The aftermath of the news that the ANC NDC has decided to expel Julius Malema from the ANC has been met with a heavy sense of ambivalence, depending on which side you stand in the unfolding political developments in the country. Understandably, those who pledged their undying love and loyalty for Julius Malema came up guns blazing in defence of their leader.
Some of the Eastern Cape YL leaders even took it further by threatening a youth violent revolt against the ANC NDC decision. In Limpopo things took a violent turn with clashes between the supporters of Julius and those gatvol with his leadership. The whole fury and excitement was expected in a sense, given the military and dictatorial posture that Julius has adopted over the years.
On Sunday 4th of March 2012, the ANCYL leadership convened a Special NEC meeting in response to these developments. On Monday 05 of March the ANCYL leadership convened a media briefing that effectively rejected the outcomes of the ANC NDC process. The reason for this rejection was said to be that the ANC NDC instituted a disciplinary process on the basis of politically motivated charges against the leadership of the ANCYL, thus persecuting them.
Accordingly, this, if it were true, should effectively nullify the entire disciplinary process because the constitution of the ANC clearly rejects any disciplinary process instituted to settle political scores. But well, things do not always turn out the way we wish. Or do they?
Surprisingly, in the same media briefing the ANCYL leadership also indicated that they will appeal the sentence meted by the ANC NDC against Julius and other leaders. This, in my view, stands in direct contrast to their earlier rejection of the entire NDC process given political motives behind it. Why then appeal a sentence of a politically motivated NDC process that you do not recognise is baffling to say the least.
In my view the leadership of the ANCYL squandered an important opportunity as they met on the 04th of March to consider the expulsion of Julius from the ANC. This special NEC meeting to me should have been used frankly to analyse not only the political forces aligned against the ANCYL, but to also pin-point areas where we might have committed mistakes and be ready to acknowledge these. Where we were wrong as the ANCYL, the ANCYL NEC collective should have admitted that to the ANC and the public in general.
We should have honestly and objectively exposed the contribution of the concerned ANCYL leaders to the current predicament. Truth be told, Julius Malema contributed significantly in the ANC NDC's decision to expel him from the ANC. As to where the other members of the ANCYL NEC were when Julius made reckless and provocative statements even after he was slapped with a five year suspension (which culminated in his recent expulsion) is a difficult question to fathom.
The ANCYL NEC should have cautioned Julius not to openly challenge the movement to do whatever it felt about his ill-discipline within the ANC. After the NDCA verdict the ANCYL NEC should have advised Julius that, as he was going back to the NDC to present mitigation factors, he needed to show remorse and apologise publicly to the ANC because the NDCA did not change the guilty verdict imposed earlier by the NDC. The fact that on numerous occasions after the NDCA verdict he seemed to define himself outside the constitutional framework of the ANC should have alarmed the NEC of the ANCYL to rein him in.
That the ANCYL leadership failed to do this displays a clear lack of tactical prowess on their side. This also hints to the level sycophancy and uncritical approach the ANCYL NEC adopts towards Julius. Their outbursts and war talk after the fact of Julius's expulsion can have catastrophic possibilities.
In my view, the recent Special NEC meeting of the ANCYL should have devised a strategy to soften the mother-body (ANC), instead of an open rebellion and defiance because, whether we like it or not, the ANC has ownership and overall political authority over the ANCYL despite the latter's autonomy. This should not be construed to propagate kowtowing whatever the ANC decides about the ANCYL.
The fact is that leaders of the ANCYL have been duly found guilty of serious misconduct by the mother-body's (ANC) disciplinary processes and we ought to respect and respond appropriately to that. For the ANCYL leadership to decide to deepen the crisis by defying and instigating rebellion against the ANC decisions is a miscalculation of the worst order.
Considered objectively, it is a fact that no genuine member of the ANC has an interest of going back to the experiences and excesses (or even worse) of the months that preceded the ANC Polokwane Conference in 2007. To want to take us back to that era is a treasonable offence justly punishable by expulsion from the ANC and/or from the ANCYL. This principle should apply to all of us without exceptions.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a healthy discussion, engagement and lobbying on the question of the kind of leadership we need as the movement in this 21st Century phase of our National Democratic Revolution. Such a discussion should always be premised on the current challenges and opportunities presented by this phase because problems will always arise whenever we premise the discussion about ANC leadership on the names of individuals.
After all this year is an important year in the life of the ANC as it celebrates its hundred (Centenary) years of existence. This is important in many fronts because the ANC will also be going to its policy Conference in June and to the National Conference in December this year. Unless we all observe maximum discipline and restraint as we pay homage to this giant African National Liberation Movement of Oliver Tambo, we cannot say it for certain that the ANC will survive many more years after its Centenary.
Mzukisi Makatse is a member of the ANC and ANCYL. He writes in his personal capacity
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
