New tendencies and organisational discipline in Mass Democratic Movement Part 1.

From the onset, we must mention that this brief article could either provoke or be uninteresting to some while politically educational and exciting to others. Its main intention is to attempt to remind comrades and sensitize new members about our organisational discipline.  However it is not aimed at pleasing empty political-egos of the so-called "senior-comrades." 

Hence we would have achieved our intention if this article excites some while provoking others. The background for penning down this brief article is informed by our observation of new tendencies that have emerged with the Alliance in general and the African National Congress in particular since we attained political freedom.    

Some of these new tendencies include although not limited to: the creation of bogus branches and membership for the purposes of being voting fodders/cows, substitution and the relegation of political logic and robust but comradely debates to name-calling, insults and political blackmail like "babekuphi lababantu sisemzabalazweni"[1]; blind loyalty to individuals; politics of money and greedy; members of other members; marginalisation of politically-clear cadres in favour of (politically weak) new members who are easy prey for manipulation; the use of the organisation to accumulate wealth and, as David Masondo, "to overcome personal inconveniences such as unemployed etc."

Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe, referring to these new tendencies as "sins of incumbency", argues that "some of these challenges are issues such as social distance between the governors and the governed; bureaucratic elitism; arrogance of power; careerism; venality and corruption; moral and ideological degeneration among the rank and file; and use of state institutions to fight inner-party battles."

He therefore correctly concludes that "our task is to identify these challenges through political education that elevates a particular branch of historical consciousness we have imbibed from our past."

Time and space limitations would not allow us to concretely and sufficiently analyse the source of these new tendencies.  It however suffices to mention that these tendencies give practical expression to Oliver Tambo's warning that "the biggest enemy of the African National Congress is within...(it) wears the same revolutionary t-shirts, sings the same songs (sometimes louder than all of us) and speaks the same revolutionary language (sometimes knows it better than us). This enemy reminds us of the point that what "sounds more revolutionary is normally counter-revolutionary." 

It is partially this and other reasons that make it difficult to fight against this enemy in defence of the soul of the revolutionary movement and organisational discipline.

By the way, where do all of these new tendencies locate organisational discipline? Well, we also do not know and perhaps the readers of this brief article can assist us.  However what we know- as a matter of political history- is that the failure to constantly remind one another about what is organisational discipline. 

Additionally, the failure to correct "mistaken ideas" within the broader liberation movement as led by the African National Congress will make all of us guilty of failing to ensure that we close ranks and do not prioritise unity at the expense of organisational discipline. 

Organisational discipline organisation requires us to understand that we voluntarily joined the organisation as individuals and not as a group.  Hence, upon signing the membership form, we subjected our individuality to the collective. 

We agreed to respect and defend the structures, the Constitution and other duly adopted policy positions of the movement.  And we will carryout any tasks given to us without any intention to benefit materially or otherwise. 

It must be noted that remaining part of the collective does take away our right to air our views without fear of favour in correct platforms.  Our views must be consistent with the principles, aims and objectives of the mass democratic movement. 

While we have a right to influence and be influenced but once a majority decision has been taken everybody, including those that had a different view, shall be abide and support such a democratically taken decision. 

It is equally important to mention that lower structures are subjected to (and not subjects of) higher structures through democratic engagement and not through centralisation of democracy.  In summary this is called democratic centralism.

Democratic centralism is like an umbilical cord that holds our movement together through ensuring that the diversity of views strengthens it.  Democracy within the organisation requires central guidance which is different from centralising it or abusing democratic centralism.  To this end the organisation must do the following as noted by Chair Mao:

"(a) The leading bodies of the Party must give a correct line of guidance and find solutions when problems arise, in order to establish themselves as centres of leadership; (b) The higher bodies must be familiar with the life of the masses and with the situation in the lower bodies so as to have an objective basis for correct guidance; (c) No Party at any level should make casual decisions in solving problems. Once a decision is reached, it must be firmly carried (when circumstances permit) and to assign people.... (e) The lower bodies of the Party...must discuss the higher bodies' directives in detail in order to understand their meaning thoroughly and decide on the methods of carrying them out."

To conclude, the above does not only capture the manner in which this new tendencies could be dealt with internally but it also reminds us about what the organisation can do to ensure that organisational discipline is maintained without making members to be uncritical zombies who follow factional or individual leader's line which is normally presented as an unquestionable decision/s of higher structures.

Thembinkosi "Guerrilla" Zondi, Kz221 ward 3 ANC branch Secretary and a former ANCYL branch Secretary writing in his own personal capacity.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter

[1] Loosely translated to mockingly mean: where were you when we were struggling. It's very ironic and un-dialectical that this line assumes that the struggle is over hence those who emerged and joined the struggle after 1994 are not in the struggle just because we are no longer expected to shoot through firearms but we are shooting through the pen and paper because of the new terrain of the struggle or inevitable changing material conditions.