On Cope and coalitions

The Congress of the People, perhaps surprisingly to many, has been placed in a rather awkward position as “kingmaker” in a number of municipalities, primarily in the Western and Northern Cape.

The position is challenging primarily because Cope has to decide whether it wants to throw its lot in with the DA, or side with the ANC, the party that most senior leaders in Cope abandoned in 2008/2009 lamenting corruption, nepotism and a number of other unfortunate developments.

Under normal circumstances coalition agreements would be negotiated at the hand of policy proposals and initiatives, with the potential partners thrashing out a deal concerning the implementation of a particular vision for the government to be constituted.

Unfortunately Cope is in no position to demand particular policies, mainly because the party has none. Apart from the grand proposals in manifestos, the organisation has failed to articulate or add substance to any concrete policy direction.

Apart from possessing the capacity and a number of innovative thinkers and skilled individuals who can, and have tried to, contribute to a general policy direction, the organisation’s activities to date have been centred mainly on a reactive approach to internal developments.

Cope, and not a particular faction per se, having repeatedly been dragged to court (a total of 11 or 12 times thus far) has been unable to focus on pro-actively constructing its own political, ideological, organisational and policy identity.

The unfortunate implication of this reality is that it paves the way for position-negotiated instead of principle and policy-driven coalition agreements, which sadly add no value to governance and deliver nothing concrete to the citizen.

Though such coalition agreements are likely to be concluded behind closed doors by the national leadership of the various parties, those affected, namely the citizens, are invariably going to be left out of key decision-making processes.

Cope accordingly finds itself in a rather unenviable position, especially because it outlined the organisation’s commitment to enlarging democratic decision-making at local government level, premised on an active citizenry in a meaningful partnership with their municipal government.

Having repeatedly called for the direct election of mayors, the party is now in a position where the decision-making power of voters in this regard is further diluted by placing this decision in the hands of a few men and women far removed from the reality of that particular municipality, and potentially in direct contradiction of the expression of the popular vote.

Additionally — as the Liberal Democrats in the UK, as coalition partner of the Conservative Party, is experiencing at present — any coalition with either the DA or the ANC has the potential to generate a backlash from Cope members and supporters and poses a challenge to the already poorly defined independent identity of the party.

Talks around coalition agreements appear to revolve primarily around whether the party should jump into bed with the DA or the ANC, while the third — and perhaps more viable option — enjoys very little to no attention at all.

The party is yet to indicate that it considers issue-driven governance without a formal commitment to a particular coalition partner.

While the party continues to thrash out its own identity internally, it would perhaps be better for it not to formally, and for five years, bind itself to the dictates of a coalition partner, regardless of who that might be.

The party’s greatest guiding light in this regard would be its own constitution, which clearly outlines the party’s character, vision and founding principles.

As I remarked with reference to the Lib Dem-Tory marriage: it is better to maintain principled opposition to government, than obtain experience in unprincipled government.

Written in my personal capacity and not to be taken as a reflection of the views or positions of the party.