ANC cannot mend rift with Cosatu by papering over the cracks

The news on Monday that the ANC and alliance partner Cosatu are set for urgent talks over disagreements that threaten the unity of the tripartite alliance are not surprising, given the developments over the last few months, but they remain a mystery if regard is had to the ideological chasm that remains between them.

As far back as November last year the labour federation was launching a “war” against anti-left elements of the ruling ANC, and suggesting that the next divisive leadership struggle was on the cards.

This was as a result of what Cosatu perceived to be the government’s refusal to meet their demands on the economy and that certain members of the ANC’s national executive committee were seen as bitterly opposed to trade unions and the SACP.

Whereas previously the ANCYL, Cosatu, the SACP and the left wing of the ANC had stood firm — with President Jacob Zuma against former president Thabo Mbeki — the lines were now becoming somewhat blurred.

At that time, in November 2009, the main clashes involved the South African Communist Party and the African National Congress Youth League — arising out of differences between league president Julius Malema and Jeremy Cronin SACP deputy general secretary. This reached fever pitch at the SACP special conference in Polokwane, when the SACP crowd heckled the ANC and ANCYL delegates.

Noteworthy as well at Polokwane were the words of Blade Nzimandi SACP general secretary and Cosatu general Secretary Zwelenzima Vavi, which were symptomatic of the fact that both were feeling frustrated at the lack of rewards for the alliance partners after having helped Zuma to achieve the presidency.

Subsequently we are witnessing differences or disagreements over, inter alia, the following: lifestyle audits; general economic policy direction; claims that ANC did not come to Gwede Mantashe party secretary-general’s defence when he was attacked by the ANCYL; claims that there is a group plotting to unseat Zuma; Cosatu’s less than warm welcome of both the State of the Nation address and the budget; claims that there are those who are already hard at work on the succession debate and even Zuma’s failure to name and shame the individuals conerned.

These are symptomatic of the problem and by no means exhaustive.

Unfortunately for the members of the alliance this is not something that can be cured with meetings but rather, at best, the members can continue to paper over the cracks.

As correctly pointed out recently by one of the alliance partners, the ANC does tend to tell them to speak up during elections and shut up thereafter. The reason for this is simple — during elections the members tend to gloss over their differences — but that changes when the time comes to govern the country.

The government then tables actual policies to which the left take exception, because the reality is that there is a chasm which divides them in practice.

If we have regard, for example, the current primary mandate of the Reserve Bank and inflation targeting which Cosatu rejects and the ANC are sticking to like glue, there appears a fork in the road. If the ANC were to swing left, this would undermine one of their key economic objectives and if Cosatu were to accept it that would constitute a failure to carry out the instructions of their members with regards to job creation.

Unfortunately, when anyone tries to point out that the anger and bitterness arises from trying to push square pegs into round holes they are met with claims that they are trying to divide the alliance.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in terms of key economic policies the ANC and its alliance partners are at odds with one another. In terms of our democracy that is not a bad thing, with some acting as a watchdog over the others when it comes to issues like corruption and cronyism.

It does, however, provide a breeding ground for ongoing conflict within the alliance and the sooner the members come to grips with that concept the sooner they will begin assessing their long-term solutions.

Presently, certain individuals are being blamed for being divisive when in reality there exists a chasm that might be beneficial during elections but will always be the cause of long-term anger and division.