Too many smallanyana skeletons to serve the people

Ever since the Phala Phala fairy tale made headlines, I guessed it would detract attention from serious matters the nation should be tackling.   It could end up being a loophole President Cyril Ramaphosa uses to escape responsibility for the promises he committed to when he accepted the ANC presidency. Yes, Phala Phala is a grave issue and raises genuine concerns about how he runs his businesses. But it is a matter for the police and other state agencies to probe.

Of course, the reason some are focusing on Phala Phala is that Ramaphosa is an accomplice to an apparently un-ANC “step-aside rule” adopted at the 2017 ANC national conference at Nasrec, a conference  dogged by allegations of corruption. The then police minister Fikile Mbalula, who had publicly backed Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma to replace Jacob Zuma, claimed his officers intercepted R2.5m meant to buy votes from ANC delegates.

It is alleged that the step-aside resolution was a cowardly weapon that a weak leadership introduced to neutralise those who are a threat to them, and that these leaders have their own “smallanyana skeletons” to hide.

While we have been urged to ponder the definition of the step-aside rule, the majority of citizens — workers, students, business and professional people — are deeply concerned about how the country is run, unemployment and high inflation, dysfunctional service delivery, impaired schools and hospitals, the general collapse of essential infrastructure, increased crime and now load-shedding. 

Over the past 28 years, promises of a better life for all have been made by the governing party. This is what matters for citizens and what ought to be at the centre of the upcoming elective conference of the ANC.

He will either emerge a stronger, galvanised president of the ANC, or he'll come out with a half-arsed, ‘muddled’ result. Or he won't emerge at all – in a political sense, that is. It is likely, that he'll emerge on top, but in what shape is up for scrutiny

—  Stephen Grootes

At the memorial service for the late Jessie Duarte in July,  former president Thabo Mbeki said: “There is no national plan to address the challenge of unemployment, poverty and inequality. It doesn't exist.” He said the ANC’s leadership left much to be desired and was falling short of fulfilling its commitment to South Africans.

On the eve of the last ANC national executive committee (NEC) meeting  this past weekend, Nomvula Mokonyane, an aspirant to a top-six position in the ANC,  pronounced that Ramaphosa’s NEC was the weakest in the history of the ANC and that it “approaches every issue along factional lines”.

Closing the summit, Ramaphosa stated: “We are a month away from our 55th national conference. As this NEC, we will need to report to delegates on the implementation of the mandate we were given five years ago at the 54th national conference. This report will be greatly enriched by the discussions we have had here. Our report will reflect that while this NEC has had to confront serious challenges, we can point to several achievements and progress in a number of areas. At the same time, we will need to acknowledge our shortcomings and failings as the NEC.”

Did the NEC collective engage with how they implemented the mandate given to them five years ago? Were they satisfied that they had achieved their goals? In the absence of a response to what Mbeki and Mokonyane said — and I believe they were correct — how did the weakest NEC in the history of the ANC fulfil its mandate, not having had a plan for its implementation? I expected this meeting to bring clarity to these matters.

Ramaphosa’s statement reminded me of Zuma’s final speech as ANC president on December 16 2017 at Nasrec. “The outcome of the local government elections of 2016, which indicated a serious decline, was a stark reminder that our people are not happy with the state of the ANC. A substantial number of traditional ANC voters stayed away from the polls,” he said.

“In addition to the internal issues, our research also indicated the issues that our people are concerned with — issues such as corruption, crime and unemployment. The NEC meeting in the immediate aftermath of the announcement of the results attributed our loss of support to perceptions in society that we are soft on corruption, self-serving and arrogant.

“It is clear that our failure to confront problems head on and solve them had begun to take its toll on the movement. Previous national conferences identified the negative tendencies that we need to attend to effectively, and these still exist in the movement, undermining its standing in society. The scourges of factionalism, gatekeeping, ill-discipline, membership buying, and infighting continue to afflict our movement,” Zuma said.

The imminent 55th national conference stirs many emotions when looking at past conventions.

Previously, the fact that such a gathering was approaching would inspire one to start engaging, looking for practical solutions to the issues encountered in the course of fulfilling the tasks derived from the last conference.

This time the aura is different. It’s not about the future, but about what’s left of the ANC. At Kabwe and other conferences, we knew that OR Tambo, as president, could never be compromised as a leader. The only concern was the new policies we intended to debate and adopt, and the quality of women and men we assembled around the president.

This has changed. As I state in my book, Why the ANC failed to Govern, ANC national conferences have ceased to be innovative. Polokwane did not yield novel policies as it turned into a fierce contest between supporters of Mbeki and Zuma. Mangaung pitted Zuma against Kgalema Motlanthe and at Nasrec Ramaphosa faced Dlamini-Zuma.

Unlike Mbeki and Zuma, who won their second terms with relative ease, this time there is doubt whether the incumbent will win. A queue of hands is on display and a plethora of lists from branches and provinces has emerged. By any standard, this reveals glaring organisational discord. Some proclaim it is democracy at play, but we know it is not. Lessons learnt from our recent past don’t support this view. 

While Ramaphosa has been in charge, he has exhibited stark shortcomings — from over-promising to under-delivering. Some are asking: if Ramaphosa emerges as the winner, would any team he puts together keep the sinking ship afloat, and at what cost? As revealed in the Zondo commission, money played a key role at Nasrec in 2017.

Ramaphosa even went on record to state that, 'the ANC and its leaders stand accused of corruption. The ANC may not stand alone in the dock, but it does stand as Accused No 1. This is the stark reality that we must now confront.' This is how endemic corruption had become

Stephen Grootes writes: “He [Ramaphosa] will either emerge a stronger, galvanised president of the ANC, or he’ll come out with a half-arsed, ‘muddled’ result. Or he won’t emerge at all — in a political sense, that is. It is likely that he’ll emerge on top, but in what shape is up for scrutiny.”

Ramaphosa’s ambition to ascend to the presidency of the ANC was open to doubt after he shunned the organisation, preferring to go into business when Nelson Mandela appointed Mbeki as his deputy president in 1994.  After scoring a narrow victory in 2017,  his “New Dawn” address to parliament at the beginning of 2018 instantly won him support beyond the ANC, something   that hadn’t happened since Mandela’s heyday.

Clearly, this was not simply about Ramaphosa or the ANC, it was about saving South Africa from being derailed. The country was abuzz with the New Dawn — the new beginning, the South African version of glasnost. Ramaphosa wanted to stop corruption immediately, to bring openness and transparency in government institutions and activities, and expose the wrongs of the past.

With Ramaphosa in charge, the ANC set itself to change direction and rededicate itself to serve the people of South Africa, as was its historical mission. 

Accordingly, the ANC sought to become a well-organised structure, working towards building a strong leadership with a strategic plan and a realistic vision. These were absent or had been weakened by corruption, indiscipline and arrogance.

Before these bold intentions were proclaimed, professor Njabulo Ndebele had highlighted the exigency of our times, saying of the ANC: “They need to determine the real purpose and objective for which they seek to revive their organisation. Is it to rebuild back to glory a once-glorious organisation? What character will the revived organisation take? How would it ground itself in a new reality that might require a fundamental shift in organisational character? What would be its shape and character?

“Where would they look to reconstitute the ailing party? Would it be inside the ‘family’ of the ANC and risk a ‘factional’ trap by another name? Would they look across and within the ‘tripartite family’ despite its gradual dismemberment? Or would they cast an adventurous eye across the entire landscape of South African society that has been evolving in significant ways since 1994 and experience the prospect of a new sense of citizenship that could be found in unexpected communities?”

The ever-playful aspirant secretary-general, Mbalula, likened organisational renewal to “a car service” that would “oil the ANC so it operates its engines and other components optimally”. Commentator Marianne Merten retorted that this car’s engine had blown.

Ramaphosa has missed many opportunities to make sober choices that would help both the ANC and the nation to move forward. 

As Ndebele put it, he has failed to see that “the ultimate threat to South Africa’s achieved constitutional democracy, and which as a nation we have been consolidating with some significant progress, is the loss of freedom through a near total collapse of state capability”.

What then should we expect from the conference next month? The answer lies in the foreword to the report Unmasked: Why the ANC Failed to Govern, written by Ahmed Kathrada a few weeks before his death. He wrote: “Liberation movements seldom get the opportunity to determine the timelines for victory, and their level of preparedness for what comes after victory would at best be uneven. The ANC has proved to be no exception to this. Coupled with the context within which movements come to power, their ability to give effect to their aspirations would also face major challenges and limitations…

“The struggle to be an inclusive national organisation has been an ongoing one, which continues into the post-apartheid period … Did we make mistakes during the negotiations? I am sure that we must have. Hindsight will certainly allow us to come to that conclusion. Were we prepared to govern? I have said on many public platforms that we were not. We did not know what governing would entail, nor did we have the full range of technical skills that effective governing would require. It is within this context that some of the compromises must also be considered… 

“Perhaps the most critical failure has been the inability to create an economy that is inclusive of all, one that could have been more equal than it is now. The inequality in our society is something that we did not fully prepare for, and we now have to deal with its consequences,” Kathrada said.

“However, in my view, the biggest failure of the ANC is possibly the growing lack of hope that a better future is possible. Our people understood in 1994 that change would take a long time. They, however, had tremendous hope that the ANC would provide the leadership and character required to overcome these challenges. The behaviour of many in the ANC has eroded that element of hope to the extent that many now no longer believe that government cares for them, or that it has the solutions to the many problems that people face on a day-to-day basis.”

The recent gathering of Motlanthe’s inclusive growth forum in the Drakensberg cautioned us: “We are on a precipice, and the time for innovative ideas and change has never been more urgent. Through its actions, the ANC invalidated the post-1994 consensus. This does not in any way nullify the sacrifices of the gallant liberators of our country.”

  This means we need change! It means we need a national convention. We need to ignite our political agency. Civil society needs to mobilise and develop a new, coherent political and economic vision.  A partnership between civil society, business, youth, labour and religious leaders is required to develop a new national vision and agenda for change.

I was impressed when Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh said we need to press the reset button, to which I reacted by stating that, unfortunately, it is sealed by thick glue. The glue is a result of years of denialism because the ANC has not had the strong leadership capable of dealing with its internal failures, and naturally, these spill over into government.

Delegates to the 55th national conference ought to know that for the ANC to remain relevant it urgently needs strong leadership. We need a fundamental change in how we elect the leadership of the ANC, the NEC and the top six — and we need to question whether such a hierarchy is necessary. There are many misconceptions about the role of the deputy president in the ANC, whereas in our constitution of the republic it is definite. 

There is much talk about a national coalition government in the near future. I believe this is pertinent. What would be the agenda for such a coalition? The silence of the ANC leadership on this issue is conspicuous, as is the absence of guidelines for local-government-level partnerships.  

A flawed and deficient Electoral Amendment Bill was recently pushed through by our representatives in parliament. We need a radical reform of the electoral system because political accountability is nonexistent. What is now at stake is far more than the fate of a political party, but more urgently the fate of almost 60-million South Africans.

• Mbatha is an ANC veteran, academic, author, diplomat and a former adviser to presidents Motlanthe and Ramaphosa.