, constitutionalism (and certainly gender
rights) than anything that Mbeki has ever said or done? Recently almost R1.5
million was paid, pledged by or coerced from delegates as feudal tribute to
Zuma - to spend as he likes - at the Free State ANC conference. Zuma referred
to a similar serf-like offering being imminent from the SACP. How does this
square with the left project? Are there limits on this private/feudal
accumulation? How will it influence appointments and policies?

It is true that the Mbeki
period saw the marginalisation of the popular forces that had been so
significant in the 1980s and were so important in leading to a negotiated
democratic settlement? Have Zuma and the alliance leaders restored the popular
forces and their agency?

If anyone is to argue that there has
been a democratic advance, how is it manifested? Why is it that the gains of
the liberation struggle are now endangered by intimidatory language? Even if we
dismiss the utterances of Malema, Vavi and Co. as irresponsible, this is a
threat to those who may wish to differ.

Why is it that those who
raise questions are labelled and their arguments not engaged?

We fought not only for the
ANC to rule but for the freedom to speak our minds, even if that should lead us
to conclusions that differ from the ANC leadership. "Democratic centralism"
should not be a bludgeon to silence debate in a situation of legality and
democracy.

No doubt that in the months
ahead, there will be many others who will discover the virtues of the
"democratic opening". Yet the rest of us need not retreat into fear or
depression.

If something has gone wrong
one must name it. One of the key elements of the lack of debate (and I do not
pretend that remedying that is to rectify everything) is the absence of
discussion of a vision of the future, and the policies that could achieve that
vision, which have been displaced by a race for positions and wealth.

"Democratic
centralism should not be a bludgeon to silence debate."

This scramble may well result
in break-up of forces backing Zuma - mainly an alliance of official left, with
others who also seek office, influence or business deals. Such an outcome may
be as unstoppable as the Zuma "tsunami."

The rest of us, however, need
to join vigorously in public discourse. Newspapers and other media need to open
their columns to those who go beyond the sound bytes and empty clichés
emanating from "analysts".

We need to revive critical
thinking. This public space must be reopened; we must defy the fear that
purging of members is evoking and provide the analysis that is lacking.

Ultimately this should lead
to conclusions and organized action. That will take time, but it requires
unpacking the meanings of the present to empower people to build a different
future that will realize our democratic and transformatory promise.

Raymond Suttner, a UNISA
professor, was jailed for 10 years for ANC/SACP underground activities. He is
author of The ANC underground,
to be published by Jacana in September.

Do you need and appreciate Black Agenda Report articles. Please click on the DONATE icon, and help us out, if you can.

More Stories