Celebrating its centenary as the
eldest democratic organisation on the continent of Africa, the African National
Congress is preparing its delegates for its 53rd National Conference
to be held in its birth-place, Mangaung, in December. The majority of the
leadership and membership is hoping that, like conferences before, Mangaung
will give direction on matters of policy.
Anyone who understands the ANC,
has been groomed as an ANC cadre, would know that the collective is paramount
in the ANC. The persons who emerge as leaders in the ANC, post-Mangaung, would
therefore not really be able to single-handedly change policy. The collective
determines policy and it is therefore the collective that matters. The
collective is supreme because the ANC is a truly democratic, African
organisation; where the rights of the community surpass the popularity of
individuals.
In the lead up to this Conference
therefore democracy is at work in the ANC. Already branches, regions and
provinces are vigorously engaging the outcomes of the National General Council
(NGC) held this past June. Coupled with these debates and discussions on
matters of policy, is the question of who will lead the organisation for the
next 5 years. Unfortunately, given the loud voices of some commentators and
some in the media, certain members and branches have been pre-occupied with
nominations, not only for leadership but specifically the top 6.
Again, displaying their complete
ignorance at how the ANC operates, they concentrate on the top 6 executive
positions ignoring the rest of the National Executive Committee, the second
highest ranking decision making body of the ANC between National Conferences.
So fixated on the top 6, these “pundits” even ignore the fact that the NEC
(again not the top 6) elects the highest operational organ of the ANC, the
National Working Committee, which manages the day-to-day operations of the
organisation (again not only the top 6).
Be all of this as it may, as a
fundamentally democratic organisation and steeped in African philosophy, the
ANC allows for even those members, who with blinkers focus on the top 6, to
bloom. Though this narrow focus on the top 6 may be unfortunate, the ANC as a
collective, as democratic as it is, tolerates these members, at this juncture
when nominations are open, to freely, without fear or favour, debate who should
lead the movement.
And yet this free discussion and
democratic debate on leadership, albeit only the top 6, in Western Cape is
described as “bruising”.
Would the election between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney be described as
“bruising”? Was the election of Ivan Meyer as Democratic Alliance leader in the
Western Cape “bruising”? Is the unopposed nomination of Helen Zille, as DA
leader, at the DA congress later this month described as bruising? If anything,
one could argue that because Meyer and Zille are elected unopposed that it is
democracy itself that is being bruised in the DA Western Cape election; but no
such article. Why is it that this writer tries to describe a free and
democratic process as having a “bruising” effect?
No doubt, it could be that the
mantra that “no good could ever come from the ANC” again prevails in this
instance. Some within our country are hell bent on describing even a democratic
election in Mangaung as something which can only be divisive, factionalist and
therefore “bruising”. Never mind that there is healthy debate on the
leadership, albeit on the top 6 only. Never mind that democracy, as in
Polokwane, will blossom again in Mangaung. Never mind that the Western Cape,
maybe more than any other province, has the most diverse opinion on the top 6
and that democracy within the ANC Western Cape allows for this diverse views.
Some remain convicted on portraying the ANC, especially in the Western Cape,
negatively.
Even the leader of the ANC in the
Western Cape has not imposed his candidate on the province. Do we get positive
reporting on this? No. The debate, the discussions, the democracy at play is
simply divisive, these would articulate. “It is factionalist”, they continue. It
is simply bruising!
From a purely theoretical point
of view, presidents with a two-term limit are always much more effective in
their second term. They are able to be decisive because they do not have to
please constituencies to get re-elected. This is the simple reason why I would
support a second term.
Yet I am sure that many others in
the ANC, who support a second term for President Zuma, will support and defend
the right of any ANC member, in good-standing, to nominate whoever he or she
wishes to be president of the ANC. Just as we support and nominate our
candidate, Jacob Zuma, so too do we acknowledge the right and freedom of any
member to support and nominate any candidate albeit that that person is
different from ours. The ANC taught us democracy, the ANC taught us to defend
the rights of others and if we claim to be members of this noble organisation
we will defend another’s rights.
However, those who describe the
democratic process as bruising must know that whoever wins in Mangaung, no
matter who the top 6 is, that the majority of ordinary members of the ANC will
rally behind our leadership and we will support each other. Winners and losers
will share equally in the victory of Mangaung because we would have defended
and strengthened democracy. The majority of us in the ANC will be resolved that
on 20 December 2012 we will respect the will of the branches of our
organisation, as beautifully diverse as they are, and acknowledge that
democracy has been the winner.
Even more so, we will resolve to allow
for the democracy exercised in Mangaung to deepen our democracy and strengthen
our own unity, as we unite behind our own leadership right here in the Western
Cape!
