ANC's politics of intolerance

Submitted by Mandla Nyathi

The fall-out over the recall of the former president of the country, Thabo Mbeki and the subsequent public defiance by some disgruntled ANC stalwarts such as former minister of defence Mosiuoa Lekota and former Gauteng premier Mbhazima Shilowa has set in motion a very interesting but concerning development in our political space.

Hitherto, the ANC has consistently demonstrated political tolerance that had made it a model post-independence liberation political party in Africa. The increasing use of hate speech, inflammatory and inciteful language by the ANC leadership and rank and file has exposed the party’s predisposition for intolerance. The barrage of attacks that have been directed at the so-called dissidents is unfortunate and puts to enquiry the ANC’s self-proclaimed image of being the superintendent of democratic principles in the country.

There are very close similarities between Zimbabwe’s Zanu-PF and the ANC that are emerging. When Zanu-PF’s monopoly over the Zimbabwean political estate came under unrelented challenge from the Movement for Democratic Change early in the decade, it resorted to hate speech and inflammatory language. It resorted to using means that sought to mobilise the electorate against the emerging political party.

In Zimbabwe, opposition politics is seen and characterised as a project of the imperialists who are seeking to reverse the “gains of the country’s hard-won democracy”. In short, opposition politics is seen as nothing more than an unpatriotic act, and extensive media campaigns sought to brainwash the credulous citizens into believing that opposition politics is a monster that has the uncanny potential to usurp the sovereignty of the country.

Similar patterns are emerging in the ANC and therefore it would appear the Zanufication of the party has gathered momentum. The language used is increasingly becoming consistent with the language of Zanu-PF. Political events of the dissidents are being violently disrupted by ANC members. What is even more confounding is the attitude of the ANC leadership, who have literally condoned the behaviour of their members by remaining mum on this. By remaining tight-lipped and not speaking strongly in condemnation of this new cancer of intolerance, the ANC leadership is complicity sending a message that effectively says there is nothing wrong with political intolerance.

Use of words such as “kill” in politics cannot be tolerated in modern democracies. It is even less justified if such language is used by a political party that is generally perceived as a benchmark of democracy by its peers across the African continent.

The use of disparaging words such as “dogs” and “monsters” as descriptions of the “dissidents” is not only sadistic but it also takes away the dignity of the ANC as a political party that is founded on strong moral values.

However this recent development in the ANC also advances a thesis that questions whether African political parties are unable to fight for control of power purely on the strength of their policy positions and ideology. Why is that, whenever African political parties sense that their political space and dominance is under threat and is narrowing, they are unable to counter their opponents on the superiority of their policy positions, but can only resort to violence.

The Democrats and the Republicans in the US race have been battling it out purely on policy propositions and ideology, rather than name-calling, hate speech and violence. The emerging lesson from the American story is that political enterprise is about winning the “hearts and minds” of the electorate.

Contemporary politics is neither about fanning hatred nor is it about compulsion and coercion. To the contrary, political engagement is like a marketplace where consumers have an unfettered freedom of choice that is informed by product quality and offering. If political systems are capable of evolving and maturity, how could it be accounted for that African political systems have a tendency to relapse to pre-modern political processes of violence and anarchy. Rationally, one would have expected that the way the political game is engaged upon in 2008 is evidently smarter and more modern than it was in 1994.

Another profound theme that emerges from the manner in which the ANC has reacted to dissent is the conjecture that the ANC is inherently infallible and that no one has a moral right to challenge its leadership and political space.

This approach or supposition is hugely disoriented and inaccurate. It is not correct to assume that by virtue of having liberated the country and championed the democratic dispensation, the ANC effectively expropriates the right of other citizens to participate in other political projects that fundamentally challenge the authority of the ANC.

South Africa is not a de jure one-party state and therefore the Constitution does not expunge the right of other citizens to engage freely in political activity. Tolerance of alternative opinions in politics is healthy and progressive and therefore should be encouraged.

The ANC should vigorously avoid treading where Zanu-PF has already been and burnt all its fingers because such political processes are of no relevance in today’s world. History is the best teacher because it never misleads its “pupils”. The Zanu-PF political survival handbook is misleading and teaches self-destruction from within.

A post-modern political system like our own bears a resemblance to an open organic system where entry and exit should not be restrictive. It is this realism that the ANC has to learn to co-exist with.

Mandla Nyathi is a senior manager in the corporate world. He is a political science graduate who has previously published an opinion through the Mail & Guardian. He writes in his own personal capacity.