Loading ...Approximately a year ago the Congress of the People (Cope) burst onto the South African political scene with much fanfare promising a “New Agenda for Hope and Change for All!“. This agenda was to be informed by a commitment to being a modern political party underpinned by an ideology of “progressivism”.
An impression of the nature of this progressivism was partially contained in the party’s 2009 election manifesto, but as far as manifestoes generally go they are rather vague and not concrete policy documents. Even an everyday understanding of progressivism as “favouring or advocating changes or reform, usually in an egalitarian direction for economic policies and liberal direction for social policies” offers nothing concrete and doesn’t really make it relevant to the particular — and peculiar — South African context.
Beyond the usefulness of formulating an accepted ideological underpinning for the party — if only to be able to say how it differs from the other political players on the field — it has immense practical utility in providing coherence, clarity, consistency and informs goal formulation and methods for achieving political and other objectives.
During the course of the year discussions have been taking place at various levels about the proposed ideological leaning of the party, endeavouring to engage in a higher level theoretical debate on the issue. References have been made to the organisation as a social democratic party and it is rather refreshing to see young South Africans within the Cope Youth Movement and Student Movement avidly reading up on various political ideologies and meaningfully participating in related debates.
It is equally, if not more, refreshing to observe an inclination towards social democratic theory by the party’s office-bearers and members, especially from an academic and theoretical point of view. This is particularly underscored by the discussions contained in Thomas Meyer’s The Theory of Social Democracy, stating that:
“Social democratic policies and practices enhance the functionality and stability of democratic states … democracy’s foundations remain weak and unstable as long as status inequalities contradict formal political equality and citizens disagree about what political justice requires. In the long run democracy will lose ground if it is understood only as a set of institutions, ie, without taking into account civic participation and accountability as well.” (Meyer also provides a comprehensive empirical overview of the successes of social democratic states versus non-social democratic states or libertarian democracies, for those interested).
Cope will do well to position and establish itself as a social democratic movement, exactly because the peculiar economic, social, political, regional and historical context of South African society demands a careful balance and sensitivity to the various demands and pressures the country faces.
A pragmatic balance is necessary and justified in a context vulnerable to low investor confidence and marred by incredibly unsustainable (and unjustifiable) economic and income inequality along racial lines and a wholly unsatisfactory reach of redistributive and empowerment initiatives.
The party should seriously consider and discuss social democracy in the South African context and accordingly support or adopt policy alternatives that are in line with what contemporary social democrats support:
Additionally, as a “modern” party, Cope seriously needs to revisit Weberian understanding of the functioning of modern organisations and commit itself to organisational and government/public administration that endeavours to exhibit the seven ideal principles governing bureaucracy. A truly modern and progressive party understands the imperatives of running a modern democratic state and appreciates the importance of efficiency, effectiveness, accountability and responsiveness
Cope is in a uniquely favourable position in which it is unburdened by historical pledges to a particular ideology or the demands of interest and pressure groups tugging it in a particular ideological or policy direction. The party should seize the opportunity to meaningfully explore the various ideological alternatives available to it and encourage and foster discussion and debate within the organisation that counteracts a general ideological bankruptcy evident in most of South African politics. Even then, the party should understand and admit from the start that no organisation can commit itself indefinitely to a particular set of ideals or policies, and should equally encourage continuous reflection and re-evaluation of goals, objectives and programmes of action.
What may be seen as an ideological wilderness by some, if embraced and engaged in, provides fertile ground for learning and growth, not only for the organisation, but also for its membership and leadership. The manner in which this process is engaged in by stakeholders — whether it is open, participative and honest debate or not — will contribute greatly to the development of the party’s organisational culture and will be a great determinant in its future trajectory and success.
Having defined and refined an ideological direction for the party in this vein, the viability of Cope-DA cooperation does not seem all that unlikely or far-fetched, producing perhaps something along the lines of the Liberal Democrats in the UK (a merger of the former Liberal and Social Democratic parties) and a potentially viable and effective challenge to the ANC hegemony.
good exposition. really intresrting and on point.
(Report abuse)