What do you think will happen?

Some wealthy American Caucasian is credited for having coined the statement: “in the business world, the rear-view mirror is a lot clearer than the windshield”, or words to that effect. In the same vein may I please be credited for: “in South African politics the rear-view mirror often blurs the windscreen”.

I have read somewhere or heard somewhere that, apart from the Polokwane and the Durban High Court outcomes, the apparent split in or of the ANC has to do with some anti-communist sentiment among the dissidents. I am not sure how true all this is but one of the trade union leaders, responding to a question about Sam Shilowa’s departure, said something to the effect that those who are leaving the ANC do so because they had removed themselves from the masses that put them in power in the first place. He said further that they (Shilowa and Lekota) had become an elitist class hence their rejection by the people. What does this have to do with the rear-view mirror you may ask? Well this is where it gets all blurry.

Thanks to Benjamin Pogrund (and he is not the only one), there is some record of the previous split of the ANC which led to the formation of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). The disquiet within the ANC back then is said to have been as a result of the adoption of the Freedom Charter by the ANC. The very Freedom Charter that Mr Lekota accuses the ANC to have deviated from. Incidentally, a certain Jomo Mogale is of the view that Mr Lekota and Mr Shilowa are the ones that have deviated from the Freedom Charter. Mr Mogale is one of the leaders of the Khutsong Anti Demarcation organisation. He argues that Shilowa was part of the authority that sought to cleave Khutsong from the Gauteng Province and to dump it into the less resourced North-West Province without consulting the people of Khutsong. Please dear reader if you would, have a look at an earlier post commenting on the demonstrations and protest actions that went on in Khutsong. Back to the 1959 split of the ANC.

The ANC was until then a movement born of a union of various factions with different views and political principles but that had one common goal – the eradication of Apartheid. This common enemy was to a large extent the glue that kept the learned class, the Communists, the Africanists, and the Traditionalist all stuck together. The union was largely if not exclusively under the leadership of the intelligentsia. The ANC and its predecessor was to a large extent a movement of the elite rather than of the masses. This element of the ANC continues to trouble it somewhat; at least I think it does. Prior to the adoption of the Freedom Charter there was the 1912 programme of action that had as its goal the emancipation of the Black people, to paraphrase. The Africanists, so the reports of the time go, viewed the adoption of the Freedom Charter, among others, as a deviation by the ANC from the programme of action. The adoption of the Freedom Charter, so the argument goes, was counter to the 1912 programme and would make less of the struggle for the freedom from racial oppression of the Black people. There are also some reports that cite as a reason for the split, the ascendancy to leadership positions by white people. A sort of reverse “who feels it knows it” type of argument. I am no authority on these kinds of things, but I am simply not sold on these latter reports. I am more inclined to buy the reports that make the fact that the white folks were communists an issue and not their being white (something they can’t help). We should bear in mind the number of the then mission school educated leaders within the ANC and their consequential reluctance towards communism.

The Communists and the Charterists carried the day back in 1959 in Soweto and similarly carried the day in 2007 at Polokwane. Similarly, as in Polokwane, disorder and ill-discipline was the order of the day at the special general meeting of the ANC chaired by O R Tambo. I was completely astounded by the realisation that the leadership of the ANC back then as it seems to be the case today, was prepared and in fact was ready to use violence to settle its differences with the Africanists; and by the way, so were the Africanists, who incidentally were out-maneuvered and out-gunned. The threat of violence remains ever present. There seems to be some valour in brute force and violence or at least the threat of violence.

Looking back does not, alas, seem to provide our leaders with foresight; it seems to provide grounds for being more obstinate. Looking back throws up examples of Bantu Holomisa, who it is said has amounted to nothing. The PAC is also mocked in a similar vein. I think, whatever that is worth, that the difficulties of the PAC are much bigger than its split from the ANC in 1959. The rear-view mirror, while providing a clear view of the assassination of Lumumba, the madness of Bokasa, the massacre of the Matebele, the mayhem on killer road Soweto and later that same day, the death around Shell House – does not seem to make the windscreen any clearer. Specifically it does not seem to clear the minds, eyes or windscreens of the leadership. The history keeps blurring the windscreen.

Looking back on South African political history, often times when there was a difference of opinion between two political groups, people died or became subjected to all manner of violence. These clear rear-view mirror events still leave the windscreen blurry. As recent as yesterday, there were threats of disruption of meetings and Mr Mogale (yes he of Khutsong fame) declared Khutsong a no-go area for Lekota and his mates. I ask myself with some exasperation: “do we not see what we are doing?” Do we not at least see the probable consequences of our actions or in some instances in-actions?

With perfect hindsight, we continue down the road that has led to mayhem and slaughter, which will probably end in some protracted power-sharing negotiations following some failed elections.

Maybe I am just being presumptuous, maybe there isn’t even a rear-view mirror on this taxi and the only clear window, is the passenger side window – the windscreen is covered with dead insects from the past. Maybe we are unable or unwilling to look back or maybe, even when we look back we clearly do not see and when we look forward, it is with blurred vision.

In the meantime, the taxi with the broken rear-view mirror and the soiled windscreen keeps hurtling down the one-way street the wrong way.

The curious Mr Malema . . .

There was once a disruption of the Johannesburg central business district. Well, the city was pretty much brought to a standstill. The details are a little scatchy to me now but it apparently had to do with unhappy high school pupils, apparently members of Congress of South African Students (Cosas), then under the leadership of among others, Mr Julius Malema. The march was in protest of the department of education's directive that school gates be locked during teaching time for security reasons; so the newspaper reports go. It was also reported that the march turned nasty as the pupils smashed cars, shops and looted.

This is old news, probably forgotten now like most things painful. The story of mayhem and destruction on that fateful Friday in 2002, is not the point of this post. I am just intrigued by how curiously all this had turned out. Eventually the indomitable Winnie Mandela had to step in to quell the disruptions and mayhem on the streets of Johannesburg. Strong words were spoken about the terrible behaviour of the youth. Such behaviour was not to be tolerated. This was however not an unexpected turn of events - historically whenever Cosas took to the streets, mayhem followed. Invariably unruly elements whom we are told are rouge elements who are not members of Cosas, are blamed for the mayhem. Later in life Mr Malema is again at the centre of controversy - threatening to kill and crush those who get in the ANC's way. A lot has been made of what Mr Malema meant when he made that and similar statements. It is even said that this issue was resolved between Mr Malema and the Human Rights Commission - as if it were ever between him and the HRC. He accuses an SABC reporter and the management of the SABC of being against the ANC. He calls Dr Skweyiya an old man who pretty much talks behind his back and is afraid to speak to him directly. He calls another elderly gentleman a liar. He pretty much brings the ANC into disrepute.

How then does an organisation of the ANC's pedigree come to have Mr Malema as one of its leaders? On the other hand is it out of the ordinary for the ANC to have the likes of Mr Malema among its leaders? I think that both these questions are unfair on the ANC, they are however important questions for the ANC to ponder carefully if it is to graduate from a liberation movement to a 21st century political party. As a liberation movement, membership of the ANC was a badge of honour. It was being on the right side of history, being on the winning team. Today, the ANC like political parties the world over fights for votes more than membership. The liberation job is done, badly or well it is done. The liberation job involved rendering the apartheid state ungovernable - the current job is all about governing and governing well. The voting public continue to align itself with the ANC based on the role it played in bringing about the right to vote; this however will not be the case in the near future. Reputation and current performance by the ANC through its membership is becoming more important. As my grand-mother would say, "show me your friends and I will show you, you". Show me your leadership and I will decide whether I would like to be associated with you. This however does not seem to be of immediate concern to the ANC.

These comments are not meant to muzzle Mr Malema, to the contrary he should speak and criticise and disagree to his heart's content. Curious as it may seem, it is important for our country that the right of the likes of Mr Malema to speak is secured without qualification. In return for the freedom of expression, Mr Malema, the public deserves common decency. The public needs assurance that Mr Malema will not lead a demonstration similar to the one he led some 6 years ago - a reasonable assurance to ask for under the circumstances. The public also deserve assurance that it will not be crushed if it were to disagree with Mr Malema, lest the disagreement be equated to standing in Mr Malema's way.

This may come accross as unfair on Mr Malema; but it does make the point I hope. There are a variety of individuals accross the South African political landscape to whom this may apply. The point is that the voting public deserves to be taken seriously and to be treated with respect. The curious thing though is that Mr Malema seems to thrive on doing and saying the very things that puts him at odds with the public. The same things puts the ANC at odds with the very public that will go (or not go) to the polls in 6 months or so. So far there has not been a resounding denouncement of not Mr Malema, but of his conduct by the ANC. My recollection is that discipline has historically played an important role in the ANC. It cannot be that Mr Malema is above that discipline; but then again there has been a great deal of ill-discipline in the ANC lately.

Maybe Mr Malema is not that curious after all . . .