ANC split is about power not policy

An ANC split would be good for democracy in South Africa is the recurrent theme running through opposition politics at the moment. A division of the party’s support, which in theory would vastly reduce the ruling party’s majority, would act as a safeguard against using its two-thirds majority to amend the Constitution and against forcing through legislation which might be detrimental to the country as a whole.

I have no problem with this theory, which does have merit for obvious reasons.

I would, however, point out to those within the ANC who are calling for the split, that it is their two terms in government which has brought us to this point — a period which has seen a stubborn refusal to recognise the damage done to South Africa by inter alia Zimbabwe, Aids denialism and Eskom.

Lest we forget two terms in which members of the government were never held accountable for outrageous acts of incompetence and criminality. Where feeding schemes were looted, xenophobia occasioned by a stubborn refusal to regulate millions of refugees being foisted upon our poorest communities and those same masses-styled criminals for the anger this generated. Where crime ran rampant, arms obtained which deprived billions from people whose claim to that money far outweighed the need therefore and all the while protests against all of the above ignored.

While I will never condone the disgraceful behaviour of the ANC president Jacob Zuma, the ANCYL, the SACP or Cosatu surrounding the trial of JZ, I would point out that both Polokwane and the removal of president Mbeki were in accordance with the rules of the party and the laws of the country.

A major factor which gave rise to this was the fact that Mbeki was considered to be too aloof, unwilling to work within the collective and, many of what are now considered to be his faction, elitist. Many blamed this for what they considered the slow pace of transformation.

How often during the Aids debacle was scientific evidence ignored? How often were we to witness the stubborn refusal to bring relief to the millions of Zimbabweans by forcing Mugabe’s hand, which landed up costing this country billions? How often were we to be embarrassed by our foreign affairs ministry regarding Myanmar, Zimbabwe and even voting against resolutions on rape and homophobia?

Despite these issues, there was never any question of the parties responsible being removed nor any evidence that they were listening to the country’s outrage.

Now, that this government has been replaced by an interim one, which seeks to reunify the party, reduce the political tension and restore a semblance of stability, certain members of this faction would have us believe that their forming a new party is crucial to preserving our democracy.

I trust they are not basing this upon the autocratic tendencies they have shown in the past, as keenly demonstrated when a former minister simply didn’t bother to turn up for a meeting yesterday.

I trust further that they are not basing this new party on the same policies as the ANC because that would simply suggest that they are spoilers rather than visionaries. If they have a whole new set of policies then I am listening. This will of course rid them of the need to use the name ANC. They might also want to set out as part of their election manifesto why this time around it won’t be a case of cronyism here and in the rest of Africa and why this time they might listen when, during the past two terms, they have fobbed everyone off.

Of course if they are suggesting that they use the ANC policies then they need to explain: 1) Why the need for a split? 2) Why they were unable to control the party despite being in charge for an extended period 3) Why they don’t use the mechanisms of the ANC to resolve their grievances? After all, if they believe in the policies and procedures of the ANC, the mechanisms to raise their grievances are all there.

The truth is that, like their term in office, they don’t like to be criticised, cannot be held to account and refuse to accept the decision of the majority when it is handed down to them.

This split is not about policy or democracy; it’s about power.