Cope's Big Idea? - Thought Leader

Attempting to understand why exactly 1.3 million South Africans cast their ballot in the 2009 elections with an “x” next to Terror Lekota’s face is by no means an easy undertaking. Apart from the obvious difficulties associated with locating and interviewing the 1.3 million people behind the secret ballots, the vast array of competing, contrasting or just plain different motivations that led these individuals to believe in Cope and its associated faces would be overwhelming, if not downright impossible.

Therefore attempting to elucidate the “Big Idea” that Cope sold is complex and complicated. A number of individuals who voted for the party — or at least say they did — did so, for example, purely because of personal interaction with them and the marketing technique of endorsement. This does not really say very much about the “Big Idea”, visionⁱ or inspiration of Cope.

Cope did not sell to everyone a single “Big Idea”, and it is folly to pretend that it did. Instead, the party is and was a platform, a vehicle for the reflection and articulation of a vast array of — often competing — ideas. Additionally, due to its relatively recent introduction to the political landscape, it has a certain novelty about it, a special kind of “freshness”, if you will. Now, I’m not talking about the policies, strategies, principals and values of Cope — of course these exist and are quite accessible; what I am referring to is what motivated people to embrace the party and to this there is no single concrete answer.

This having been said, I do believe there is one thing that informed and motivated people to embrace the party: its imaginative potential. It was looked at, judged, and deemed to be alive with potential. For some there was the potential of self-enrichment, it may have been a potential career move; for others it could’ve been an opportunity or avenue through which to inflict punishment (for poor service delivery, empty promises, back-stabbing etc) or to seek revenge and for others yet it may have presented itself with the imaginative potential to make a difference, to provide something new, fresh, vibrant, dynamic, inclusive and principled. I know I bought into the idea of a new, credible, fresh, inclusive, diverse voice for championing interests: Cope was attractive exactly because it was alive with possibility.

It should also not be difficult to imagine that this much “potential” generates even greater expectations: not only by those supporting the party, but also from spectators monitoring the party’s activities. It is also then natural, when there are so many contending or differing understandings of this potential linked to their own formulations of expectations, that improper management, guidance and channelling of it could — and has — lead to a “pressure” of potential. Accordingly words like “disappointment”, “disillusionment” and even “betrayal” or feeling “misled” are understandably being used in reference to the organisation. People pursuing their own agendas inevitably feel this way when personal expectations — and ambitions — are not fulfilled, hampered further by the infancy of the organisation and related issues of incoherent organisational culture and the lack of clear and effective channels of communication.

Let’s face it, the party screwed up in its management of this immense “imaginative potential” it had successfully generated (anyone remember the huge media frenzy after the Sandton and Bloemfontein conferences?) but even more so, it screwed up in failing to carefully manage the related expectations. It promised a “New Agenda for Hope and Change” and gave the media more reason to highlight its “more of the same” leadership struggles, defections and counter-defections and failures in executing a successful (and timely) elections campaign. Sure, many, if not all, of these are heavily exaggerated and sensationalised, but a failure to successfully “spin” or deal with these accusations cannot be dismissed and inevitably contributed to the disarray.

It can only be hoped that the party leaders — following the three-day CNC meeting — have spent some time asking themselves “WTF?” Having gone back to basics and having taken stock of the principal weaknesses, threats and failures of and to the movement. The party, coming out of crisis-management mode, needs to formulate an effective (and informed) SOAR strategy.

Identifying and assessing the Strengths, Opportunities, Advantages and Resources (SOAR) available is pivotal, even more so in a political context, in creating competitive advantage. The necessity of a strategy that is primarily focused on — not raising from rock bottom — but flying higher, further and more effectively than the “competition” is essential to offset the limitations identified and costs incurred by weaknesses, failures and threats.

Cope needs to recapture the imagination of the country — and reassure its members and supporters who feel disillusioned, betrayed or misled — that it still possesses that “potential”. It needs to invest in an effective communications strategy that engages — not only defends or deflects — and it needs to carefully manage, guide and channel potential, expectations and demonstrate, once more, that the Congress of the People is alive with possibility.

ⁱ Onkgopotse JJ Tabane, “Cope’s vision is 20/20 from The Times