African independence, the leadership of the ANC and the Communist Party of Cuba: A response to William Gumede
29 April 2016
On Friday, 22 April 2016 the African Independent carried a piece by the newspaper’s Associate Editor, Chairman of the Democracy Works Foundation, Mr William Gumede. Gumede’s piece, titled “The Cuban and SA leaders are floundering in the modern world”, levels a number of controversial and at worst baseless allegations against Cuba, the Communist Party of Cuba (CPC) and the African National Congress (ANC). But his criticism of the CPC and the ANC is not scientific. Rather he is advancing the ideology of liberalism relating to party political, state and economic organisation, respectively. He masked this in the name of “genuine democracy”, which he then prescribes for the CPC, the Cuban society and the ANC.
What is even of a greater concern is that Gumede’s piece is based on incorrect conception of the struggle of the Cuban people and the CPC, and the ANC in South Africa. He presents a wrong understanding of the principles of organisation of both the CPC and the ANC. A response was therefore necessitated. But there was no reply to my request for space from the editors of the African Independent for a different perspective based on correct information drawn from direct participant interactions with the Cuban people as well as direct participant observations in the ANC.
To reduce the struggle of the Cuban people to the struggle against the United States’ (U.S’) economic blockade of Cuba – which began on 19 October 1960 following the Cuban revolution of 1 January 1959 – is unjust to the true course of the struggle of the Cuban people as fought under the leadership of the CPC and its predecessors. Similarly, to reduce the struggle of the South African people and the ANC narrowly to the struggle against apartheid – which as we know it was enacted after the 28 May 1948 racist elections were won by the National Party – is unjust to the true course of the historical mission of the struggle of the South African society as fought under the leading role of the ANC and its preceding forms of organisation of our people.
Incorrect premises reflecting on social change, as it happens in Gumede’s “The Cuban and SA leaders are floundering in the modern world”, are more often than not bound to lead to wrong conclusions in the same way as diagnoses gone wrong lead to incorrect prescriptions.
Gumede’s baseless allegations levelled against the CPC and the ANC must all be dismissed, for example he alleges that “increasing numbers of ANC leaders have treated the constitution, democratic institutions and ordinary citizens with contempt”.
When South Africa’s current constitution was adopted in 1996, the first democratic in the history of the country ever, the ANC had 252 seats forming 62.6% of decisive majority in the National Assembly. Without the support of the ANC and first and foremost the struggle of our people and the leading role played in it by the ANC in alliance with the South African Communist Party (SACP), as South Africa we would not be having the current constitution. Serious considerations and compromises had to be made during the negotiations leading to the constitution in the 1990s, with the understanding that our national democratic revolution will not completed at one stroke. By providing for its own amendment, Sections 44 and 74 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act NO. 108 of 1996) make it clear that the document must not be monumentalised. By its democratic nature, the constitution must be responsive to the needs of our society, including social transformation and development goals for which our struggle was founded.
Above all, there is no political party that is to be found on the ballot in South Africa that can match the record of the ANC – with its majority as entrusted by our people in successive democratic elections since the first in 1994 – in implementing the constitution. A narrow reading of the constitution wants us to ignore this record, including human rights and massively increased access to housing, healthcare, education at all levels, drinkable water (and energy, i.e., e.g. electrification), social welfare, etc. Of course, many of these achievements benefiting millions of our people from the ANC’s record in implementing the constitution are not important in the eyes of some well-off people – of whom there are sections including liberals pursuing “genuine democracy” that opposed the inclusion of socio-economic rights in the constitution.
“Genuine democracy”
The struggle for national self-determination fought for by the Cuban people predates both the U.S. economic blockade of Cuba and breakdown of diplomatic relations between the governments of the two countries. The Cuban people fought for independence from Spanish colonialism and imperialist exploitation. They fought the struggle in national unity. This includes the heroic role played by people of African descent whose forebears were captured from the continent to be made slaves in Cuba under Spanish oppression.
In order to safeguard the economic interests of its bourgeoisie in Cuba, the U.S. sent its forces to fight Spain only at the time when the Cubans themselves were near to victory. The U.S. has a history of entering wars during their final phase and claiming victory over and above the people who have done most of the fighting. This it did both in the First and Second World War. At the end of the Spanish-American War in the late 1890s, Cuba became independent, but the U.S. asserted imperialist control over its economy.
Gumede’s argument that the national unity of the Cuban people derives its origins and durability due to the struggle against the economic blockade of Cuba by the U.S. is therefore incorrect. All other conclusions he arrives at from this wrong premise, such as the idea that the national unity of the Cuban people will come to an end with the “normalisation” of relations between the governments of the U.S. and Cuba have no material basis in the history of the Cuban revolution.
The liberal imperialist desire, from which Gumede’s “logic” can be traced, that the unity of the Cuban people will end with the “normalisation” of relations between the governments of Cuba and the U.S., was actually enunciated by U.S. President Barack Obama on 17 December 2014. In his statement announcing the process to “normalise” relations with Cuba, Obama said: “I do not believe we can keep doing the same thing for over five decades and expect a different result”. That is, he said, “…to push Cuba toward collapse”, referring to the U.S. policy of regime change in Cuba. Instead of genuine normalisation of relations with Cuba, Obama made it clear that his administration was only changing the strategy with the goal remaining the same. Gumede’s liberal picking and choosing are aloof from this reality.
The bourgeoisie who are pushing the agenda of liberalism from which they benefit privately would like us to conceive genuine democracy as the requirements of the accumulation of wealth on a capitalist basis politically dictated to other countries by imperialist states currently led by whoever happens to be the U.S. President. In fact, rather than genuine democracy, successive U.S. governments including the current Obama administration constitute regimes of international dictatorship. Their modus operandi consists basically in dictating to other countries how they should conduct their internal affairs, organise their governments and run their economies. Gumede’s “logic” and his idea of “genuine democracy” reflect precisely the same mindset.
Libya was physically bombed out of existence by the U.S. and its NATO allies following the same “logic”. Right now, Syria is being destroyed by terrorists, who are supported by the U.S. and its allies. In Cuba, bombs have been placed by U.S. backed terror groupings which have killed and maimed innocent people, and have even brought down an aeroplane killing all passengers on board. Obama’s own speech of 17 December 2014 admits failure to achieve regime change in Cuba among others through the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion working together with terrorist groupings. The U.S. is illegally occupying the Cuban territory of Guantanamo Bay and has notoriously been using it as a centre of some of the most brutal human rights violations humanity has ever experienced.
Meanwhile, internally in the U.S. the president can be installed against the majority vote in the name of genuine democracy. In 2000 George W. Bush became the fourth of such presidents to be inaugurated while receiving fewer popular votes nationwide than his opponent, in this case, Al Gore.
What is genuine democracy?
To answer this question, let us recall how the current Constitution of the Republic Cuba was adopted:
Two years after George W. Bush was appointed U.S. President against the country’s nationwide majority vote, on 10 June 2002 an unprecedented plebiscitary process emerged in Cuba, making itself the Extraordinary Assembly of various national headquarters of the mass organisations of the people of Cuba and, two days later, through demonstrations and marches held throughout the nation and involving over nine million people (Let us recall that the majority of Cuba’s population are old people due to high life expectancy rate, resulting, among others from a combination of universal access to quality education and healthcare, healthy lifestyle, and low population growth due to family planning. Cuba has a median age of 40.5 est. 2015, compared to South Africa’s 26.5 est. 2015. Cuba’s voting age is NOT 18 but 16). The process culminated in the public, voluntary signing, during the three days from 15-17 June, by a total of 8, 198, 237 voters, of a document ratifying the socialist content of the Cuban constitution. Also signed was the constitutional statement that economic, diplomatic and political relations with other states must not be conducted under aggression, threat or coercion by a foreign power. In an Extraordinary Session on 26 June 2002 convened under this will of the Cuban people, the Assembly passed the relevant resolution (No. V-74) approving this constitutional amendment.
This makes it crystal clear that Gumede, and the U.S., wants Cuba to go against the will of the Cuban people and follow foreign direction in order to be seen to be a genuine democracy. Gumede, like the U.S., would like us to believe that there is no “genuine democracy” in Cuba. Where can we find another source this ideological propaganda?
Among the partners of Gumede’s Democracy Works Foundation is the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) which has links to United States of America’s multi-billionaire George Soros. It is not rocket science to see whose class agenda Soros’ Open Society Foundations and their partners represent.
Four more interrelated points
Firstly, Gumede discusses democratic centralism and says it is the problem of the CPC and the ANC. He writes that: “Democratic centralism is the pillar of decision-making in the ANC (also in the CPC) – leaders make decisions, send commands down the line, and members obey. In such systems, members are not allowed to publicly criticise leaders or the party or expose wrongdoing.”
The example we have presented above, on how the current Cuban constitution was adopted illustrates clearly how the principle of democratic centralism works, contrary to what Gumede would like us to believe. Democratic centralism is a dialectical combination of democracy and centralism. Democracy involves freedom of discussion and where necessary voting, such as it happened in Cuba on the adoption of its current constitution. It follows that centralism involves unity of action based on the decision resulting from freedom of discussion and supported by the majority. Just like in Cuba, all bodies that make decisions are elected bodies and function on the basis of consultation.
Democratic centralism goes hand in hand with the principles of constructive criticism and self-criticism. This gives play to the primary position of people to express their views without fear or favour. Within democratically established organisational discipline and processes, members reserve the right of their primary position not only to expose wrongdoing but also to propose policy changes.
Secondly, Gumede completely ignores structural economic features and realities of the world economy and their impact on South Africa and Cuba. In summary, he wants people to believe that the economic challenges experienced by Cuba and South Africa – both of which he distorts – are due to the leadership of the CPC and the ANC. In addition, he ignores the historical origins and development of the economic challenges experienced by both countries.
Economic growth in many countries of the world including the U.S. and European countries plummeted following the structural crisis of the world system of capitalism. Both South Africa and Cuba are faced with powerful imperialist forces directly acting against the will of the people of both countries. This is also the experience of people in much of the countries of the global South that suffered from colonialism. After democratic breakthroughs to independence, most of these countries found themselves in a situation where their economies were under the control of foreign monopoly capital.
This is why in South Africa we are talking about the need for a second, more radical phase of our democratic struggle towards complete liberation and economic and social emancipation. This is not just a national struggle. In the same way as the struggle against colonialism, the second, more radical phase is by its character an international struggle. It is a struggle against imperialism, which is a regime of international editorship and exploitation of the national economies of the dominated countries.
African independence will only become complete after the continent has achieved freedom from imperialist exploitation and domination, or any form of foreign interference or manipulation. The same applies to the independence of the peoples of Latin America and Asia whose countries were colonised and continue to face the problem and threat of imperialism.
Thirdly, Gumede ignores the impact of the continuing U.S. economic blockade on Cuba. The blockade is extra-territorial in its scope. It affects more countries than Cuba alone. It involves more countries than just the U.S. alone. Related to this, on the one hand most of Europe has actually ceded control of many aspects of its foreign policy to the U.S. The affected countries follow, and in most instances automatically, and even against the will of their people, what the U.S. as the centre of imperialism does or instructs them to do. On the other hand, most of the former colonised countries have limited capacity to withstand the international dictatorship of the U.S. and its satellites. They are therefore mindful of punishment by the U.S-led imperialist forces that dominate the world economy, politics and military. As a result of the illegal U.S. economic blockade, they have limited trade and investment relations with Cuba.
But then how do we judge an economy? Do we judge it by the amount of money made by capitalists? Do we judge by the number of luxury goods available? Or do we judge it by service to the people?
According to the United Nations Fund for Children’s 2015 report titled ‘Progress for Children: A report card on Nutrition’, released at the United Nations (UN) Headquarters located in the U.S., Cuba has 0% of Child Malnutrition – in contrast to the existence in the developing world of 146 million children under five years old who are underweight. Cuba is the only country in Latin America that does not have child malnutrition.
The Cuban people receive free quality education from crèche through all college and university levels, and this is guaranteed in the Cuban constitution.
Cuba has one of the world’s highest life expectancy rates. According to the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs’ report titled ‘World Population Prospects, The 2015 Revision’, on July 2014, at 78.50, Cuba’s life expectancy was approximately the same as that of the U.S. – world’s dominant economy and superpower.
Cuba’s child mortality rate is however lower than that of the U.S., meaning that there are fewer children under the age of five who die in Cuba than in the U.S.
Cuba is offering free quality healthcare which is mainly based on prevention rather than cure.
Cuba is very advanced in biotechnology and genetic engineering. It has a significant number of patents registered in the U.S. and elsewhere. Many countries across the world have not reached the level attained by Cuba in this field.
The U.S. did not end its illegal blockade of Cuba, despite that the U.S. President, in this case Obama, has executive powers to remove many of its draconian contents. Instead, in line with his strategy to change only the tactics but leave the U.G. regime change agenda on Cuba intact, he mainly eased propaganda facilitating aspects of diplomatic relations, such as in the areas of travel and information flow. Considering this and the overall negative impact and continuing scope of the U.S. blockade on Cuba, we must ask:
Are Cuba’s achievements the results of economic failure or economic resilience/success?
Also, the reason why we vote for the government is that it has a role to play, including in terms national planning, as opposed to the rejection of this approach by Gumede and his like. What type of a genuinely democratic government functions without planning, and without a plan?
Surely we are not voting only for the private sector to exploit the masses of the people and run the show as if there is no government, all in the name of genuine democracy.
What we need, in addition to a democratic government that plays its role, is genuine democracy in the economy primarily involving an end to exploitation of the labour of others for the profit of a few and the super profits of a very few like George Soros!
A lack of genuine democracy is actually concentrated in the economy in countries such as South Africa. In most of the former colonised countries, democracy was only achieved at the level of the superstructure – in this case mainly the government. There was no democracy achieved in the economy, which is where, in its essence, the liberal “logic” pushed by Gumede and his like is opposed to the introduction of democracy in the name of “genuine democracy”. The dictatorship of private interests and monopoly capital in the economy has been used in many former colonised countries to act against, or even reverse, the achievement made by national liberation struggles, of democratic governments.
Just before the last point there is one more allegation made by Gumede that cannot be left unattended. He wants us to believe that the Cuban leadership is socially distant from the Cuban people. I have not been in Cuba in the last three months. But in 2015 I was in Cuba, twice on separate occasions. With all due respect the picture Mr Gumede presents is largely fictitious and sounds like another regurgitation of U.S. propaganda on Cuba.
Lastly, the arguments about technology that Gumede makes about Cuba are unrelated to the truth. I have attended training in Cuba with firsthand experience about access to technology. The truth is that the U.S. has blocked access from Cuban territory to large sections of the internet.
Alex Mohubetswane Mashilo is SACP Spokesperson writing in his capacity as Professional Revolutionary
This article first appeared in the SACP’s journal, Umsebenzi Online
