Lekota's choice
Most casual observers of political developments would probably
describe the current situation in a single word: confusion. Many
believe this confusion can be resolved if all opposition parties
converge into a single large party to challenge the ANC's political
dominance. Instead of this happening, they see opposition parties
multiplying, with yet another due to be born on or around the 2nd of
November, when Mosiuoa Lekota holds his National Convention.
Choice is the essence of democracy. The terms "multi-party" and
"democracy" are inseparable. A country cannot be described as a
democracy unless there is a choice between different parties espousing
policy alternatives.
This truth can lead to the fallacious conclusion that the more parties
there are, the more choice there is. In fact, the number of parties on
offer does not automatically translate into more choice.
There is actually a clear choice between only two alternative
political philosophies for South Africa, each of which will take our
country in a fundamentally different direction. These diametrically
opposing options can be described, in summary, as the "open,
opportunity-driven society for all" versus the "closed,
patronage-driven society for some." An analysis of any party in the
South African political landscape shows that it fits within the
framework of one of these alternatives.
The ANC is the archetype of the "closed, patronage-driven party for
some". The defining feature of this kind of party is that the
prospects of each individual are determined by his links and access to
the small leadership network. The leadership promotes and protects the
network (inside and outside the party) and the network, in return,
protects and promotes the leadership. It is a closed circle based on
reinforcing mutual interests. It inevitably results in corruption and
power abuse. Merit and competence are entirely incidental in this kind
of system. The people with prospects are those loyalists who can be
relied upon to extend and entrench the network's control over all
levers of power both inside the party, and throughout society, and
follow its instructions. The approach is known as "the higher law of
the party" which is why Jacob Zuma repeatedly says that the ANC is
more important than the Constitution. He knows what he is saying, and
he means it. The SA Communist Part
y takes the "higher law of the party" to its logical conclusion. They
do not even bother to stand for election, but just secure safe
positions for themselves within the ANC's patronage network so that
they can assume their self-styled role in the "vanguard" of the
patronage movement.
It has to be said that this tendency did not start with Zuma. Thabo
Mbeki's ANC was a demonstration of the closed, patronage-driven
network in action. Its defining feature was the abuse of
constitutional mechanisms by the ruling clique in the ANC, to deploy
its own loyalists to control every state institution, from the SABC to
the National Prosecuting Authority and the police, in order to serve
its own interests, not the people. Cadre deployment was justified by
the "fig leaf" of the ANC's self-serving, crony version of affirmative
action, which was just a convenient moral cover for a sinister
purpose. And the network's tentacles extended into the private sector
through all manner of corrupt schemes (such as Chancellor House), to
entrench the party's influence into the private sector. Business,
increasingly realising that the prospects of winning state tenders
depended on the favour of the network, quickly adapted to a system
that would, if taken to its conclusion, lead to th
e demise of an open, market economy in South Africa. It is noteworthy
that Mosiuoa Lekota never objected to this planned process while Thabo
Mbeki was in power.
Things have changed, at least rhetorically, since the tables were
turned at Polokwane. Having lost his foothold in the power network,
Lekota has spoken out strongly and volubly in favour of the
independence of state institutions, and the supremacy of the
Constitution. Has he undergone a Damascene conversion? This is
possible. After all, there is no quicker way to undergo a conversion
to the philosophy of the "open, opportunity-based society" than losing
power in a "closed, patronage-based society". Most leading members of
the former National Party underwent this conversion, while only a few
followed Marthinus van Schalkwyk in his seamless transition to a new
closed, patronage network inside the ANC.
But the loss of absolute power often leads people, who previously
abused their power, to understand why independent institutions must
check power abuse, and why peoples' life chances should depend on
opportunities, ability and hard work, rather than their links to a
patronage network. Maybe Terror Lekota, Mluleki George, Mbhazima
Shilowa and Willie Madisha have indeed learned that lesson. We cannot
discount the possibility. If that is so, it would be a most welcome
development and will increase South Africa's democratic prospects
immeasurably. We are committed to facilitating the convergence of all
parties dedicated to promoting the "open, opportunity society for
all".
Whatever its prospects, the Lekota initiative's dilution of the ANC's
single party dominance is positive in itself. But it has to be said,
the prospects for a genuine "open, opportunity" alternative arising
out of the Lekota initiative seem limited by his followers'
determination to start what they call "the real ANC" which seeks to
brand itself as "more ANC than the ANC". This certainly holds the risk
of being yet another closed patronage party seeking the spoils of
office for the same purpose that drives the leadership clique of the
dominant faction of the old ANC. Time will tell and we will watch the
gestation of the new party very closely.
What of South Africa's other choices? There are, for example, a
plethora of parties, (ranging from the Minority Front to the Freedom
Front Plus) that openly position themselves in "niche" markets -- a
code word for ethnic and racial interests. In addition, there are a
range of other parties that try to disguise their "niche", but that
are also effectively ethnic parties, seeking to protect and advance
the interests of a single minority group. Such parties fall by
definition within the "closed patronage-driven" model.
Amichand Rajbansi's Minority Front is the classic example of its kind.
It openly canvasses as a party for Indians, promising to find them a
cosy nook under the wing of the dominant ANC. The ANC leadership
clique rewards this loyalty with minor patronage, positions, and other
favours as long as the MF remains sufficiently subservient. This
relationship is clearly reflected in the MF's groveling performances
in Parliament, which are reminiscent of the play-ground weakling
sucking up to the school-yard bully, who demands more and more
boot-licking in return for protection. When a new, stronger bully
takes control, the MF seamlessly switches allegiance, as it did from
Mbeki to Zuma.
This may create an illusion of security for minorities, but it
actually achieves the exact opposite. Their inalienable constitutional
rights and freedoms are voluntarily sacrificed to the whim of the
dominant bully of the day. In an open, constitutional democracy,
no-one should have to beg and barter on a group basis for favours and
hand outs. They should claim and protect rights, not only for
themselves, but for everyone. Those who voluntarily agree to
subordinate their rights in favour of securing patronage for specific
representatives of ethnic groups, actually help to undermine the
Constitution by entrenching the ruling party's capacity to abuse
power.
The FF+ argues that "niche parties" should exist because they can
negotiate good deals for the groups they represent, and potentially
hold the balance of power in governing coalitions. But they have no
power to break the mould of the dominant "closed, patronage" code.
They can only work as junior partners within it, bartering and
bargaining for favours for some of their members, who are themselves
chosen through the closed, patronage networks that are the defining
feature of small ethnically based parties. This approach offers no
protection for minorities. On the contrary, as Mugabe's Zimbabwe
demonstrated, they have to demonstrate more and more subservience in
return for fewer and fewer favours. They have to pick up the crumbs
tossed from the table of the dominant patronage party. Furthermore,
this approach guarantees that the dominant ethnic group entrenches and
abuses its power -- the most certain recipe for wholesale corruption
and economic decline Instead of protecting t
he rights and prospects of their members, small ethnic based parties
are doing the very opposite. They are reinforcing the closed,
patronage society that will always keep ethnic minorities firmly in
their submissive and powerless place, at the mercy of the majority
forever.
The only real alternative for South Africa, is to build a new
majority. A new majority that is based on shared values and
principles, not on arbitrary criteria such as ethnicity or race. South
Africa needs a new majority founded on the values of the Constitution,
which recognizes and protects each person's cultural and language
rights, and the right to freedom of association on the basis of these
rights. A society where these rights will be far more secure because
everyone protects them, not just the minority directly affected.
An open society where each person has the opportunities and the space
to shape their own lives, improve their skills and follow their
dreams. A society where people are not held back by arbitrary criteria
such as sex, religion, or colour, or the prejudice of those in power;
where outcomes are linked to opportunity, effort and ability, not
special favours; and where real opportunities are extended to more and
more people because the government is doing its job as the
constitution intended.
This is the alternative the Democratic Alliance promotes. And at
present we are the only party in South Africa that promotes this
vision in principle, policy and practice.
Of course, our detractors try to brand us as a "white" party. But the
truth is our leadership is more diverse than any other party, and so
is our membership. Our candidate selection process for the 2009
election seeks to extend our commitment to excellence and equity
throughout our party. Following a recent comprehensive political
survey, veteran pollster Professor Lawrie Schlemmer concluded that
"The Democratic Alliance is the most multi-racial party South Africa
has ever had."
So, in the end, despite the plethora of parties, there are only two
choices: the closed patronage society for some versus the open
opportunity society for all. Understanding this simple fact does a lot
to clear up the current political confusion.
Best Wishes
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment