We should have no illusions about the political forces that have been at play since the ANC's Polokwane conference in December last year - and that culminated three weeks ago in President Mbeki's precipitate departure from office.
At Polokwane a coalition led by the SACP, COSATU and others opposed to President Mbeki, assembled 824 (20%) more delegates than President Mbeki - and were thus able to seize control of the ANC (see here). In participating in the putsch the SACP and COSATU were not acting as members of the ANC, but in their capacities as a separate political party and a trade union confederation. Zwelinzima Vavi made no secret of COSATU's intention of winning ‘the battle for the heart and soul of the ANC' - and the SACP states openly that its 12th Congress ‘quite deliberately sought to influence and impact upon the critical ANC 52nd National Conference.'
Because control over the ANC gave them the power to dismiss any recalcitrant ANC MP from Parliament, their victory also gave them de facto power over the legislative and executive branches of the government. Since then, the new ANC leadership, in which the SACP and COSATU play a prominent role, has dictated who should be ‘deployed' as premiers of our provinces; which policies should be adopted by Parliament; and who our president should be.
All South Africans - and particularly traditional members of the ANC - should be deeply concerned over these developments. Classic communist theory prescribes a two-phased revolution: first, a national liberation phase under the leadership of the ‘national liberation movement' (the ANC) - which, as the 'vanguard party', leads a broad national coalition to the achievement of national liberation. During the second phase, the communist party is supposed to assume the role of ‘vanguard party' and lead the country to the establishment of socialism and ultimately of communism. The true significance of Polokwane may be that the SACP now regards itself as the ‘vanguard party'. At its policy conference in Johannesburg recently, Secretary-General Blade Nzimande, spoke of the necessity of strengthening the party's ‘vanguard party' role and made no secret of its intention - together with COSATU, of ‘hegemonising state power' on behalf of the working class.
The Policy Conference considered the relationship between ‘the Party and State Power' and made announcements of which all South Africans (and particularly ANC members) should take careful note. It called for a ‘reconfigured alliance' that would henceforth provide strategic leadership of the National Democratic Revolution (the Alliance's core ideological programme). It proposed the establishment of an Alliance Political Council ‘to oversee broad political issues, including policies, popular mobilization, governance challenges and deployments.' The Council would meet regularly and would comprise the top six leaders of the ANC; the top five leaders of the SACP; and the top six leaders of COSATU.
This proposed shift in the balance of power within the Alliance is in line with the recent demand by the Young Communists League that the SACP, COSATU and the ANC should each have one third of the names on the ANC's electoral list. (In fact, the SACP has already almost reached this target: it has 80 of its members in Parliament - 20% of the total and 30% of the ANC's parliamentary caucus).
The SACP evidently wants to expand this role and give its parliamentary caucus its own distinctive voice and identity. According to Comrade Nzimande, the SACP would like to see ‘increased participation and presence of communists in all legislatures, so that the voice of the communist party is felt at levels which are important'. The Conference called for ‘increased visibility of communists' on the (ANC's) final electoral lists. It wanted ‘a delegated contingent of elected representatives who, on appropriate occasions, speak directly for the SACP (despite the fact that they would have been elected on an ANC list).
The SACP also proposed that the Alliance should establish deployment committees at all levels, from the national to local, to decide on the appointment of cadres to all posts (presumably including all political, government, public service and state corporation posts). According to Nzimande, the SACP would have to develop mechanisms for communist deployees in all spheres to be accountable to the party (rather than to the ANC). This would prevent a recurrence of the problems that it experienced in the past with deployees - like Alec Erwin - who did not toe the party line on issues such as privatisation.
The SACP and COSATU would achieve all this without having to win a single vote in their own names during the election next year. Not surprisingly, Comrade Nzimande observed that the struggle for state power need not always be pursued through elections. Although elections were important, there was not a ‘pre-determined singular route for the working class (i.e. the SACP and COSATU) to hegemonise state power.' Another route would, of course, be the route that the SACP has evidently chosen: 1) enter into an alliance with the most popular party; 2) reconfigure the alliance so that the SACP and COSATU control the key decision-making processes, including the deployment committee; and 3) deploy SACP/COSATU cadres throughout the system and ensure that they are accountable to the SACP/COSATU!
There is a very good reason why the SACP and COSATU will decide not to fight future elections under their own names. According to an IPSOS MARKINOR survey conducted in April 2007 only 8% of South Africans (and 5% of ANC supporters) would vote for a breakaway SACP/COSATU party. So, we have a situation where a party with only 5% of ANC support controls 30% of its seats and - together with COSATU - played a crucial role at Polokwane in seizing effective control of the ANC - and thus of the state.
All of this constitutes a serious threat to our democratic institutions. One of the founding principles of our Constitution calls for ‘universal adult franchise, a national common voters roll, regular elections and a multiparty system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.' ‘Accountability, responsiveness and openness' require that parties should contest elections under their own names and on the basis of their own policies. It is unacceptable that parties - with clearly distinct identities, policies, philosophies and agendas - should insinuate themselves into parliament and into power under the guise of other parties.
Voters have a right to know that when they cast their votes for the ANC they are actually not voting for the ANC but for an alliance in which the SACP and COSATU clearly plan to play the dominant role. They will, in effect, be voting for the ascendancy of the SACP - a party that still believes that Marxism-Leninism is the solution to all mankind's problems.
Dave Steward is the Executive Director of the FW de Klerk Foundation. This article first appeared in the Foundation's online newsletter, October 13 2008
Click here to sign up to receive the Politicsweb headlines in your inbox every morning
