Rainbow SA cannot work if its people don’t trust its political system

PONDERING the state of South African politics, many believe that a fresh political alternative is what is needed to invigorate our democracy and put the country back on a sound footing. This school of thought believes the missing ingredient is the quality of the men and women leading our political institutions. They may be right, but is it enough? Even in the context of African National Congress politics there is an obsession with re-educating members in the old traditions of the organisation. This is admirable and may help, but also falls hopelessly short of conceiving what SA will need to grow into a nation leading the world in years to come.

We have a state that battles to complete basic tasks, political elites that often play a deeply polarising role and different sectors of society that are at war with one another. While there is much talk about social dialogue, it largely remains confined to dealing with the trivia of policy. There is no central, uniting idea that makes a powerful emotional connection with citizens from across the social and political spectrum while being sufficiently realistic to translate into tangible actions.

But why are we in such a state of listlessness?

Among several reasons, the most central is the manner in which post-1994 South African society has been organised.

We are bound together by a constitution whose most critical provisions are largely rejected or misunderstood by many South Africans. The death penalty would be likely to be reinstated in a referendum and the state would be given the power to confiscate land without compensation and give it to black people. There are also many who see homosexuality as an abomination and would not protest too much if gay South Africans were afforded less rights than those of heterosexual location. There are also those who wish the executive or legislature could overrule the judiciary.

There is a professed belief in fighting all forms of discrimination such as racism, sexism and others. We do badly at fulfilling this promise too — with even those in the corridors of power and influence displaying a particularly hypocritical streak.

Depending on the audience they address, or whether or not they are in the company of their ilk, they will verbalise vile racism, sexism and homophobia.

With such attitudes towards the constitution, there is little or nothing that binds the country together into a coherent nation.

As economic and social circumstances become more challenging for many South Africans, polarisation is common in particular along racial and class lines.

It is not unusual for powerful political entrepreneurs to launch self-serving, acerbic attacks on the black middle class for daring to comment unfavourably about the ruling elite. It is also common for the same politicians to launch racially charged attacks on so-called white capital while accepting back-handers in the form of lucrative business opportunities from the same purported enemy.

They use their proximity to power in the ruling party and the state as a lever to gain access to these opportunities, while fooling the public into believing they are in a war on behalf of the poorer classes.

In short, the convergence point of political, business and social interest of the elite is nothing more than a marketplace in which influences get traded for personal gain under the guise of social consensus. This situation is unsustainable and needs to change if this country is to achieve the level of the cohesion required to make great strides in social, scientific and economic development.

The national philosophical endeavour the country should strive for is a clear set of ideas which sets out what the country and its people should aspire to be, the institutions needed to support these ideas and what ethos such institutions should follow.

These should form the basis of a strong national philosophical centre to which most sectors in society feel drawn.

As a result, the areas of extreme disagreement between different social sectors would be few, and so would those who take extreme positions on critical issues.

Such a broad consensus greatly reduces attempts by different sectors and actors to delegitimise critical institutions that are meant to weld this country together.

Such behaviour is destructive and sends a worrying message that institutions of state are to be respected only when they agree with certain political or ideological interests.

SA’s philosophical foundation should also go as far as trying to describe the archetypal South African which young people should aspire to being. It must inculcate strong open democratic values, solid ethical foundations, individual care for the other, and an attitude to work and success that results in a powerful national competitive spirit with no patience for laziness, mediocrity and the prevalent culture of entitlement.

To succeed, such an endeavour needs a strong political figure and centre whose charisma and gravitas appeal across class and race, and whose personal ethos resonates with the majority of South Africans.

They must have the ability and confidence to surround themselves with men and women of significant intellectual depth so they can successfully articulate the vision and transform it into practical ideas citizens find easy to understand and support.

We have to pursue this because a society such as ours, which is held together by a constitution we hardly understand, often disagree with and whose institutions are being destroyed by the very people meant to protect and strengthen them, is untenable.

The grand plans contained in the National Development Plan will not be realised when different sectors continue to work to destroy each other and there is no central, uniting idea that helps South Africans overcome some of their narrow interests for greater national and social good.

Countries ruled by benign dictatorships have managed to walk this path with a degree of success.

SA is a democracy in which people cannot be forced to participate in things they do not wish to support, in particular where the poverty of the ideas behind them is so apparent.

That is why this must be premised on winning the trust and confidence of the population, and on the production of evidence that what is being espoused is the right thing — and that it will succeed.

This confidence can arise only from trust in the political system and its actors, which is glaringly absent right now.

Many have warned that SA is sitting on a powder keg. Increasingly, people are retreating to racial and ideological laagers whose premise is making others the problem. There is much talk about “change”, but this means vastly different things to different people. Even when some political change materialises, it will be as hotly contested as the status quo, absorbing and dissipating energy that should otherwise go to a focused, nationbuilding effort grounded in ideas and strong, respected institutions.

The first step for SA is to recognise that the status quo is a transitional arrangement whose destination is unclear and needs urgent definition.

To reach its ultimate goals, it will have to dispense with a lot of what is now familiar and make a fresh start. That is as hard and long a journey as it gets, but not to start would be a tragedy in the making.

Opinion: Songezo Zibi: Midrand Group.

Source: Business Day

Is the ANC in a decline it cannot reverse?

Songezo Zibi

Sunday Independent

29 January 2012

The centennial celebrations of the African National Congress provide an opportunity to reflect on what the future holds for the organisation. Of course the emotion accompanying the invocation of history, both proud and painful, raises the question of whether it is possible to offer a dispassionate appraisal of the future meaning of the ANC. Yet it is necessary that we do so in order that we may not fall into the folly of overplaying the hand of historical credibility, or succumbing to the cynicism that arises out of the ANC’s long incumbency in government.

While millions of South Africans probably have hundreds of reasons why they accepted wholeheartedly the ANC’s leadership during the struggle and after 1994, there are a few on which there appears to be general agreement. The most central is the extent to which the character and ethos of the ANC was representative of the best aspirations of the broad spectrum of South African society. Both in its policy enunciations and in the exemplary behaviour of its leaders and members, South Africans saw in the ANC a representation of their highest ideals. As part of our reflection, we have to ponder whether this still holds true.

Character relates to behaviour, effectively leading by example. Leadership by its nature triggers both careful and casual observation of the behaviour of leaders within and outside their official context. That is why it matters a lot to church congregants whether their Pastor is also a hard drinking, womaniser. Equally, it matters greatly to the general community whether the behaviour of the said church’s congregants is considered enough of a good example for the community to accept the collective leadership of the church on relevant matters. 

How has the ANC described the prevailing character of the organisation? The year 2000 discussion document titled ANC – People’s Movement and Agent for Change, notes the development of a trend in which the ANC’s members see leadership positions in the ANC as a pathway to accessing state power and resources. The document states: “within the ANC, the tendency is developing in which positions in government (and the ANC itself) are seen as platforms for acquiring resources and power, and divisions based on this perspective of self-enrichment can be bitter”.

A decade later, the NGC discussion document Tasks of organisation-building and renewal describes the “current situation” in the ANC, which on the face of it, and considering what was outlined in the earlier Through the eye of the needle, appears to indicate progressive degeneration. “And yet, lack of discipline and blatant ill-discipline is becoming a distinct feature of the current situation. Inconsistency in application of rules and reluctance to act against ill-disciplined elements is rife. The leadership is often afraid to take action if this will threaten the prospects of re-election. The culture of our movement is being eroded at a frightening pace.”

In Leadership renewal, discipline and organisational culture, there is a longer list of behaviours considered rife and an antithesis of what the ANC historically stood for. In part the document says: “Since Polokwane (2007, when President Zuma took over), a number of these tendencies have become embedded (my emphasis) and in fact worsened especially as part of the lobbying process.” It goes on to list among others an inability to conduct ANC meetings in an orderly manner, abuse of methods and symbols of the struggle and indecisive leadership. It further states that these and many other stated practices have become a “shadow culture which coexists alongside what the ANC has always stood for”, and that old and new members and leaders are involved.

Given these self-assessments, and the seeming degenerative trend they project, is it still credible to insist that the ANC’s ideals are a reflection of its current character? Does an aspirational goal constitute present reality? Does this not suggest that the character of organisations is separate from the vices of the men who populate and lead them? These questions are critical towards assessing not only the true character of the ANC as it currently exists, but its possibility to lead society in the future.

The question that arises as a result of this is whether the ANC as characterised by the example set by its members and leaders represents the best aspirations of the South African people. We know that in successive elections, the people have voted the ANC overwhelmingly into power. But does this mean the character of the current ANC is reflective of the aspirations of the South African people?

Some have claimed that the ANC is in decline, including its own leaders. Gauteng provincial secretary, David Makhura recently stated that “the ANC is a patient, and it is very sick” in an assessment of the state of the party. COSATU leader Zwelinzima Vavi has used even more startling language, describing an organisation populated by proverbial hyenas and greedy elites. Others like political scientist, Dr Mzukisi Qobo have stated that it is already dead.

But what do scholars and experts tell us about organisational decline and eventual descent into oblivion? Jim Collins in his lesser celebrated but profound book, How the mighty fall, describes the typical steps into oblivion which are: arrogance born of success, undisciplined pursuit of more, denial of risk or peril, grasping for salvation and succumbing to irrelevance or death. Of these, the ANC, even with its receding intellectual depth, cannot be accused of absolute denial of risk. It has repeatedly announced bold initiatives to turn the decline around. A more pertinent question is whether the measures it purported to put in place have been successful. The increasingly desperate tone of these assessments appears to suggest decisive failure.

But why is it not succeeding? It could be because it has chosen a path of organisational involution. Xiaobo Lu in Cadres and Corruption describes involution thus: “Organisational involution takes place when a ruling party, in dealing with change of environment, opts to retain existing modes and ethos rather than adopt new ones.” He further goes on to explain why symptoms of organisational sickness become difficult to cure under involutionary conditions: “new rules and procedures are often turned into something familiar that bears the imprint of yesteryear.”

What Xiaobo Lu describes can be seen in the ANC. For instance it continues to believe, naively, in the inherent integrity of its members and leaders on the basis of what they swore to when they joined the organisation. This has led to its complete ill-preparedness for the dangers of unchecked ambition and lust for power. The other is the insistence on allowing anyone, no matter how ill-prepared, to run for high office on the basis of making the biggest hollow promises to branches. In a world of crises caused by high finance and complicated economics, any election without minimum qualification standards is outright foolish.

We must therefore ask whether the current state of the ANC as described by itself makes it ready to lead for the next 100 years. We must also question the assertion common among some in its ranks that because it has faced numerous challenges in the past and managed to overcome them, this necessarily suggests it shall again prevail.

Dispassionate examination should show us that the ANC’s ability to overcome serious debilitation was anchored in the intellectual and ethical strength of the leaders it had the consciousness to elect. In addition, in all those instances the ANC did not have to grapple with the challenges of holding state power and having access to vast fiscal and institutional resources. Renewal does not somehow occur. It is the outcome of hard work founded on ethical and moral ethical application and standards of leaders and members of an organisation.

Is the ANC in decline? In addition to the challenges it has already identified, there are others it appears paralysed to talk or do anything which relate to questionable personal behaviour some of its senior leaders because decisive action could cause further divisions. It is simply mind-boggling that the custodian of the finances of the Northern Cape, MEC John Block, retains his job while facing criminal charges of swindling the very State he swore to protect. In KwaZulu Natal, House Speaker Peggy Nkonyeni and MEC Mike Mabuyakhulu will go on trial in October for corruption against the State, yet they retain their positions as if nothing is wrong.

Suggestions seen so far have included the “screening” of new members, but this is fatally flawed. Many wonder how high up this screening would go and how thoroughly it would be applied. Would it for instance include senior leaders whose family members and friends appear to suddenly have found entrepreneurial flair they didn’t have before these leaders occupied high offices in government? Clearly Block, Nkonyeni and Mabuyakhulu among others would fall foul of this screening if found guilty by the courts.

Jim Collins in How the mighty fall says “the path out of darkness begins with those exasperatingly persistent individuals who are constitutionally incapable of capitulation…. Be willing to kill failed ideas (sic), even to shutter big operations you’ve been in for a long time. Be willing to evolve into an entirely different portfolio of activities, even to the point of zero overlap with what you do today, but never give up on the principles that define your culture.” It takes no rocket scientist to realise that any solutions would have to work around the ethical and moral “sensitivities” surrounding some leaders, literally making the whole effort an abortion from the start. Rank and file members would wonder why the new rules apply to some and not others.

Unless it notches up some notable successes with its efforts at renewal, it cannot hope to lead for another 100 years while in perpetual decline. If the erosion of the ANC’s essence continues at this “frightening pace”, a tipping point might be near, which would almost certainly lead to the death of an organisation clearly hobbled by problems it is incapable of solving. That decline means its character increasingly bears little connection with the highest aspirations of South Africans. If that connection reaches its weakest, the ANC will be effectively dead, for no society wants leaders it cannot identify with.

Songezo Zibi is a member of the Midrand Group. A version of this article appeared in the Sunday Independent earlier today.

Source:  Midrand Group