KHULU MBATHA

In my book Unmasked: Why the ANC Failed to Govern, I dedicated an entire chapter to the obstacles hindering nation-building. Among these is the tripartite alliance’s existence beyond 1994. Nelson Mandela and Joe Slovo correctly argued that the alliance may hinder the development of a robust, independent democratic system.

The inability of the alliance leadership to grasp this point exposed a weakness not only in the formulation of ideas but in how these ideas were put into action — a disconnect between theory and practice. Since then, the ideological standing of the ANC and SACP has come under scrutiny. Both parties have suffered a substantial decline in their position in society.

That is why the SACP’s move to contest the 2026 local government elections independently is a healthy development.

An alliance is either formal or informal. Some alliances are formed solely because of a common enemy. Some organisations, states and unions belong to alliances that are opposed to one another. Some choose to take a neutral position to preserve their independence and integrity. Some alliances are for short-term purposes and dissolve when objectives are met.

In our case, the national struggle of the oppressed was the basis for the formation of the tripartite alliance. Conceived as a vehicle for liberation, it brought together men and women, black and white, Indian and coloured, to side with the oppressed as full participants in the struggle. The Freedom Charter expressed the common aspirations of the Congress Alliance.

With freedom and democracy achieved, new tasks and obligations emerged, requiring new thinking and a new approach

Conditions changed with the ban on political parties, and illegality and exile led to the birth of the tripartite alliance as we know it today. This time, there was no signed agreement or charter. Again, no-one should doubt the authenticity and honesty of this alliance. It was tested at the Rivonia Trial, and Mandela defended it. Exile fortified it. As OR Tambo remarked at the SACP’s 60th anniversary in 1981: “It is often claimed by our detractors that the ANC’s association with the SACP means that the ANC is being influenced by the SACP. That is not our experience. Our experience is that the two influence each other. The ANC is quite capable of influencing, and is liable to be influenced by others.”

Tambo added that while agreeing on fundamental strategies and tactical positions, they had retained separate identities. “For though we are united in struggle … we are not the same … Within our revolutionary alliance each organisation has a distinct and vital role to play. A correct understanding of these roles, and respect for their boundaries, has ensured the survival and consolidation of our co-operation and unity …”

This relationship was better managed in exile than later in a free South Africa. With freedom and democracy achieved, new tasks and obligations emerged, requiring new thinking and a new approach. At his inauguration, Mandela delivered the new approach. Building a new nation out of the ruins of apartheid was no longer something to be answered only by the formerly oppressed, or even by the tripartite alliance, but by all South Africans. At the 49th national conference, in 1994, he argued that the alliance had served its purpose and pleaded with members to reflect on it, re-examine its role and weigh up options.

He carefully and wisely chose his words in order not to raise alarm among his long-standing struggle compatriots: “This alliance, the cutting edge in the struggle against apartheid, should be strengthened as we embark on reconstruction and development. But what forms it takes; whether it should be expanded to include, for instance, the civics movement, and many other questions, are issues that conference should decide …

“It will therefore be crucial that delegates apply their minds seriously to all the organisational questions, conscious of the fact that the decisions we take will impact on the future of the organisation for decades to come.”

While the aftermath of past mismanagement cannot be overlooked, current developments could mark the beginning of a more responsive and effective leadership in South Africa.

Mandela was shrewd in not pronouncing that the alliance should be terminated, as this would have raised eyebrows, but his message was unambiguous: the alliance had to give way to the broader church that had made freedom and democracy possible. The reaction of the alliance leadership was predictable. They closed ranks and defended rather than try to come up with answers. They postponed the issues and hoped they would go away. The same mistake made by the leadership in Eastern Europe.

Slovo, in his pamphlet Has Socialism Failed?, criticised the communist parties in Eastern Europe for abusing their power. The communist party does not have a monopoly on political wisdom or a natural right to exclusive control of the struggle.

Slovo stressed the need to safeguard the independence of the political expressions of other social forces. This relationship with trade unions and organisations is based on complete respect for their independence, integrity and inner democracy.

Furthermore, an institutionalised one-party state has a strong propensity for authoritarianism, he wrote. He believed that the SACP should contest elections on its own, and “if it wins, it must be constitutionally required to go back to the people for a renewed mandate. The alternative to this is self-perpetuating power that breeds corruption and dictatorship.”

South Africans hold in high regard the sacrifices of members of the ANC and various political parties and organisations. However, it is widely acknowledged that the efforts and determination of ordinary citizens, whose actions rendered the country ungovernable at great personal cost, were essential in achieving freedom and democracy.

With intense public friction and ultimatums galore, the SACP’s new thinking, partly due to the ANC’s coalition choices, should be welcomed as it marks a bold step. It presents an opportunity for genuine self-interrogation, political restitution (real renewal) and accountability. It allows each party to redefine its priorities and reconnect with its base without being constrained by alliance compromises. This may encourage more transparent governance, stimulate constructive opposition, and ultimately foster a more robust democratic process.

While the aftermath of past mismanagement cannot be overlooked, current developments could mark the beginning of a more responsive and effective leadership in South Africa.