Ward 88: A watershed moment

*Disclaimer: let me commend those who actually worked in Ward 88 in the last few weeks. I was not there and did not do anything. Therefore, I do not have a right to criticise and this brief will certainly not be criticism of anything or anyone. It simply wishes to reflect from an “objective” distance.

Let’s take a look at the figures

From the results released by the Independent Electoral Commission, the ANC lost Ward 88 to the DA by 6% i.e. by 462 votes. For convenience, a breakdown of the figures is given below:

Voting station no.:	Voting station:	Votes Cast:	Voter turnout: (Registered voters)	ANC Votes: (% of voters)	DA Votes: (% of voters)
97091703	Northwood Community Hall	1322	49% (2698)	32 (2%)	1253 (95%)
97091714	New Woodlands Christian	1385	49% (2827)	22 (1%)	1300 (94%)
97091747	Heinz Park Primary	1552	45 % (3448)	531 (34%)	959  (62%)
97092007	Phillip K Primary	796	24% (3317)	757 (96%)	24 (3%)
97092287	Temporary Voting Station	1284	40% (3210)	1215 (95%)	60 (4%)
97093323	Sports Complex	426	37% (1152)	385 (91%)	33 (7%)
97093334	Lutheran Comm. Centre	247	30% (824)	235 (95%)	10 (4%)
		7012*	40% 17476	3177 (45%)	3639 (51%)

*Includes 77 spoilt ballots

  

From the figures above we can see that the “community breakdown” will look something as follows:

	Philippi	Mitchell’s Plain	Heinz Park
Registered voters	49%	32%	19%
Voters stayed away	67%	51%	55%
ANC	94%	2%	34%
DA	5%	95%	62%

All figures were rounded up

The elephant in the room: race

The glaring reality remains that the overwhelmingly (+/-94%) of voters in communities, who do go to the polls, vote according to a specific party i.e. Mitchell’s Plain (DA) and Philippi (ANC).

However, a trend that seems to be cutting across communities is that voters are not coming out to vote. The IEC is satisfied with this trend, as it attributes it to the normal trend in bi-elections. In fact, that 30% of registered voters in a ward can decide on behalf of the rest of the people of the ward who will be elected seems to be usual. Surely, this non-participation in the basic act of a democratic dispensation should raise alarm bells for the IEC but surely for the ANC as well?    

One hopes that given that this is a trend that now cuts across racial divides that this is another reason why the ANC should move away from the “woo the Coloured vote” campaign. Let’s woo the working class!

Myth 1: The DA has made inroads

It has been widely reported that the DA has made inroads into traditional ANC strongholds. This is simply not true. Zille reports that voters have turned their backs on the ANC because of a number of reasons. She mentions specifically Philippi and judging on the figures presented above we see that Philippi has anything but turned its back on the ANC (94%). The DA simply maintained its base in Mitchell’s Plain and made a few adjustments which were crucial, which we’ll come to in a moment.

Myth 2: The selection of the ANC candidate was the problem

The inability of the ANC in the whole ward to get a sense of voters would be a much more accurate way of describing what the problem could be. Local government elections are a strange creature in South Africa. One votes for the candidate (ward) and the party (proportional). One could say that the one is personal (candidate) and the other according to party. It is interesting to note that ANC supporters would sacrifice their ward just because they have personal challenges with the candidate selected. In other words, they are prepared to sacrifice the organisation because of personality.

On the other hand, no matter how strong a candidate’s community credentials the party (s)he stands for also counts. We have seen on a number of occasions how candidates who are prominent in the community lose an election because they were either in the wrong party or because they simply could not match the resources of the larger parties (ANC or DA). Of course, the opposite is the same as well. Weak candidates have won simply because of the organisation’s brand.

If it was the selection of the candidate, why did the REC or PEC not intervene (long) before the elections? Just as we can accuse supporters of the ANC for sacrificing the ward because they did not support the candidate, so too can we accuse the REC and the PEC of sacrificing the ward because they supported the candidate.

Among these challenges of not being able to read the voters of the ward is the challenge of the inability to go beyond traditional strongholds. Whilst the traditional stronghold of the ANC (Philippi) in Ward 88 carried 49% of the ward’s (potential) vote, in wards where the traditional stronghold is in the minority or even where there is a balance of power, there simply remains a desire to “defend strongholds”. We’ll never win elections by simply “defending strongholds”.

Lesson 1: The balance of power

It is important that even though we remain adamant to defend strongholds to seek the balance of power in any ward. Heinz Park, in this particular ward, was where the balance of power lay and the DA identified it spot on even before the elections (The Leagues form part of the Heinz Park voting district). Without being on the ground, one is able to say that the DA simply maintained its stronghold (Mitchell’s Plain) and identified Heinz Park as the balance of power (with a potential 19% of the total vote). If one had been on the ground before the election this prediction must have been made.

The DA knew that Heinz Park would tip the scales.  The Heinz Park voting district has a community where the traditional DA and ANC lines are blurred; people in The Leagues (DA) and people in Heinz Park itself (ANC). The DA knew where the balance of power lay and it’s time the ANC too identifies voting districts which can tip the balance of power in its favour.

Lesson 2: It’s not about race

As mentioned earlier, a clear demonstration in this election was that voters in ANC strongholds would have no qualms in not going to vote for the ANC. They would rather abstain than vote DA. One should therefore question how large this group of voters (of all races) are that they would rather abstain than vote DA. Dare I say, I believe this trend (rather staying away than voting DA) started with Coloureds and have now moved to African areas. This is the watershed moment.

In the LGE of 2006 there was a voter turnout of only 50%; the GE of 2009, a voter turnout of 80% (in the City of Cape Town), 20% stayed away, the ANC lost to the DA by 18% (in the Metro). In the LGE of 2011 there was a voter turnout of 65% (35% of voters stayed away). The ANC lost to the DA by 28%. 

Voters staying away from the polls seem not to be a concern to the IEC, though, as a Chapter 9 institution, it should be. Yet voters staying away from the polls should be more of a concern to the ANC because it gives them a target market.

Voters who stay away want to be impressed. They believe their vote must be earned. They are fundamentally against the DA that’s why they stay away rather than vote against the ANC. More importantly, they are now starting to cut across racial lines and it is almost certain that, after a bit more inquiry, they are in the main working class.

How do we win them?

A post-LGE 2011 brief was prepared and it will be repetitive to recall all the points here. However, it is simply about 1) a working class, not race issue; 2) a strong strategy in policy; 3) getting the right leaders (capacity); and, 4) communications, which is largely to do with political marketing.

All of this teaches us that voting districts become important in branch activities. However, voting districts do not work in a vacuum and therefore the higher one goes in the organisation the more sophisticated it must become. We need to start small but think big.

   

    

Marikana, my Marikana, we must never forget you

“My mother was a kitchen girl, my father was a garden boy, that’s why I’m a socialist.”

At the end of January 2013, the final report of the Farlam Commission of Inquiry into the Marikana Massacre will be submitted to the Presidency. Hopefully it will give us some idea of what happened on those fateful days when ordinary workers were killed.

What happened at Marikana was once again an expression of the structural violence that continues to exist in South Africa; the structural violence of inequality, unemployment and poverty, not forgetting racism and sexism. A violence that the Commission will hardly touch on in its final report.

Yet Marikana must make us reflect. In particular it must make us reflect on the silver bullet that seems to be our only solution to these problems. We are made to believe that if we wish to solve unemployment, well then jobs is the answer. If we wish to address inequality, then jobs is the answer. If we wish to eradicate poverty, well, you’ve guessed it, jobs is the answer. Yet it is not – as we saw in Marikana.

These were workers. Whether unionised, or “rogue” unionised or not unionised at all. They were in the most: workers. There have been suggestions that some were not workers but by and large the struggle at Lonmin, as is the struggle at most of our mines (or is it really “our” mines?), is a struggle waged by workers: better pay, better working conditions, better living conditions. They ask not for ownership of mines, though I think they have the right to demand this, and they do not demand exuberant salaries such as their management counterparts. They simply demand a decent job, a decent life.

Gross casualization of jobs, underpaid jobs and job insecurity simply provide jobs but do not begin to address the challenges of unemployment, poverty and inequality. The Youth Wage Subsidy mooted by some within the Treasury and the Democratic Alliance do not give (young) people either the security and/or the sufficient means to live decent lives. Neither will labour brokers, relaxing labour laws nor weak trade unions.

Countless times one has heard of the ineffectiveness of internships (serving tea and cleaning offices rather than acquiring skills) and this does suggest that skills and/or the necessary experience will not automatically be imparted on young people through this subsidy. What a scheme such as the subsidy will certainly do is inject public funds into the assets of the company and thus improve the company’s liquidity and thus share prices will rocket. The only people to benefit directly from such a program would be the share-holders.

Even more so, the working class, especially those seasoned workers who are employed, are right to fear that such a scheme will undermine their rights and their bargaining chip. It will undermine the decent jobs that already exist because it will be easier to employ two youths, casualised and paid a pittance, than to pay the decent salary of one worker.

One of the lessons that we must learn from Marikana is that jobs, in themselves, are not the end. They are the means to what is meant to be a decent life. Decent jobs give us a decent life. A simple, insecure and exploitative job will give us an insecure and exploitative life. Even slaves had jobs.

The struggle song quoted in the beginning of this article is often sung at revolutionary gatherings. Maybe it’s time we started to sing: “My mother was unemployed, my father was a mine worker, that’s why I’m a socialist, I’m a socialist, I’m a socialist!”

A decent job secures a decent life which leads to a decent death. The martyrs of Marikana bear witness to this basic truth.