In the late nineties leading communists were
driving the move towards privatization and the ‘restructuring of state assets’.
In fact at one point in the nineties, it had become almost impossible to
champion communism within the ranks of the SACP. Indeed a party member actually
advocating communism was likely to be expelled from the party on the grounds of
ill discipline. And in recent times, the communists are resisting the
nationalizing of mines while some nationalist ‘tenderpreneurs’ demand
nationalization with increasing hysteria. This must be more than a little
confusing for many who would have thought that communists would naturally
gravitate to, and align themselves with calls for nationalization while nationalists
would oppose nationalization by all means necessary.
I wonder how on earth one teaches Politic 101 in
South African universities when the conservatives propose nationalization and
the radicals reject it. The standard categories and framework just don’t apply
here. Of course there is an underlying logic though but not one that will show
up in any standard text book. The conservative nationalists want state control
over the country’s assets in order to plunder them for their own interests.
They are interested in nothing other than short term appropriation. The
communists on the other hand recognize that productive ownership of the mines
is better for the workers then ownership bent only on plunder. They understand
that long term productivity will enable their members to organize, strike when
necessary, and slowly increase their share of the profits.
The hypocrisies and contradictions of the post
democratic order have become very serious. Many seem to have forgotten that
public office is about being of service to the public. The struggle against
apartheid was a principled one, one where many who are in government today made
many sacrifices yesterday. Ironically, now, while they articulate a commitment
to the downtrodden in the public discourse, they also plunder the public purse
in an attempt to enrich themselves quickly. The language of concern for the
poor is often nothing but camouflage behind which plunder is taken to ever more
extreme levels. The struggle against apartheid was not to replace one big man
with another of a different colour. The struggle against apartheid was to
replace one kind of society with another. This was why the whole world
recognised its enormous moral power.
That moral power is fast being eroded by people
like Malema, about whom much has already been written in recent days. Malema
takes the idea of contradictions to the extreme. Not long ago, Malema is
credited with having said ‘You must never role model a rich person who can’t
explain how they got rich. In the ANC we must not have corrupt people as role
models. Corrupt means a simple thing – you can’t explain the big amount in your
bank account’
The same Malema is reported to have benefited
from more than R130m worth of tenders, owns luxury homes and wears a watch
worth R250 000. In addition he owns a fleet of cars that include a Range Rover,
an Aston Martin and a C63 Mercedes AMG. Yet each day he shouts slogans against
capitalism and proclaims revolution to the masses.
When the celebrated scholar Franz Fanon wrote
his famous text, The Wretched of the Earth in the ‘60’s, it is almost as though
he was thinking of post apartheid South Africa – politically democratized and
economically liberalized, with a growing class of selfish bourgeoisie. He
argued then that the progressive project could be threatened by a culture of
personal accumulation and private advancement by those who had helped bring
liberation. Perhaps Fanon is worth a revisit, particularly his warnings about
once vibrant political organizations serving only ‘as a means of private
advancement’. If there is a text book with which we can teach politics in our
country its probably The Wretched of the Earth.
Our politicians and leading members of the
ruling party need to understand that they are the servants of the people and
answerable to them. State institutions and resources do not belong to them,
their spouses or friends. Occupying a public office is not their legal or
birthright but a privilege based on mutual trust between them and the
electorate. Cadres in government should ask themselves whether they really and
truly represent, serve and deliver according to the will of the masses as
envisaged by the Freedom Charter or if they have just become skilled in
deploying documents like the Freedom Charter to dress up their plunder as
revolutionary activity.
The only real opposition to the ‘tenderpreneurs’
comes from some of the trade unions. It is here, and in the poor people’s
movements, that one can still find a politics of principle.
