By Thapelo Tselapedi
It is interesting to note that SACP secretary-general Blade Nzimande, in contrast to Kgalema Motlanthe, has spoken rather favourably about the concept of a second transition. In an interview with Mandy Rossouw from City Press, Nzimande made the ‘revelation’ that “the deepening of our democracy cannot be taken any further if we don’t change the economic power relations”. Using Brett Murray’s painting as an illustration of a “faction of the white population” taking “reconciliation as a weakness”, he says that the second transition is an issue of “democratic power” and partly an attempt to defeat those who seek “to steal the organisation”. Though this makes one wonder how Brett Murray’s painting illustrates this perceived reality, this plan contains implications that need to be explored.
While the second transition is, I argue, a fitting description of what should arguably be the next phase in South Africa’s socio-economic trajectory, my own observations are that the argument currently used for a second transition merely serves to displace the actual issues. Furthermore, it also masks the political subjectivities that interpret the objective reality. I will explain this later on. Firstly, and most importantly, at the dawn of South Africa, the alliance made no serious attempts to build community structures that emerged during the 80s and 90s. In fact, popular structures, then, were encouraged to mobilise and organise structures of the ANC, thus foiling the democratic project which the SACP secretary-general now wants to make an argument for, and, worse so, in a state-centred, top-to-bottom form.
Secondly, the attempts to turn the Freedom Charter into a socialist project, difficult as it is, is indicative of the party, when in the ANC, to distinguish itself from the ANC’s political trajectory. Therefore, the blurred lines between the two organisations enables socialist discourse to masquerade as ANC thinking – a battle now successfully in the public light. As a result, we need to seriously ask ourselves who the actual thieves are! Thirdly, however, we must ask ourselves to what extent has the executive directly challenged the historical issue of land redistribution? Whilst not all of us will agree with the socio-economic rights regime that Chapter 2, Section 25 of the Constitution outlines, we all need to be clear about the diagnosis and the remedies that should possibly follow.
Lastly, in a 2004 review of Neville Alexander’s An Ordinary Country: Issues in the Transition from Apartheid to Democracy, Pallo Jordan said that “submitting to the temptation to characterise [this] – 1994 settlement – as a ‘sell-out’ is not merely puerile, but also sterile.” He went on to say that, “Not surprisingly, those political formations that have yielded to this temptation find it difficult to make themselves relevant in the post-1994 political terrain.” Though Jordan was referring to “white ultra-right revanchism”, I’d like to refer to the triumph in Polokwane as left revanchism: meaning instead of regaining lost territory, the South African mainstream left is attempting to regain lost policy ground as manifested in the second transition, if not many of the current ANC discussion documents. Therefore, in a painful twist of narrative, the party has equally poisoned itself by participating in stakeholder politics.
It is through this, I argue, that we can begin to understand how the Polokwane conference allegedly brought a change in government – contemporary analysis seems to focus from the 2009 period as if the 1994–2007 period did not lay any foundation. This is simply because the then opponents of the alleged 1996 class project have now, being in power, responded with the second transition: building a national democratic society and the balance of forces in 2012. One can’t really blame the communists; after all, the socio-economic regime proposed in the ANC discussions documents contains transformative reforms. But, yes, there is nothing wrong with the need to deepen democracy. Equally, there is nothing wrong with wanting to shift “the balance of forces” towards the poor, but what betrays and belies this project is the seemingly corrupt and lack of ethical leadership that now wields state power. But there’s more here.
The left revanchist project, emerging from the party’s attempt to swell the ANC, has meant that South Africa’s democracy is currently not being properly managed – the party’s attempt to exert policy and intellectual power over the ANC, while underway, is a precarious project. However, we must also ask whether the “balance of forces” now weighs on the side of the progressives. The political subjectivities, here, as I see them, is that exerting this type of influence over the ANC will not translate into a deepening of South Africa’s democracy but will, because of its current transitional nature, collapse the identity of the ANC. Conservative and illiberal proposals are being bandied around as though the 1994 political project was a mistake. Though these dishonest elements seek to position themselves during this transition, the equally dangerous task of exerting influence is untenable. How ever the country’s democracy unfolds, South Africa’s democratic project still depends on the health of the ANC.
Thapelo Tselapedi is a research and advocacy officer at the Socio-economic Research Institute (SERI) of South Africa. He writes this article in his personal capacity.
I looked over the document, and its language is distinctly SACP-oriented, banging on about Colonialism of a Special Type for no very obvious reason. Suspect it was written by Party members, which would explain why Nzimande supports it. And which also casts an even more favourable light on Motlanthe’s criticisms of it.
I didn’t read the document but I have printed it out. I opened it at a random page and noticed a startling example of the backward class focus of the authors.
The sentence I read classifies “black workers” as those people who are black and are both employed and unemployed. Why “black people” didn’t suffice highlights the ideological blinkers that exist.
But this is even more cumbersome because now economic policy is being created that encompasses two groups of people with totally divergent needs. How can effective policy be created when the basic premise is contradictory?
It therefore indicates that the proposed solution to the obvious problem of racial inequality, unemployment and economic stagnation was pre-concluded through a Marxist lens without the necessary contemplation of what actually exists.
This is flat out intellectual laziness differing real introspection of the South African existence to an old, and failed ideology. South Africa is in crisis, we need leaders who think about the now and not those who supplant dogmatic beliefs into the decision making process.
Excuse me for behaving a little bit as a cynic.
Transition, transformation, change………all words used with no specifics: “what” (verb)… from “what” into “what” ??
Same for “democratic”, “majority” or “consensus”……..and all similar terminology.
The latest is the “second transformation” stuff, a document that seems not accepted by the majority but is now reportedly “renamed” and accepted with “consensus” of the attendees of the latest ANC meeting.
We have been made to believe that the dispute between all warrying fractions has been resolved through “consensus”. A very creative spin indeed.
“Managing the battles within”………..
There are no battles anymore, there is consensus………:-)
I’d say to both the SACP and the ANC: if you can’t help, at least stop hindering.
The First Transition was from an Apartheid State to a Kleptocracy where looting and corruption is the name of the game. Cadre, nepotistic and unqualified appointments added to the confusion. The Second Transition will probably be another “Giant Leap Backwards” into a complete Idiocracy . What happened to Zuma’s signed performance agreements that none of us saw? It’s very simple:- If you knowingly and willingly appoint an unsuitable and incompetent person to do a job, how can you then turn around and complain that they cannot do the job that they were appointed to do? How can you fire and idiot when you employed that person knowing that they were an idiot, as to my mind, that would be an unfair dismissal and would qualify the idiot to be placed on paid leave forever? Let’s put this in a stupid format for those who do not understand what I am trying to say. I.E. Zuma has a relative who needs a job so he appoints him to be the front entrance guard at Lethuli House despite the fact that the man is blind. When it is eventually realised that the man cannot do the job because he is blind, how do you fire him?? Employment will not happen as long as employers cannot get rid of any incompetent or ‘blind’ people in their employ!! Step one to a 2nd Transition is to scrap AA and BEE and give employers the ability to select the right people for the job. It will never happen because there is no common sense or economics in politics.
On rereading the document more attentively, I found its solutions to our problems are essentially more capitalism and more neoliberalism, dressed up in fancy slogans. It’s not actually about a “second transition” at all, but just ways of facilitating and justifying ruling-class power.
Which confirms my suspicion that the SACP wrote it.
““the deepening of our democracy cannot be taken any further if we don’t change the economic power relations”.” As the Creator notes, when communists talk of the deepening of democracy, they mean exactly the opposite – ways of facilitating and expanding the power of the unelected nomenklatura elite. What they really mean in ‘changing economic power relations’ is not what it seems at face value – it means creating even greater poverty, inequality and dependency among the ordinary people, stripping the rights of individual citizens, and making the masses poorer and entirely dependent on the patronage of the ruling elite. This way, ‘democracy’ as the communists understand it is deepened, the party state becomes a reality, economic activity stops completely, and the state can be asset stripped to fund foreign bank accounts for the elite.
We need a proper, open and honest collection of political parties fightening for their ideas to the people. A socialist Left (SACP/Unions etc) a Left of Center ANC pushing a big state/big business collabration option and a Right of Center Free Market small Govt, small business party. Then we will not have an influential SACP and/or Cosatu doing things undercover, trying to influence the ANC/Govt with no one knowing what they are doing or saying. No they are out there in the open pushing their ideas and views and having to defend them in the open political space.
Until this happens we will get gobblegook for political discourse and continued jockying for power behind the scenes, which is just simply dragging SA down and down.
Brent