Paul Trewhela proposed answer to the question raised by Thula Bopela is fallacious!
Perhaps similar to a driver who nicely starts a car but fails to change the gears thus losing control and focus, Paul Trewhela's attempted response to the question raised by Cde Thula Bopela (see ANC Today issue of the 25th of November 2011) does exactly the same thing (i.e. it starts off nicely but then misses the point or looses focus along the way). Paul correctly starts by acknowledging the relevance and importance of the question posed by the veteran, Thula Bopela as a positive contribution to the "...national debate on a most critical issue" (Trewhela, 2011).
For instance, he directly quotes Cde Bopela's question and for the benefit of those who might have missed it, the citation is captured as follows: "joining the ANC in the 60s demanded service and sacrifice. It was something far greater than the people who joined it. The ANC now has become a vehicle to power and wealth...Can the ANC redeem itself from the malady that afflicts it today, the malady of self-aggrandizement?" (Thula Bopela, 2011 cited in Trewhela, 2011).
Paul admits that the comments at the foot of the Bopela's article indicates that there could be "many different responses to this question" (see here). Paul then attempts not only to (mis)diagnose the source of the problem that could have prompted Cde Bopela's relevant question but he also tries, with very limited success if any exists at all, to propose the way forward in terms of the how the "the ANC [can] redeem itself from the malady that afflicts it today, the malady of self-aggrandizement".
As any first year doctor could tell you that a misdiagnoses would certainly result in a prescription of the wrong medication which could be more fatal that the initial symptoms of a sickness. In the same logic, or should I say common sense, Paul, for example, misdiagnoses the source of the problem as having to do with some of, what we call, strategic or calculated compromises made during covert discussions between the National Party and the Peoples Movement (African National Congress).
To illustrate, Paul argues that "...the malady of self-aggrandizement was as inevitable as the change of seasons, once the ANC and the National Party in secret discussions during formulation of the Interim Constitution removed constituency accountability from the proposed Electoral Law, and set in place the despotic instrument of the party-list. At that instant, the first principle of Freedom Charter- "The people shall govern!"- was compromised. No means was provided in the Electoral Law by which the people, the meaning definite local communities, could hold each and every elected politician to account" (see politics web, 29 November 2011).
Therefore, concludes Paul in a form of a way forward, "the remedy is a movement for Reform. What was made badly in the interim Constitution and the Constitution of 1996 should be repaired, and reformed, so as to place power where it should always have belonged, in the hands of definite bodies of local people, organized in wards or constituencies. Whether these should cover this or that proportion of seats, or provide for single-member or multi-member constituencies, should become the subject of national discussion and debate. No better subject in the ANC's centennial year!" (Politicsweb, 29 November 2011).
With all due respect to Paul but let us help him by firstly restating the obvious that Karl Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto observed that "the history of all hitherto existing society is but the history of class struggle...between the oppressor and the oppressed...and this struggle could either end in the common ruin of both contending forces or the reconstitution of the whole society". This struggle is mainly about the control of the means of production and the subsequent political and otherwise processes (emphasis mine).
In the same logic, the current South Africa is a product of a bitter struggle between progressive forces against many years of apartheid colonialism. Put simply, the careful reading of the South African history will reveal that since the arrival of the first Dutch settlers in South Africa, there has always been a struggle against settlers and the natives. Moreover, elementary politics teaches us and that racism has always been used to justify the settler's "accumulation (of wealth) by dispossession", as David Harvey noted, and a privileged position enjoyed by those who had a white skin.
Consequently, Black people were discriminated from enjoying and benefiting from the country's wealth and Laws were later enacted by the exclusively white government to formalize racial oppression and ensure that "black (people remain) hewers of wood and drawers of water, as Pixley Ka-Seme had observed. Generally, both black men and women were oppressed firstly on the basis of their skin color and secondly because of their social status or position. However women suffered what has been known as "triple oppression".
Triple oppression means that women were firstly oppressed because of their race, secondly gender and lastly because of their class or ‘socio-economic' status or location. It is important to note that sexism has no regard for skin color hence white women also suffered from sexism although lesser than black women. Those who were living with disabilities irrespective of skin color were also excluded from participating in both socio-economic and political processes. Hence the strategic objective of the ANC is the creation of a non-racial, non-sexist, democratic and prosperous South African where the color of your skin and ability would not determine your destiny. Accordingly, this was one of the main reasons why the African National Congress had to strongly argue for the adoption of an electoral system that is based on proportional representation (PR) or party-lists electoral system.
Amongst other practical advantages of the PR system is that seats are allocated in proportion to a number of votes received. This affords small political parties, like Minority Front and Freedom Front Plus etc, to also be represented. The party-list also allows political parties to even field ‘minority' candidates, such as women and disabled individuals that would otherwise not be easily voted if they contested as individuals given the negative impact of socialization and history of our society. Another key reason is that party-lists permits even the less resourced but capable individuals to be voted into office through a party-list.
Yes, there could be weaknesses in this system where people such as public representative remaining silent because of perceived or real patronage. Yes some useless public representatives could enjoy protection because of holding senior position in a political party but the PR system is way much better than a Constituency based system. To illustrate, my practical observation is that it is fallacious to reject the party-list (PR) system on the basis that is makes politicians to be only accountable to their senior leaders and not the citizens. The main reason this is that everybody is free to join any ruling party, like the ANC, and thus free to hold its representatives accountable.
Another reason is that institutions such as those provided by Chapter 9 of the South African Constitution, ward committees and public meetings are key platforms where elected politicians could be held accountable. Moreover, the Constituency based system is somehow practiced at the local government level where individuals are also allowed to contests as independent candidates but still there is no tangible proof that the people are able to make these individuals candidates to be more accountable. Instead, where an independent is a ward councilor, there are many stories of him/her not being easily accessible such that some people even approach the ruling Party to report about the lack of accountability of such a person etc. This is not a theoretical debate but a factual observation.
Another problem with the Constituency based system is that independent representative/s become accountable to those who funded their campaigns such as the maxim goes "whoever pays the piper calls the tune". Furthermore, under a Constituency based system, less resourced individual candidates or political parties would be outmaneuvered by those with bigger sources of funding. For example, the US uses the Constituency based system which relies on politics of money and resources which, unfortunately, are key instruments that are mostly accessible to the historically privileged whites in South Africa.
For that reason a call for electoral reforms is not only premature and fallacious but it could simultaneously mean a (sub) consciously agreement that the legacy of apartheid colonialism has accordingly been resolved hence we are now an equal society both de facto and de jure. But we know that this is not only a neo-liberal argument but it is also fallacious as showed in the above paragraphs. However, consistent with Aristotle's correct contention that "a mark of an educated (hu) man is to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it", we are ready to defend Paul's right to express his fallacious imaginations "that are full of sound and fury signifying nothing" as one English writer once observed.
Flowing from the above, Cde Thula Bopela's views remains unshaken by Paul's misdiagnoses of a problem hence a wrong cure. While Cde Thula Bopela could have located "the malady of self-aggrandizement" within the post-colonial challenges faced by all national liberation movements so that we are enabled to better understand its root causes beyond political ‘idealism' or ‘fantasies'. In fact, for some of us Francis Fanons "Pitfalls of National Consciousness" provides a key basis for the correct diagnoses of the source of the culture of "me-first-everybody-else-after" or "self-aggrandizement". Although this is a debate that should be reserved for another day but it could be useful to cite one of Francis Fanon's predictions almost 40 years or so ago.
In one of his polemics, Fanon strongly argues that "after independence, the Party sinks into an extraordinary lethargy...The local Party leaders are given administrative posts, the Party becomes an administration, and militants (read: veterans) disappear into the crowd and take empty title of citizen. Now that they have fulfilled their historical mission...they are firmly invited to retire...After a few years, the break-up if of the Party becomes obvious, and any observer, even the most superficial, can notice that the party, today the skeleton of its former self, only servers to immobilize the people" (Fanon, 1965). Are there any lessons that could be learnt from this observation made by Fanon?
What can we also learn from Fanon's continued argument that "the native bourgeoisie, which has adopted unreservedly and with enthusiasm the ways of thinking characteristic of the mother country, which become wonderfully detached from its own though and has based its consciousness upon foundation which are typically foreign, will realize, with its mouth watering, that it lacks something essential to a bourgeoisies: money". Is there any link between Fanon's perspective and the "self-aggrandizement?". I do not have an absolute answer however I would very appreciate it if both Cde Bopela and Paul could help me in this regard so as to keep the proverbial car in control although it was Paul who lost control after having started off nicely.
As to whether human beings' actions could be ever be motivated by rationality or feelings (doing greater good for the greatest number of people) or personal desire such as glorification or being considered a selfless hero/heroin or future state deployment is, at least for me, equally a philosophical debate for another day. What remains important and relevant now is to note that, as dialectics would concur, our movement must be able to adapt to forever changing material conditions without losing its core values and principles otherwise revolutionary morality will remain an issue raised in political and/or memorial lectures etc.
Equally, as to whether or not the current material conditions, with its glaring notions of conspicuous consumption, "get rich or die trying" and reduction of personal success and development to possession of material stuff, militates against the existence of "stupid members of the ANC", as Cde Bopela said, is also debate for another day. Fact is: Paul is yet to do a concrete analysis of the concrete causes of "self-aggrandizement" until then Bopela's views and the electoral system based on party-lists remains unshaken!
Thembinkosi "Geurrilla" Zondi, Moses Mabhida's KZ221 Ward 3 ANCC branch Secretary writing in his personal capacity.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
