ANC's war on Terror - Thought Leader

Deputy vice-chancellor of the University of Johannesburg Professor Adam Habib, in his analysis of the Bloemfontein conference held by Cope for the SABC, suggested that the ANC could be its own worst enemy in the upcoming elections if it continued to speak with a forked-tongue. In this regard he was referring to the party’s failure to speak with a single voice; certain members claiming restraint and tolerance while others were issuing thinly veiled threats and calling opposition parties’ members anything from witches to dogs.

Sage advice indeed which means that it was a great pity that the deputy secretary-general of the ANC Thandi Modise missed the programme and decided to use her platform at a gala dinner in remembrance of those who died during the liberation struggle to issue threats against primarily the members of Cope, the majority of whom were allies in the battle against apartheid.

Perhaps someone has recorded Habib’s analysis and may pass it along to the ANC because I’ve said the same thing over and over again and the water’s still pouring off the duck’s back.

The ANC’s war on Terror (Lekota) must of necessity be conducted on the battlefields of policy with specific reference being made to the difference between Cope and the Mbeki faction of the ANC. How much is Cope part of Mbeki’s legacy on Zimbabwe, Aids, crime and the like and how much is brand new? Threats and name calling merely cheapens the ANC, the government and the members who come up with it.

This week I started looking at individual policies such as crime and corruption, the media and our foreign affairs policy in so far as Zimbabwe is concerned. I will continue with this right up to the elections next year but thought that we might also look at the overall political philosophies guiding our parties.

With this in mind an interesting point of departure is an article which Democratic Alliance leader Helen Zille penned during October. In it she describes South African political philosophy as a dichotomy of two opposing, clearly definable streams flowing in opposite directions:

“There is actually a clear choice between only two alternative political philosophies for South Africa, each of which will take our country in a fundamentally different direction. These diametrically opposing options can be described, in summary, as the “open, opportunity-driven society for all” versus the “closed, patronage-driven society for some.” An analysis of any party in the South African political landscape shows that it fits within the framework of one of these alternatives.” (Helen Zille)

In terms thereof the ANC would fall into the “closed, patronage-driven society for some” while the rest of the parties, save Cope, could be classified as “open, opportunity-driven society for all”. Cope are still formalising infrastructure and finalising policy, making it too early to place them in one category or the other as yet. In this regard their decision to form a party of two layers might place them between the two streams with their political grouping forming part of the closed patronage later on as the party evolves while the technical grouping is more merit driven.

In my mind the most important aspect of the next election is how the parties propose dealing with poverty and uplifting the masses of our people. I believe that affirmative action on a discriminatory basis and black empowerment are vital if we are to make further inroads into solving this problem. I, like many whites, have sons (and daughters) who will need employment but that is something I will need to battle through. It does not detract from the fact that I believe that AA and BEE are important tools in reaching that strategic goal. I, like many of you, want to scream when I see the wastage through corruption, negligence and propping up Herr Mugabe, which should be spent on our masses, but that should not deter us from this path.

In terms of South African political philosophy, which is the best way to achieve that goal?

In terms of the “closed, patronage-driven society for some” of the ANC we undoubtedly find cronyism and elitism flourishing with the few being far more equal than the masses. Having said that we also find that in terms of strict policy they are the party that has the mandate to implement Affirmative Action and BEE on the basis set out above. Yes, corruption and wastage has to be dealt with and strategic positions need to be offered on merit or we all suffer, but overall that is the game plan. Could this kind of policy be sustained if the ANC was not based upon a philosophy of “closed, patronage-driven society for some”?

I don’t believe it could.

In terms of an “open, opportunity-driven society for all” you would allow primarily the market forces to dictate the way forward. Hope that trickle down capitalism finds its way through to the masses. The vast majority of our masses do not have the wherewithal to compete? Yes, they do have far more avenues open to them than they had under apartheid but very little opportunity or the means with which to arrive at those starting points? Is it therefore not necessary that a party with the philosophy of a “closed, patronage-driven society for some” drives the bus until we can start to see tangible progress on upliftment?

Cope is suggesting some form of AA primarily without racial discrimination. Sounds good but what will it achieve in terms of our most pressing problem — poverty as found primarily among our black masses? In terms of crime for example, by reducing poverty you will reduce crime.

I’d be interested to hear the views of readers on whether you agree with Zille on the split in our political philosophy, how you see the best way forward to uplifting the masses and your thoughts on what the most critical issues of the 2009 elections are.

Whatever those may be the parties have to understand that the only “war” being fought is on policy.

Disruptions, threats and name calling ends now.