Failures of democracy have been a big part of the history of the DLF. We in the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) have had to raise such challenges several times (see “DLF structure: concerns and proposals” by ZACF). We have long been troubled by the lack of proper democratic structures, by a leadership that consists far more of middle-class intellectuals than of grassroots militants, and by a programme that seems to be determined in advance by the academic and NGO interests of these intellectuals instead of by the immediate needs of the workers and the poor.
The recent
gathering of DLF comrades for the Durban COP17 protests was at once a
step forward for working class unity within the DLF – and a tale of
what has gone wrong with the DLF and its leadership structure. On the
one hand, for almost a week we as social movements activists from
different parts of the country toyi-toyed and struggled together,
shoulder-to-shoulder on the streets of Durban and at The People’s
Space, and tried to defend ourselves against the ANC’s hired thugs.
On the other hand, sad to say, the leadership left comrades feeling
that they were being herded like cattle from one place to another and
used as a rent-a-crowd to impress the organisers’ donors and
international contacts. Questions from food and accommodation to what
was talked about in the programme were set in advance by the leaders
with little regard to the wishes of the masses. Even in the street
clash with the ANC’s “Green Bombers”, leaders of the DLF acted
directly against mandates by trying to stop comrades from defending
themselves. And after all this, these same leaders – mostly
intellectuals with no base in struggling working class communities –
announced unilaterally, without a mandate, that they would be
extending their term of office until December 2012. How can it be
that the steering committee’s first mandate coming out of the DLF
founding conference in January 2011, to have elections for leadership
in the respective provinces, can take nearly two years to implement?
This should not be permitted.
Some failures of democracy at the COP17 protests
Perhaps the
leaders think food is just a small matter – but if they are serious
about being democratic, they could have taken the trouble to find out
in advance what people want to eat. Not that it is so much trouble to
find out. Anybody who has worked on the ground with black working
class communities in South Africa should know that very spicy foods
are far from popular, and that people are accustomed to eating mielie
pap as opposed to things like rotis and rice. As people who are
supposed to be able to articulate the needs and desires of our
people, the so-called leaders should at least find out what food we
eat and what our expectations are. In practice, it was only when
grassroots comrades demanded to get involved in these decisions that
the food and catering committee stepped in to improve the situation.
And the whole
programme was the same story: leaders deciding without considering
what the masses want. From the moment we arrived we were herded from
one place to another. We were told what the programme was and where
to be when, but we were not consulted or involved in determining the
programme in the first place. Of course, they will tell us that we
could have been involved in developing the programme had we attended
and been involved in the COP17 civil society planning meetings prior
to going to Durban, but how many people from the townships could get
to Johannesburg for these? By opening these meetings to us, while
knowing very well that very few working class comrades would be able
to attend regularly, they only pay lip service to the democratic
development of the political programme.
We carried
out an illegal march, but many of the people that marched seemed not
to be aware at the time that the march was illegal and that they
could therefore have faced arrest. This is authoritarian and
undemocratic, as the members themselves – the ones who could have
been arrested for marching illegally – should have been involved in
deliberating and deciding whether or not to march. It is not
democratic for the leaders to put us at risk of facing arrest and
then only tell us afterwards, or as an aside, that it was an illegal
march.
We were told
that we would be delivering a memorandum. By the time we left Durban
many comrades were still unsure as to whether or not the memorandum
had been delivered and, if so, who received it. We were not consulted
or involved in drafting the memorandum and, perhaps worse, it was not
even read to us for our approval prior to it being delivered.
When
grassroots comrades expressed that they were tired of the programme
and wanted to go to the beach they were sent from pillar to post.
First we were supposed to go to the beach after the march, then we
were told we were going the next morning, then the next afternoon. In
the end comrades got so frustrated they simply walked out of the
programme and went to the beach. All the indecision and going
backwards and forwards between the leadership left many comrades
feeling frustrated, and this was sometimes taken out on the marshals
– causing friction within the grassroots organisations that make up
the base of the DLF.
And perhaps
the worst display of authoritarian leadership occurred at the march
on the international day of action. The night before the march we as
the DLF had unanimously decided to march peacefully, but that if
attacked we would defend ourselves. When we were attacked by ANC
thugs on the day of the march DLF leaders actively disarmed activists
by taking away the flag-poles they were using to defend themselves. A
short while later DLF leadership asked the police to stand between us
and the “Green Bombers”. This was in blatant disregard of the
decision, taken the previous night, by the entire DLF membership to
defend ourselves from attack. It was also a betrayal of our class to
call in the class enemy to defend us in such a minor altercation. One
last example of how the leadership places more importance on their
political programme than the will of the people came on the last day,
when leaders pleaded with us to stay an extra two hours for the
Climate Jobs booklet launch, so that they could impress their funders
and international contacts. The result of this, however, is that
comrades were almost left stranded at night in Johannesburg and had
to make last minute arrangements to be accommodated by other comrades
as it was too late for them to catch connecting buses and taxis to
their final destinations. That this would be a problem if we stayed
longer in Durban was raised with the leadership, but our concerns
fell on deaf ears.
Democracy versus authoritarianism: behind the failures
Unfortunately,
all these and many other failures of democracy have been a big part
of the history of the DLF. We in the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist
Front (ZACF) have had to raise such challenges several times (see
“DLF structure: concerns and proposals” by ZACF). We have long
been troubled by the lack of proper democratic structures, by a
leadership that consists far more of middle-class intellectuals than
of grassroots militants, and by a programme that seems to be
determined in advance by the academic and NGO interests of these
intellectuals instead of by the immediate needs of the workers and
the poor. I could not be very surprised when a comrade told me in
Durban: “This has been a terrible f**cking experience, to come here
and be told what to do by a white messiah.” Not that race is the
only issue here – there are many black comrades in DLF leadership –
but irrespective of race, the leaders have shown that they are
detached from the ground. This, too, shows up in the most obvious
ways. I didn’t once see any of the DLF leadership eating with us or
travelling on the buses with us, and not once did I see any of them
visiting our accommodation to see exactly what comrades had been
complaining about. I don’t know where exactly the leadership stayed
nor who paid for it (although rumours are that they stayed in hotel
rooms in the city centre), but I think it is a concern for them not
to have been with the majority of members, sharing in our trials and
tribulations.
Of even more
concern than the lack of democracy and participation, however, is the
fact that the style of leadership of the current leaders actually
threatened to cause division within the working class and community
organisations. This is because of the top-down leadership style that
was practised. Because the marshals – who represented a much more
legitimate leadership than the official leadership – were the only
point of contact between the leaders and the masses, they came under
criticism from the base every time the leadership messed us around by
making and changing decisions without our participation, and then
having them transmitted to us by the marshals, who were often not
involved in making decisions either.
We have to
ask ourselves then, comrades, if this is the DLF we want to build? A
DLF where the leadership makes all the political decisions and the
members are just expected to follow them. A DLF where the leaders eat
different food and stay in different accommodation to the majority. A
DLF where the leadership can get away with going against the
decisions of the people. If that is the DLF we are building, what
will the socialism we are fighting for look like?
Having lived
and struggled with comrades on the ground for almost a week, having
experienced the same challenges and disappointments and listened to
comrades grievances and desires, I think I can say that this is not
the kind of DLF we want to build.
We do not
want a DLF where the leadership is removed from the base, a DLF where
decisions are taken from above. We do not want a socialism where the
leadership eat different food and stay in different accommodation to
the masses. Socialism means that we are all leaders, and that we all
therefore share in the burden and the fruits of struggle together,
side-by-side.
The problem
here is not that the current DLF leadership are bad people, or that
they intentionally put people in poor accommodation and gave them
food that was not to their liking. Neither do I think that the
political programme was made to bore and confuse people. And we all
have reason to welcome the opportunities that COP17 gave us to come
together, to share our experiences and ideas. I must be clear that my
criticisms are political. The gap between the DLF leadership and the
grassroots comrades is the result of a particular approach to viewing
and organising movements. A view that suggests that a minority of
intellectuals have all the right strategies and answers, and the
working class constituents must just follow along. Rather than being
collectively deliberated and determined at the grassroots, the
political programme of the DLF has by-and-large been decided by the
leadership, who have then sought ‘mass’ support for it through
mobilisation and organising on the ground. This has to some extent
been successful and the fact that the DLF was able to mobilise around
500 people from across the country for COP17 suggests that this
campaign really does speak to the needs and struggles on the ground.
However, despite finding a lot of support from below, planning and
mobilising for COP17 was largely done in a centralised and top-down
manner by a relatively small group of intellectuals and academics. It
was because of this that the political programme did not really meet
the majority of people’s expectations and, as such, it is because
of this that the grassroots militants of the DLF were less engaged
than they could have been and, indeed, assumed relatively little
responsibility over driving the entire process. This needs to change.
In order to safeguard against too much power and responsibility being
invested in just a few people, thus leading to undemocratic
practices, we need to ensure that our political programmes are
collectively determined at a grassroots level by the activists that
make up the base of the DLF, and not by an intellectual minority. In
so doing, comrades will be encouraged to assume greater
responsibility over collectively driving the process of building the
DLF.
Conclusion: towards a truly democratic left
In going
forward we need to build on the good work that was done in bringing
us to Durban, on the networks built and experience gained while we
were there, struggling for a better future. But, in so doing we need
to be careful to avoid the pitfalls and failures that became apparent
in Durban. We need to focus on building the organisations and
movements that make up the DLF in our communities. We need to ensure
that these movements represent the will and the needs of their
members, that they are truly democratic and that the people that are
elected into positions of leadership are accountable to the members,
and that they truly represent our interests. If we can do this, then
building a truly democratic and effective DLF will be easy, provided
we also work to ensure that the DLF is driven from below, and that
its campaigns come from below and truly express the will of the
people. We need to be very careful of and question the role and
motives of NGOs when involving them in our struggles. If they want to
be involved in building a truly democratic DLF, the intellectuals and
NGOs must put their resources, knowledge and skills at the service of
the working class organisations and movements that make up its base,
and not use these to advance their own academic and political
agendas. The DLF’s campaigns must come from the grassroots, must be
formulated in affiliates, in local branches, and in facilitation
committees controlled by these affiliates and local branches. And
however noble their intentions may be, the DLF’s leaders cannot be
permitted to postpone elections and perpetuate their term of office
without a mandate.
