We say we want democracy — but we don’t seem to like it much when we see it. How else to interpret the breast-beating from commentators and some delegates here at Polokwane after the opening day of the ANC conference?
Most of us no doubt know by now that day one of Polokwane was a lively affair. Jacob Zuma supporters loudly sang and danced in his support, prompting more muted songs from Thabo Mbeki’s backers. Zuma delegates booed and heckled leadership figures they do not like, and they gave ANC chair Mosiuoa Lekota a particularly hard time, challenging several of his rulings and unsubtly suggesting that he be replaced by making the sign that football fans on the terraces use when they want an under-performing player replaced. They also demanded that the votes for ANC office be counted manually rather then electronically because, presumably, they worried that a computer count was particularly prone to error.
All of this has prompted a veritable wave of breast-beating from some ANC high-ups, but also from earnest representatives of the analysing classes, about the plague of disrespect and ill-discipline that has beset the ANC and which may well doom its future. Most seem agreed that we are dealing with a nasty new form of thuggery that comes pretty close to mob rule.
Really? I was watching carefully yesterday, either from the live feed or on the congress floor, and I saw nothing that even resembled mob rule. Yes, things were a little rough at times, but no more so than at any vigorous, democratic meeting where a great deal is at stake.
A little booing and heckling is fine at democratic meetings, as long as you let everyone speak. I saw no attempt to shut anyone up — on the contrary, President Thabo Mbeki was allowed to read his very long political report in almost total silence despite the fact that a chunk of it accused the Zuma delegates of threatening the soul and survival of the ANC.
And there is certainly nothing wrong at any democratic meeting with singing songs in support of your candidate, as long as, again, you do not do this to deny others their rights. I saw no sign that people were trying to shut others up.
Most importantly, not only are challenges from the floor allowed at democratic meetings, they are often a key sign of how democratic a meeting really is. An organisation whose members let their leaders decide entirely how meetings are run is not one in which members are holding their leaders to account and ensuring that they serve them. The fact that this is the first ANC conference since its unbanning in 1990 where delegates challenged decisions from the floor does not show what is at wrong at Polokwane — it shows what has been wrong at all the other meetings.
I was not horrified about the challenges to leaders from the floor — on the contrary, I was impressed by the degree to which those who made them were eager to honour the base principles of democracy, that everyone is entitled to a say, and that all sides should be heard and disputes settled by majority vote. They were not trying to get round democratic rules — they were insisting on making them work.
This was not mob rule. In the main, it was active, democratic participation, precisely what the ANC’s preoccupation with public displays of unity has denied its conferences for the past 17 years. If the Zuma delegates are now in the majority in the ANC, and this is how they intend to act at future meetings, the ANC may well be in better democratic health than it has been for a very long time.
It is not hard to see why the ANC old guard did not like what they saw on day one. They are used to conferences where people keep their differences out of the public eye, when they air them at all, and where leaders are treated with great deference, whether they deserve it or not. They are horrified at the possible birth of a new ANC in which members insist on making their leaders serve them, rather than publicly doffing their caps to those in charge.
But why do our commentators fall for the illusion that democracy in action is threatening? Two radio analysts this morning literally fell to bemoaning the future of the ANC because, they told us in horror, the Mbeki people were so horrified by the songs of the Zuma people that, horrors, they were planning to sing back!
We probably haven’t seen enough real democracy to know what it looks like. People who continually wring their hands at the unseemliness of it all seem to think that democracy is a system in which high-minded people elegantly exchange polite opinions about matters of real substance. Most of the time, democracy is not that at all — it is a system in which normal people get off their chests whatever they feel strongly about at the time in a way that respects the rights of others to do the same. When people feel strongly, they are bound to express themselves strongly — which is fine, as long as they stick by the rules that give everyone a change to say and decide.
And democracy remains by far the best system of government because, while allowing normal people to express what is on their minds is often loud and messy, it is a great deal better than forcing people to suppress what they feel — until it bursts out in violence.
Another reason for the negative comment may be that, for all our democratic rhetoric, most of us still see leaders as people to be honoured and deferred to, not as our servants who we are meant to hold to account. The sooner we see people who contradict their leaders as the advance guard of democracy, not as uncouth louts, the quicker will we prepare ourselves to live in a real democracy.
Polokwane’s opening day confirmed that a new ANC is being born. We don’t know what it will look like — we don’t even know whether the democratic enthusiasm we saw there was a sign that people want to govern their own movement or whether they want to hand over their future to a new charismatic leader.
But, if the new ANC is going to look something like Polokwane’s day one — a movement in which members set the agenda and leaders serve them, in which people who feel strongly can express themselves, and in which differences are thrashed out in open debate and contest for votes, rather than in dark rooms or not at all, then it could yet go down as the day when democracy in the ANC really came of age.
And, since the ANC may well dominate our politics for a while yet, whatever happens here at Polokwane, it is not impossible that December 16 2007 could be remembered as the day when our democracy became deeper and more real.
Anthony said: “For goodness sake (the likes of David, Ross etc etc) get over yourselves, try to at least disguise your racism and get INFORMED.”
My response: Anthony you are crying for the moon! I don’t expect people like David and Ross to stop racism. We should just learn to co-exist with. I think it is safer to pray for a stronger back, than praying for a lighter load. Maybe they will change in 2090!
Good post Kwetane.
But we have no choice. Procedure in a case like this takes precedence over soothsaying and moral outrage. Accepting victory on the strength of procedure binds the winner with responsibility. It is procedure and those who adhere to it that I admire. Procedure will continue to be king in the light of Polokwane. While politics adheres to procedure it remains positive. The man is not the issue. It was a victory for politics.
Let us now see what Zuma and his supporters can do in this understanding.
I feel Mbeki is to be given some credit here and is thinking the same sane way.
Thanks for all this – the interest is very encouraging. I am really inclined to leave you all to continue debating but T Kwetane asks for a response and, since this is the first time I have had here at Polokwane to join in, I will do so very briefly.
There are obviously quite a few people who feel that any advantage we gain from robust democracy in the ANC is outweighed by the fact that a man they do not trust won the ANC election. I think that the fact that ANC delegates have signalled to their leaders that they are not in office for as long as they want to be and that they can be voted out is far more important than who they elected. What kind of president of either the ANC or the country Zuma would make is to me unclear. But, even if he is not who we need, I think that the fact that leadership has changed in a free vote outweighs doubts about Zuma the man. I have become convinced that even well-meaning and very competent leadership groups begin to become disasters if they stay around too long. I think there probably is nothing more certain to decay politics than this and so I think that uncertainty or seeing someone elected who is not ideal is a price worth paying for changing those in power.
As for those who still see the majority of delegates here at Polokwane as an unruly mob, I invite you to think about a situation in which ‘the mob’ has been in charge for five days but no-one has been hurt and no-one has been prevented from speaking their mind. I wish all mobs were like this.
Steven Friedman
Having claimed that:
1. Democratic process doesn’t necessarily ensure the survival of democracy.
2. You have to be ill-informed to vote for Jacob Zuma.
3. Zuma’s supporters think, erroneously, that socialism is a fix to South Africa’s problems.
4. There was, at times, bureaucratic chaos in Polokwane, engineered by Zuma’s supporters.
5. We only have elections once every 5 years.
6. Zuma and his cronies on the left will bring corruption, mismanagement and inflation.
and also that…
7. What happened in Polokwane was democratic.
8. In some respects Mbeki took the economy too far to the right, and there is indeed an urgent need for redistribution.
Anthony and Bheka Mkhize, how the hell do you come to the conclusion, then, from that, that I’m “racist”? Where have I said, or even implied, that any of this has ANYTHING to do with race? I guess it’s easier to simply throw around terms of abuse than actually engage in debate.
Vuyo also managed to conclude that I was “gullible and ignorant” because I ignored the fact that Mbeki’s supporters were being just as disruptive as JZ’s. But the point I was making, Vuyo, wasn’t that Mbeki’s supporters weren;t disruptive, or indeed that Zuma’s supporters were especially disruptive. I actually have no problem with ‘disruptive’ per se. A bit of booing and jeering and laughing is always welcome in politics. What I said was that Zuma’s supporters, and in particular the ANCYL, went about creating a lot of the BUREAUCRATIC chaos. An obvious example was the laboured deliberation over voting processes. I think that this is a sign of things to come. You might not agree. I’m not sure how media coverage has anything to do with it.
Quote: “I am one of the lucky ones, and am taking uncle Charles’s advice and packing for Perth. I am taking my skills and my family’s skills and taxes with me. I will be leaving you (personally) to “wallow in your foolishness”, while resting assured that I will not be providing any foreign aid to you in any way, shape or form.” Jonathan
My comment: Bye Jonathan. We will really ‘Miss’ you
Quote: “What I said was that Zuma’s supporters, and in particular the ANCYL, went about creating a lot of the BUREAUCRATIC chaos. An obvious example was the laboured deliberation over voting processes. I think that this is a sign of things to come. You might not agree. I’m not sure how media coverage has anything to do with it.” ross
My comment: Ross, you need to be careful how you label situations. What ‘sophisticated and educated’ people like Ross might call ‘creating a lot of the BUREAUCRATIC chaos’ democracy loving people might call ‘unsophisticated and uneducated people’s willingness to be involved’ in most of the processes of the conference. It quite amazing that we always preach ‘POWER TO THE PEOPLE’ but when people try to exercise that power we say they are ‘chaotic’.
To add to Prof. Friedman’s point, credit should be given to ‘Zuma camp’ and ‘Mbheki camp’ for not resorting to any violence when expressing their different views. I am 120% proud of you guys. I wish you could realise that the next step is for you to unite and collaborate in making South Africa country for all.
This comment isnt about Stevens piece because there is really nothing to add to what is a well reasoned and insightful argument. Rather, my sadness is about the negative comments from mostly white respondents who need to find in the ANC Conference signs that confirm their racist prejudices about the inability of black people to rule. It must be indeed incredibly difficult for them to even begin to acknowledge that the ANC has, through all its travails, has managed to avoid the split they were all hoping for. They now cling to the other fantasy that the ascent of Zuma to the Presidency will result in the ultimate destruction of the ANC. The truth of the matter is that Jacob Zuma is committed to the unity of the ANC in a way that Mbeki isnt. Note that Zuma, in all his travails over the last 7 years, never turned his back on the organisation, never blamed the organisation for his troubles when it would have been very easy to do so. The Polokwane Conference was simply that of an organisations members reasserting their primacy over a recalcitrant, arrogant and absurdly out of touch leadership. The challenge is whether the organisation will be able to maintain this democratic momentum.
Amazing, it seems, that for some in South Africa, the voices, the shouting, the plights for change were first heard in Polokwane! Where were they when Khutsong was burning? When cities and municipalities were trashed? When massive strike was staged in even essential services? The mistake was to dismiss these as acts of barbarism, that would be dealt with by law and order…No. Polokwane is the culmination of all of these. the voices and shouts of mothers fed up with seeing their children go to bed hungry in a country that promissed better life for all after sacrificing so much. For some it was a brother, for others a husband or even a daughter as the TRC revealed. This is no fiction for them, might be good reading material or dinner table talk for the middle class (black and white), removed from it all in the suburbs, but my brothers and sisters, it is real for them and it is time to sober up to their reality. For no amount of labelling will change the course of their revendications, their claims written in sweat and blood. Had i our you been in their shoes, I doubt it would have been different. It is not a white or black thing, for every revolution in the world has been a noisy affair. Remember the French and other revolutions? Heads of nobility rolled under the guillotine! From it came the “republique”, freedom, equality, fraternity! Polokwane saw no blood. Yet. The people’s claim must be settled to avoid the guillotine, blood, history tells us. But, halas, human being are not good in learnig from history, so the same mistakes repeat themselves.
So South Africa is on a democratic course, indeed, but the outcome of which will be determined not much by the amount of shouting and shoving in conferences but by the attitudes of the haves in the society post-Polokwane. The message has been delivered, loud and clear. Thinking that the message is directed to President Mbeki as an individual is very myopic for he represents in the eyes of the rebelling masses, a system that created the haves and worsened the lot of the have nots, in other words you and I. How will we react to the discomfort of the proposed changes that may avoid bloodshed or if in disareement, forced exile for those who can afford to leave the country? How can we be part of the solution, since the revolution is on our doorstep and there is no turning back? Because it will feed on the Polokwane victory and the next push is likely to be more bolder, much louder, may be even bloodier (God forbid)…Clinging on what we have now, is a sure recipy for losing it all. Sharing and compassion is the only viable option, but it needs personal commitment and sacrifice. Time for the haves to be patriotic and do the right thing, for their children’s and grand children’s sake!
As for those who still see the majority of delegates here at Polokwane as an unruly mob, I invite you to think about a situation in which ‘the mob’ has been in charge for five days but no-one has been hurt and no-one has been prevented from speaking their mind. I wish all mobs were like this.
I may be bloging this late, BUT I CANNOT HELP IT; this was a 100% INPUT. LET THE MOB RULE and the rich and the elite will know that people owe them NOTHING, instead the onus is upon them to join the “PEOPLE” and lobby for a construct of a better society (not a better performing profit at the expense of fellow human being, even if they are BLACK).
LONG LIVE TO THIS MOST REASONING MOB, LONG LIVE. If its a mob that could not harm a fly within a period of 120 Hours (except that it will frustrate an “exceptionally intellegent” grouping of self-centred morons who think they are the “untouchebles”). A progressive and a democratic world realy needs this kind of a mob (not the ARMS DEAL GODFATHERS).
Prof, in my mind the level of inaptitude and incapability to conduct/chair an ANC meeting (National Conference inparticular) by T. Lekota is still arlamingly striking. Is this the kind of a “leader” who was sent to “deal decisively” with another “undemocratic mob from Kgutsong”? I do not wonder why he never succeeded.
I was in the conference (I saw it live), the poor guy’s first attempt was to make the ANC National Conference a Summit of Provinces. How do you explain that +3,600 delegates from Branchs were supposed to be dictated by “super-comrades” from the provinces in what-ever motion coming from the floor to be asserted within the Conference. This is the very same guy who thought that only Limpopo and E. Cape were the provinces within the Conference. Thought to be strategic????, when their National Leadership position was challenged by the foor, he give FOUR (4) “so called Provincial Mandated Delegates” from Limpopo 2 and E. Cape 2 to endorse the conference rules. This was dispite the fact that, there was a counter motion from ANCYL and supported by another “so called mandated provincial delegate” from KZN. It is then that the whole thing got out of his control, surfice to say that Motlante a TRUE ANC LEAD (not a Factionalist Cabal Kingpin) saved his day.
If this nonsensical act is a construct by the “leaders” at the national level of the ANC (Chairperson in particular), how do you expect the delegates to hold their horses. You will be naive enough to believe that, whilst someone that is well-known for his knowledge of ANC procedures fumbles that way and expect thing to be “normal as ever”. Lekota spoiled the 1st Day of the ANC 52nd National Conference and the video footage of that is a living evidence.
But funny enough, the so called model democrates, people of the “high moral esteem” are at the delegates throats as if they were the pepetrators of the whole “most undisciplined showing by an ANC conference” ever. I’m not suprised though, because it is the very same delegates who are believed to be uneducated, headless and backward bunch that has been blinded by a Zuma “magic”. Ignorant minds never sieze to amaze, there’s a say that “The more they build-up their wall fences, the more their eyes are fixed to the clouds. To an extent that they believe they are flying in the sky and worse part, they believe its only by themselves although they never built the walls themselves. This is because with the amount of wealth that the systems fixes to their wallets, they have servants everywhere.”