Why Cope failed

The origins of democracy can be traced back to ancient Greece and it was a Greek philosopher, Aristotle (384BC — 322BC), who said that “the basis of a democratic state is liberty” After many years of persistent tyranny that engulfed Greece in the period leading towards to the 6th century, the people of Athens reclaimed their freedom; founded the world’s first democratic state and brought an end to aristocratic rule. Democracy as a political form of government has undergone a period of protracted evolution and continues to evolve even in the 21st century. The essence of democracy and what it ought to represent was aptly captured by Abraham Lincoln, a former president of the United States, when he concluded his memorable Gettysburg Address in 1863, during the American civil war, by saying: “This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Lincoln in his address invoked the principles of human equality and liberty espoused by the 1776 Declaration of Independence, which afforded citizenry of the United States an opportunity to change the course of history and define their own destiny as they imagined it.

We as South Africans hold dear the principle of democracy given our unfortunate history of Afrikaner nationalism and consequential violations of human rights and brutal oppression of the majority. It was by consequence of such history that our national Constitution enshrined a plethora of freedoms in the Bill of Rights. The attainment of these freedoms came about as a result of many sacrifices and the endless flow of blood of ordinary men and women who fought gallantly against the repressive system of apartheid. They are freedoms which we wish to guard jealously.

At the time when the Pirates of Polokwane, thoroughly inebriated by victory, threatened the very founding principles of our democratic state, there were those who revolted and portrayed themselves as defenders of such principles. Rallying behind them was an unsuspecting multitude of men and women who believed in what appeared to be a noble cause. During the course of time and as political events began to unfold and the false veneer of respectability began to wear off, it was natural for those wearing deceitful masks to begin suffocating behind them and slowly began exposing their dubious constitution to the rest of us. The Congress of the People (“Cope”) was conceived during such inauspicious times. It momentarily carried the hopes and aspirations of society to unimaginable levels but never lived up to their collective expectations. Cope failed primarily because among those with genuine interest to strengthen our democratic state, were political charlatans whose pursuit of self-interests and preservation of their political careers preceded the real purpose of its existence. For some the formation of Cope was the easiest pathway to resuscitate what would have been a political career enduring its last throes of death.

The respect for democratic processes and its outcome is the solid foundation upon which true democracy is built. In the absence of such unconditional respect what remains can only be a vulgarised form of democracy intended to serve the narrow interests of those who wish to pre-determine democratic outcomes. The failure of leadership within Cope was highlighted by some electing to campaign against decisions which they were part of, because to remain principled and uphold such decisions would not have agreed with their sinister agendas. It emerged subsequent to the decision to hold the first Cope elective conference that some of its senior leadership came to the realisation that the fulfilment of the promise to hold democratic elections may just squander their chances of re-election. These same men (and women) who had initially sold themselves as champions of democracy immediately embarked on despicable efforts to derail Cope processes of democracy. Some openly granted interviews to the media and claimed that Cope was not ready for the elective conference, while failing to inform the public that the real reason for making such absurd pronouncements was because they were refused a guarantee to particular positions of leadership. Such claims of Cope not being ready were made while more than 2 000 political branches had been launched across all nine provinces and were ready to democratically elect the leadership as initially agreed at the inaugural Bloemfontein congress in 2008 and subsequently at the Congress National Committee (CNC) meeting in 2010. The date for the elective conference was set for end of May 2010.

While negotiations for securing guarantees for positions of leadership failed, the CNC resolved to hold a policy as opposed to an elective conference. A decision which political careerists welcomed because it afforded them an opportunity to immediately rush to launch branches which would at least provide them with such “guarantee” of leadership. The events that unfolded from the beginning of May 2010, when Cope branches converged in Pretoria to hold the congress, serve to hold true what the Greek philosopher Plato (428BC — 348BC) meant when he said that “dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty”.

It had become blatantly apparent that the self-appointed champions of democracy had trumpeted the notion of “defence of democracy” as a false guise to pursue their own narrow interests and preserve their political careers. The quorum of the congress in Pretoria was formed by over two-thirds of launched branches, which legitimised the constitution of that congress and empowered all delegates representing launched branches to pass binding resolutions on Cope and its leadership. The president of Cope, Terror Lekota, along with members of the CNC, was present when credentials of the congress were adopted. Lekota opened the congress and tabled his political report, which further confirmed his agreement to the legitimacy of the sitting of the congress. One would have ordinarily expected that Lekota along with his supporters in the CNC, as self-styled defenders of democracy, would attempt to practice what they preached and uphold the basic principle of democracy — by the people, for the people — which in the case of Cope translated to — by the members, for organisation. Upon the resolution of the CNC to convert the congress from an elective to a policy conference, the overwhelming majority of members, representing duly launched and constituted branches, rejected that resolution and resolved to hold an elective conference as was originally intended. Basic logic would suggest that if delegates are good enough to make important policy decisions, similarly they would be good enough to elect the leadership of the party.

The decision by the delegates to overturn the resolution of the CNC obviously threatened a number of political careers and those political careerists ran to the courts to seek an urgent interdict to prevent delegates from exercising their democratic right to elect leaders as mandated by their respective branches. The court interdict was granted under suspicious circumstances and the democratic process was effectively derailed by those “champions of democracy”. Again when delegates unanimously rejected Lekota’s leadership by passing the motion of no confidence, he along with Phillip Dexter ran to the courts to have the wishes of the members of Cope overturned. These unfortunate court battles exposed a disturbing truth about the motives of some individuals and their preparedness to vulgarise democracy through the courts and offend those very principles upon which the organisation they impose themselves was founded. The Lekota faction’s post-Pretoria programme of action clearly stipulates the deviousness of its branch of politics.

The proponents of democracy generally, if not always, should proceed from the common premise that theirs are noble intentions to represent the common will of the people. These very people within Cope who today still portray themselves as defenders of democracy cannot by any stretch of the imagination claim to represent the will of the members when they abuse institutions of justice to oppose that will. The evolution of democracy since the 6th century in Greece should not mean evolution towards vulgarising democracy as seen within Cope, but towards a system that is effectively and truly propelled and shaped by the will of the people, by the people, for the people and with the people. Cope had proposed electoral reform, which, if implemented, would pave a way for the direct election of the president of the republic by members of the public. It is a system that would give members of the public a direct say in terms of which individuals can occupy the office of the president. If Cope is to be taken seriously — impossible to imagine given the current shenanigans — it should practice what it preaches. The electoral reform can begin within Cope itself by discarding the practices it inherited from the ANC.