by Njabulo Ndebele, City Press
Two weeks
ago, “Comrades” Essop Pahad and Ronnie Kasrils disagreed publicly on how
members of the African National Congress should vote in next Wednesday’s
election. This moment had long been coming.
The posture
of the ANC as a united organisation with robust internal discussion of issues
was yet again in question. The disagreement, spilling into the public domain
will have a progressively corrosive effect on the ANC’s dominance of South
African politics.
One
fundamental reason for such corrosion is that South Africa today is no longer
what it was in 1994. The ANC has restated this fact to good electioneering
effect: “South Africa is today a better place to live in than it was in 1994.”
These two statements can go with a third one: all South Africans are no longer
who they were in 1994. We have changed.
While South
Africa and its people were changing, so was the ANC. If its election statement
that South Africa is a better place is generally true, does it also carry the
implication that the party, the only national government since 1994, has itself
changed for the better? The party would clearly wish the electorate to make
that kind of inference.
The fact is
in the governance of the country the ANC has become far more corrupt than it
has ever been. It has consequently corrupted the country in significant ways.
The country is not better run by the ANC than 20 years ago.
A better life
for whom?
Much of the
decline in its governance has occurred in the last five years.
According to
the logic of its own electioneering statement, if the ANC claims responsibility
for the “better life” it must also claim responsibility for the behavioural and
structural corruption that have taken root throughout much of the country
during its 20-year watch as government.
Understandably,
the party cannot find it within itself to claim such responsibility during
elections. That is why Pahad, Jeremy Cronin, and Jessie Duarte in their attack
on Ronnie Kasrils call for electoral loyalty despite much about the ANC that
they must know no longer makes any sense. The nub of their call is the glaring
irony in it.
“The ANC,”
Pahad asserts “notwithstanding serious problems within it, remains the most
effective instrument to bringing about fundamental change and transformation in
our country in favour of the poor and workers, the continent and international
relations.” If it once was, not any more.
Kasrils has
a different view. The “rot has gone too deep” in the ANC – a “long series of
scandals involving President Jacob Zuma and numbers of senior party and
government officials.” He points to the culture of secrecy, and the demise of
democratic accountability within the ANC. According to Kasrils, the decline has
become irreversible.
With a
looming election as background, Kasrils’ message to the electorate is clear: do
not vote for any organisation you do not trust, particularly one you no longer
trust. He leaves us in no doubt that he will not vote for the ANC on Wednesday.
In its March
25 2014 statement on its “commitment to a corruption-free society” the ANC
declares: “Any ANC member or public representative found guilty of corruption
in court, will be expected to step down from office, or face firm action from
the ANC in line with its constitution.”
In its
entire statement, the ANC never mentions the decline in state governance as one
of the core indicators of corruption. In fact, the ANC neither refers to
governance, nor to the national constitution. The only constitution it seems to
recognise is its own.
It is also
significant that the ANC recognises only guilt established in a court of law,
and accords no importance to moral and ethical values and conduct as a
requirement for public office.
Illusion of
innocence
In reality,
the highest public officer of the ANC, President Zuma, has successfully avoided
having his guilt or innocence established in a court of law over hundreds of
criminal charges against him. So is the case with some other senior members of
his party. They all therefore exist in a state of continuous unproven
innocence.
The ANC has
become legally and behaviourally adept at defeating the ends of justice.
Sustained unproven innocence soon transforms into the illusion of innocence. It
is the illusion of innocence that has over time eroded ethical and moral
sensibility in the ANC. This condition has become a dominant mode of perceiving
reality within the organisation.
It can then
be established that for the ANC, the Constitution of the Republic, and the rule
of law, are not supreme in terms of chapter 1(c) of the founding provisions of
the Constitution. What is functionally supreme is the constitution of the ANC.
From the point of view of the ANC, its constitution stands functionally above
the national Constitution. By definition, the ANC is more accountable to itself
than it is to the people of South Africa.
The
combination of the culture of unproven innocence and the supremacy of its
constitution over the national constitution indicates an organisation that has
installed itself in the place of the nation.
If the ANC
is the nation, an entity logically and existentially much bigger than itself,
then that nation could never aspire to be more than a smaller part of itself.
What is universal then becomes encapsulated in the particular. In that case the
universal can only suffocate in the particular, which it actually contains. A
nation that allows such a condition has only one fate: death by strangulation.
This speaks
to the fundamental contradiction in the ANC’s “commitment” to fight corruption.
Corruption is actually embodied in the organisation’s highest leadership. So
what it asserts of itself as fighting corruption, is not what it actually does.
Yet what it does, engaging in corrupt conduct, is what it has become. What it
has become is the reality the ANC, through its actions, seeks to transform the
nation into.
Loyal
members of the ANC are induced to see corruption everywhere except where it is
most visible. The party seems psychologically configured to believe that it is
being unfairly criticised, and that the problem is elsewhere and not in itself.
The party is
therefore condemned by its own commitment to be blind to its own moral and
ethical fallibilities.
This is why
the ANC is unable not only to point out a naked emperor, but also to refrain
from naming him. His role and status within a culture of corruption are thus
sanctified. This allows none other than the chairperson of the party, Baleka
Mbete, to proclaim Nkandla a “holy space”.
Denial
Only a president
caught in such a space of self-deception can boast that an inter-ministerial
commission into state funded upgrades on his private property has absolved him.
In reality,
a commission on an issue involving the president and investigated by his own
ministers within the “holy space” of corruption is highly unlikely to find
fault with him. He then continues to busk in the sun of technical innocence.
And so, does his organisation, which has developed something akin to a mass
psychology of denial and self-deception.
The ANC’s
fundamental weakness is to be found in its inability to acknowledge “the rot”
within itself. That is why its election message “a good story to tell” comes
across less as fact, than as a postured proclamation of success solely claimed
by the party. The psychology at play here is clear: the more “the rot” the more
the self-proclamation.
Two
consequences follow from this. One is that ironically, the posturing and
self-proclamation often detract from the real and truthful achievements of the
organisation. Failure to confront “the rot” means too much organisational
energy is spent on hiding it than on consolidating success based on honest
achievement, which speaks for itself.
The second
consequence is for the ANC to be reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s wisdom: “You can
fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the
time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
The 20-year
history of the evolution of South Africa’s democracy since 1994 speaks to
Abraham Lincoln’s wisdom.
In 1994
South Africa’s constitutional public was radically reconstituted. Racially
determined since 1948 when apartheid formally began, in 1994 that public became
universal for all South African citizens. Since then its own nature has been
evolving further. By conviction and sentiment, the voting patterns of the newly
enfranchised in 1994 were overwhelmingly predictable in favour of the ANC. The
multiplicity of political parties since 1994 and signs of serious fracture with
the ANC and with its alliance organisations reflects that the public’s voting
patterns are becoming increasingly less easily predictable.
Discerning,
rational voters
There has
been a slow but definite increase in the number of discerning voters whose
choices are driven more by rational assessment than by unquestioning loyalty to
received political histories. Received sentiment tends to be less demanding of
the political players it supports. It will look away even in the face of
manifestly corrupt conduct in the politicians it supports. This is even more
guaranteed to happen where party members are behaviourally socialised not to
see corruption within their own organisation. Even where they could detect it,
they are habituated into tolerating it.
Rationally
discerning voters, on the other hand, will tend to be more demanding and more
decisive in making new choices. Putting great stock on constitutionality, they
will call for constitutionally determined solutions to the conduct of corrupt
politicians. The interests of the constitutional common good will drive
rational behaviour far more than the sentiment of unquestioning loyalty, which
tends to prioritise leaders over the common good.
When Pahad
and other leaders of the ANC call on members of the ANC to loyally vote for
their organisation despite its deeply corrupted condition, they are habitually
invoking a tactical blindness in the service of a condition they are unable to
condemn.
The
evolution of the constitutional public since 1994 is a condition that the ANC
is unable to take credit for, because such a public constitutes a serious
threat to the organisation in its current form.
The
discerning rational voter, who prizes citizen equality within the Constitution
over the exclusive “equality” of party membership, will not be dazzled by “the
good story to tell” because “the good story to tell” is inherently dishonest by
being selective and fundamentally discriminatory. It seeks to create a
“feel-good” sense in the public domain in which the invisible prize, wilfully
undeclared, is the consolidation of a corrupt state.
There is
another way in which the rationally, discerning, and principled voter is likely
to be a serious threat to the ANC. It is that such a voter, even in their
acknowledgement of the key role played by the ANC in the liberation of South
Africa, will increasingly ask why they should ignore a strong and urgent inner
voice calling on them to seek to liberate themselves from “the liberator”.
The
conditions that will lead to such a public sentiment are already in place.
Social
evolution
Free people
in a constitutional democracy will want more freedom. They will resist its
curtailment by a political party that captures freedom in the act of offering
it as a gift for party membership. The fetish of party membership may very well
be one of the greatest threats to democracy that the ANC represents in its
current condition.
True freedom
on the other hand is in the membership of citizenship in a constitutional
democracy. That is why the demise of a party could never be the demise of a
country and its people. When a party fails to adjust to new historical
conditions, its demise offers the promise of a better world without it. That is
what has happened historically in the sudden and speedy disappearance of
political parties that seemed invincible.
In this
connection, the growth of a trend towards a greater public desire for a
constitutional common good should not be that surprising. It has taken various
organisational, social, and individual expressions. The trend emerges out of
people firmly located within a post-1994 ANC movement. It is driven by
purposeful, organised political activity as well as by evolutionary means.
From the
perspective of evolutionary processes, no party in the world can claim sole
responsibility for the entity of social success. It is always a part of that
success, may even be a greater part, never the entire part.
Evolutionary
social trends are much bigger than any political party. Some social formations
will intuit the desire for change much more than others. Such trends may
indicate that a deep process of social self-correction is under way.
Both the ANC
and Cosatu as large organisations are in a state of flux. They may not survive
intact for long.
Currently,
in its largest and most organised form, the process of self-correction can be
discerned in Numsa. In its less organised but more organic form, it can be
discerned in Amcu. In between there is a range of social energy searching for a
different quality of the future. It has taken the form of political parties,
non-governmental organisations, clubs and societies of every description. Equal
Education is one among other glaring examples. The broad society is constantly,
actively evolving. No political party can ever be the sole expression of its
evolution.
The
evolutionary impulse can also express itself through individuals. Currently,
Public Protector Thuli Madonsela is a manifestation of it. There are countless
others, in every aspect of social endeavour, individuals with extraordinary
gifts marginalised by a state unable to control them. They are an expression of
freedom.
The ANC in
its formal, not necessarily in its visionary, character appears to have chosen
to be no longer a part of this renewal, except as a vital lesson of what is to
be avoided in future.
The real
threat
I cannot see
any danger that South Africa will collapse in the face of the ANC’s loss of
power now or at some point in future. To the contrary, there are many signs
that the decline in state capability under continuing ANC political leadership
constitutes a serious threat to the country.
The one
serious threat to South Africa is the perceptions of those who stand to lose if
the ANC were to lose an election. They will lose unrestricted access to state
resources. No longer to be protected by a blindly loyal vote, they will face
post election litigation for their misdeeds. To avert the threat they may
constitute themselves into coercive force right at the centre of the state.
Compromised state intelligence services will look the other way; so could the
national defence forces.
Indeed, a
corrupt state is inherently disposed towards its most common mistake: the
resort to coercion in the attainment of its secret objectives. In this manner
may a totalitarian era return to South Africa.
So, as you
place a cross on your ballot box on Wednesday, remember, fellow citizen that
your problem, like mine, is a beautiful one to have. Never before have you
faced so much political choice. The problem may not so much be in the items to
choose from but in the habit of not having been called upon to choose. In
reality the world out there has a great deal to offer to a discerning citizen.
A part of
that world is your country, South Africa. It will not collapse in the face of
your choice. It is too strong, too precious for you to place all your
investments once more in an increasingly under-performing political portfolio.
The world is
yours if you believe in your precious individuality as a citizen of an
irrepressible democracy.