COPE was formed largely by activists who had left the ANC, SACP and COSATU. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with that. Among these are some the most experienced politicians in our land. They all developed in a once proud movement that was by and large democratic, tolerated debate and different viewpoints and had a membership based that worked selflessly and tirelessly for the good of all South Africans. Yet there is also a negative aspect to this legacy. COPE has inherited as many of the bad traits from the national liberation movement as good ones. The party must go through a period of soul-searching and renewal if it is to rid itself of the negative legacy it has inherited.
In the period from 1960 to the present, the national liberation movement had a strong culture of machismo and militarism within it. This was partly due to the circumstances of the movement. Banned and denied the opportunity to engage in legal activities, the organisations that made up the broader movement were driven underground, in to exile and by definition in to illegality. The decision to take up the armed struggle added to this mix a glorification of revolutionary violence. Not all members of these organisations fell for these trends, but many did. Apart from the influence of criminals on the activities of some members and some criminals becoming members of the component organisations of the movement, it was often the case that illegal political activity and illegal criminal activity went hand in hand and side by side.
Coupled with the machismo of "the struggle", too little emphasis was placed on building a culture of tolerance and of compassion. The activities of intelligence structures in the movement, often for genuine reasons but also for the sake of personal interests, fuelled a culture of labeling and accusing people of spying or working for the enemy. Love rivals used these claims against each, as did genuine comrades, as did real agents of the regime.
After the unbanning of the ANC and the setting up of legal structures, the politics of mammon slowly crept in to the organisations. Funding to set up branches, run programs, pay for entertainment and later to fund business ventures was awash in the movement. Often, entire organisations were simply bought to secure nominations and votes for particular candidates. Despite leadership raising these issues, little was done about any of these cultures and they persist today. The crisis of the national liberation movement has been partly fuelled by these negative trends.
When COPE was formed, a commitment was made to do things differently. Patronage, vote buying, rigging of conferences and factionalism were not going to be tolerated. In truth, that promise has not been honoured. As we approach the elective Congress in May, there are many problems that are symptomatic of these same negative characteristics of the national liberation movement. Some branches are clearly paper structures and some interim structures have deliberately acted in a biased fashion, promoting some member's interests and not others. As a result, many genuine members of the party have either left or feel totally marginalised. The leadership nomination process has revealed the factional behaviour of many comrades, with lists of names being circulated without any motivation for the leaders named in these lists. Recent public pronouncements by some interim structures beg the question; what status should such structures have in nominating and voting for leaders. Only the CNC and branches have been duly elected, so these should be the only structures that can nominate and vote. The CNC should refrain from nominating, leaving the process to be driven and guided by the branches. The process must include political motivations for leadership and not simply names that have begun to take on cult like status.
As for the atmosphere of threats and inappropriate language, this must not be tolerated. Talk of "destroying" comrades, of "going to war" against each other have no place in a modern political party. Congresses cannot be treated as end games with "victory or death" as the outcomes. Leaders who use such language should have no place in positions of influence in COPE.
The same goes for funds. These are mobilized and used by individuals and not the party structures. As a result, we see familiar patterns of events, media, entertainment and membership that are concentrated in certain areas and plainly linked to individuals and/or their campaigns.
How do genuine members of COPE counter these negative trends? We must call for guidelines for the nomination and elections of leaders that outlaw patronage, vote buying, factionalism, negative lobbying and intimidation. We must expose these negative patterns of behaviour wherever they rear their ugly head, without fear or favour. Interim structures that try to turn provinces and regions in to "no-go" zones must be disbanded with immediate effect, as must those that promote division and factionalism. There must be a genuine, open and transparent debate on leadership; what criteria are sought after in leaders, what behaviour is expected and what the program and policies these leaders must champion and implement.
No one individual or group of individuals, no matter what their proximity to the founding of COPE and their role in establishing the party, owns this party. COPE was established for the citizens of South Africa, to join or not as is their wish. But they should not join an organization and then sit idly by while members are threatened, intimidated, bribed, bought, funded or promoted for reasons of narrow personal interest, rather than for the interest of the party and its constituency.
Phillip Dexter is COPE's Head of Communications
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
