Dear Mr Ayoub Mzee
The ANC’s 100th Birthday:When does it become a political party?
18 January 2012
On 8 January 1912 in a small Wesleyan church in Bloemfontein (now called Mangaung) as one scholarly account puts it, several hundred of South Africa’s most prominent Black citizens, professional and chieftains, ministers of religion, teachers, clerks, interpreters, land holders, businessmen, journalists, estate agents, building contractors and labour agents met to establish what shortly afterwards was to be called the African National Congress (ANC). Present at that meeting was the ANC’s first president, the Reverend John L Dube, an educationalist, ordained minister and editor of Ilanga laseNatali. (Incidentally, the ANC’s nemesis, the National Party was also born in Bloemfontein but two years later.)
So 2012 started off in Manguaung, South Africa, with the African National Congress’s centenary celebration. The sharp differences of opinion within the organisation relating less to ideology and policy than to personalities, positions and perks, were temporarily brushed under the carpet. Only one speech was featured and that was delivered by President Jacob Zuma – to which I come back in a moment.
However, to put this in context, especially for our international readers, the ANC has played a major and honourable role since its establishment in bringing about full democracy in South Africa and ending racial discrimination. In the process it produced several great and inspiring leaders going back to people like Dube, Albert Luthuli, Oliver Tambo, Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu and Mandela himself. The organisation stands out among the many liberation movements which emerged in different parts of the world between the two World Wars and of course immediately after the Second World War with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other similar human rights accords, and the growing afro-Asian demand for independence. The ANC takes credit for galvanising international opinion against apartheid South Africa. For that reason, the ANC in its recent celebrations highlighted its historical role, and for that it deserves the respect of all South Africans and indeed that’s how last week-end’s celebrations were viewed.
But putting history to one side, there is growing discontent with the ANC as a government. After 17 years in office, it is faction-riven, divided, indecisive, lacking in vision, and failing to provide essential services or curb wide-spread corruption. Indeed, it is failing to govern, which President Zuma’s speech typified. To quote Phylicia Oppelt in her Sunday Times column – and I do so generously because she expresses the disappointment so well:
“Zuma’s rambling speech in Mangaung – summed up in the Mail & Guardian as having consisted of 5,708 words - was an ill-prepared monologue on the history of the ANC over the past 100 years.
His predecessor Nelson Mandela would have drawn us closer with a language of reconciliation, with references to what binds together as a nation rather than what separates us. Madiba would have offered 10 decades of hope, optimism and idealism because that is what the character of Nelson Mandela would have demanded.
Mbeki would have given us beautiful, memorable imagery, something akin to his “I am an African” speech, that would have excavated the rich history of our country and its people.
But there was Zuma, lumbering and heavy, plodding through 40-odd pages of dense history without offering a vision of our future………Our nation deserves more than lethargy, more than uninspired plodding and vacillation. Our young country in all its promise and fragile nationhood, needs a leader who will, if nothing else, lead decisively and be bold enough to rectify mistakes.”
One thing is for sure, with this speech President Zuma didn’t improve his prospects for a second term.
Other criticisms of the celebration reflect the commendably high levels of civic awareness in this country. Thus several commentators tellingly made the point that the ANC in its historical account failed to mention other organisations which have figured significantly in the freedom struggle. Dr Farieda Khan, an independent social and environmental historian with an interest in heritage matters, wrote: “Acknowledging the movement’s history and heritage it must also be recognised that, despite claims that “the ANC liberated the country”, the ANC is but one role-player, although an important one, in the story of how racial discrimination was fought and democracy (or “liberation” to use ANC terminology) was eventually established.” Dr Khan lists organisations like the All African Convention (established in 1935), the National Liberation League (1935), the Unity Movement (1943), the Liberal Party (1953), the Pan African Congress (1959), the Progressive Party (1959), the African Resistance Movement (1960), the Black Consciousness Movement of the 1970s, and the United Democratic Front. These organisations were assisted by countless civil society organisations, both in South Africa and abroad, from humble civic and faith-based groups to mighty workers’ organisations. All worked to create a climate in which democracy could eventually take root – no single role-player can take the credit for this.
So much for the history. One aspect of the ANC situation, which is in some respects quite unique but which is bothersome, is that the ANC in power persists in regarding itself as a liberation movement. It is only nominally a political party. It still thinks and acts as a liberation movement. Like other liberation movements, it aimed to seize power – not to share it – and like other liberation movements, it wished to gain control of the regime. That is still the ANC’s culture and organising principle, with the consequence that the distinction so critical to any democratic system between the state and political parties, is blurred. In these circumstances, aside from the use of state resources for sectional political ends, a strong and independent public service simply isn’t possible – because the ANC determines what the job specifications are and who gets what and why by way of deployment.
The blurring of the distinction between state and political organisation was evident, as Farieda Khan puts it even in the financing of the ANC celebrations. Her article says it all under the heading – “ANC should pay centenary costs”. Instead, millions of taxpayers’ money was spent on the event.
There were people who hoped that with the centenary celebrations the ANC might want to reconsider its role. That it might wish to move more towards being a genuine political party. That clearly hasn’t happened, and it won’t happen to any great degree until a completely new generation comes to control the organisation.
The ANC’s 100th Birthday:When does it become a political party?
18 January 2012
On 8 January 1912 in a small Wesleyan church in Bloemfontein (now called Mangaung) as one scholarly account puts it, several hundred of South Africa’s most prominent Black citizens, professional and chieftains, ministers of religion, teachers, clerks, interpreters, land holders, businessmen, journalists, estate agents, building contractors and labour agents met to establish what shortly afterwards was to be called the African National Congress (ANC). Present at that meeting was the ANC’s first president, the Reverend John L Dube, an educationalist, ordained minister and editor of Ilanga laseNatali. (Incidentally, the ANC’s nemesis, the National Party was also born in Bloemfontein but two years later.)
So 2012 started off in Manguaung, South Africa, with the African National Congress’s centenary celebration. The sharp differences of opinion within the organisation relating less to ideology and policy than to personalities, positions and perks, were temporarily brushed under the carpet. Only one speech was featured and that was delivered by President Jacob Zuma – to which I come back in a moment.
However, to put this in context, especially for our international readers, the ANC has played a major and honourable role since its establishment in bringing about full democracy in South Africa and ending racial discrimination. In the process it produced several great and inspiring leaders going back to people like Dube, Albert Luthuli, Oliver Tambo, Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu and Mandela himself. The organisation stands out among the many liberation movements which emerged in different parts of the world between the two World Wars and of course immediately after the Second World War with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, other similar human rights accords, and the growing afro-Asian demand for independence. The ANC takes credit for galvanising international opinion against apartheid South Africa. For that reason, the ANC in its recent celebrations highlighted its historical role, and for that it deserves the respect of all South Africans and indeed that’s how last week-end’s celebrations were viewed.
But putting history to one side, there is growing discontent with the ANC as a government. After 17 years in office, it is faction-riven, divided, indecisive, lacking in vision, and failing to provide essential services or curb wide-spread corruption. Indeed, it is failing to govern, which President Zuma’s speech typified. To quote Phylicia Oppelt in her Sunday Times column – and I do so generously because she expresses the disappointment so well:
“Zuma’s rambling speech in Mangaung – summed up in the Mail & Guardian as having consisted of 5,708 words - was an ill-prepared monologue on the history of the ANC over the past 100 years.
His predecessor Nelson Mandela would have drawn us closer with a language of reconciliation, with references to what binds together as a nation rather than what separates us. Madiba would have offered 10 decades of hope, optimism and idealism because that is what the character of Nelson Mandela would have demanded.
Mbeki would have given us beautiful, memorable imagery, something akin to his “I am an African” speech, that would have excavated the rich history of our country and its people.
But there was Zuma, lumbering and heavy, plodding through 40-odd pages of dense history without offering a vision of our future………Our nation deserves more than lethargy, more than uninspired plodding and vacillation. Our young country in all its promise and fragile nationhood, needs a leader who will, if nothing else, lead decisively and be bold enough to rectify mistakes.”
One thing is for sure, with this speech President Zuma didn’t improve his prospects for a second term.
Other criticisms of the celebration reflect the commendably high levels of civic awareness in this country. Thus several commentators tellingly made the point that the ANC in its historical account failed to mention other organisations which have figured significantly in the freedom struggle. Dr Farieda Khan, an independent social and environmental historian with an interest in heritage matters, wrote: “Acknowledging the movement’s history and heritage it must also be recognised that, despite claims that “the ANC liberated the country”, the ANC is but one role-player, although an important one, in the story of how racial discrimination was fought and democracy (or “liberation” to use ANC terminology) was eventually established.” Dr Khan lists organisations like the All African Convention (established in 1935), the National Liberation League (1935), the Unity Movement (1943), the Liberal Party (1953), the Pan African Congress (1959), the Progressive Party (1959), the African Resistance Movement (1960), the Black Consciousness Movement of the 1970s, and the United Democratic Front. These organisations were assisted by countless civil society organisations, both in South Africa and abroad, from humble civic and faith-based groups to mighty workers’ organisations. All worked to create a climate in which democracy could eventually take root – no single role-player can take the credit for this.
So much for the history. One aspect of the ANC situation, which is in some respects quite unique but which is bothersome, is that the ANC in power persists in regarding itself as a liberation movement. It is only nominally a political party. It still thinks and acts as a liberation movement. Like other liberation movements, it aimed to seize power – not to share it – and like other liberation movements, it wished to gain control of the regime. That is still the ANC’s culture and organising principle, with the consequence that the distinction so critical to any democratic system between the state and political parties, is blurred. In these circumstances, aside from the use of state resources for sectional political ends, a strong and independent public service simply isn’t possible – because the ANC determines what the job specifications are and who gets what and why by way of deployment.
The blurring of the distinction between state and political organisation was evident, as Farieda Khan puts it even in the financing of the ANC celebrations. Her article says it all under the heading – “ANC should pay centenary costs”. Instead, millions of taxpayers’ money was spent on the event.
There were people who hoped that with the centenary celebrations the ANC might want to reconsider its role. That it might wish to move more towards being a genuine political party. That clearly hasn’t happened, and it won’t happen to any great degree until a completely new generation comes to control the organisation.
