Political parties seethe with factional intrigue and jockey for position. As a result, party leadership is like a tightrope walk.
The challenge is to retain cohesion by keeping mavericks leashed, while not stifling contrarian views that are not only inevitable, but can actually revitalise the party. With this against the tricky reality that unlike chief executives who have enormous power to impose their views and advance their favourites, party leaders govern by consent.
The leaders of both the African National Congress and the Democratic Alliance are at present wrestling with disciplinary actions that illustrate this dilemma. Both confront mavericks who have cocked a snoot at them personally and can potentially cause ongoing ructions.
President Jacob Zuma wants to be rid of suspended ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, who has appealed his sentence. Helen Zille wants to be rid of Masizole Mnqasela, the DA’s home affairs shadow deputy minister.
Malema hurled abuse and threats at minorities and Tripartite Alliance leaders, leveraged party membership to access tenders, and threatened to topple a neighbouring government. He damaged perceptions of South Africa abroad, stirred fear and loathing locally, and wreaked mayhem within ANC ranks.
Zuma’s meek acquiescence to all this fuelled the widespread public perception of him as an ineffectual leader. Only when the rottweiler made the mistake of biting the hand that fed him, was Zuma provoked to act against Malema.
Zille’s leadership instincts are the quite opposite of Zuma’s pliable style. She has unchallengeable confidence in her judgment and does not suffer fools gladly.
Unfortunately, Zille also seems to believe that anyone who differs from her is a fool, and probably a traitorous one, too. Even minor differences of opinion are sometimes reacted to as though evidence of incipient mutiny.
Mnqasela’s transgressions are small beer compared to those of Malema. Nevertheless, he next week has to answer six DA misconduct charges and if convicted, could face expulsion from the party, or deselection as an MP for the 2014 election.
Five charges — each made up of several alleged offences — relate to remarks made by Mnqasela during last year’s battle between Zille’s protégé, Lindiwe Mazibuko, and incumbent Athol Trollip, for the parliamentary leadership.
With Zille’s more-than tacit backing, Mazibuko eventually romped home. But Mnqasela supported Trollip in some fiery outbursts, including labelling Mazibuko’s candidacy “window-dressing”.
This sparked Zille’s sharp putdown that Mnqasela’s thinking was “Verwoerdian” and that he had “made a fool” of himself. His original comment now forms part of the DA’s accusation of racism.
Another charge stems from Mnqasela stating that Zille was “running the party like a spaza shop” and a third from expressing the fear MPs who did not toe the line and support Mazibuko might be jobless in 2014.
Mnqasela also “stated or clearly indicated” to Zille that he would vote for Mazibuko if rewarded with a post in Zille’s provincial Cabinet — this is the kind of horsetrading that is endemic in politics, but here resulted in the fourth misconduct charge. The fifth relates to derogatory remarks about the performance of a DA colleague, the provincial Housing minister.
The final charge is that Mnqasela improperly solicited provincial government work for his business in 2009. To which the obvious question must be why neither the director general approached, nor the DA leadership, immediately brought police charges? Or does the DA allow its public representatives one free bite at the cherry?
Mnqasela remarks are certainly injudicious, sometimes mildly offensive — although they are often so grammatically impenetrable that it is difficult to be certain — but to deduce a racist contravention of both the party’s and the nation’s Constitution, is bizarre. This is nothing but thin-skinned, petty vengefulness by the winning side over the losers.
Such disciplinary action is also unprecedented in a party that historically has a robust tolerance of difference. After all, without a sufferance of plurality the DA could never have so effortlessly absorbed the old National Party — apartheid relics about which the adjective “racist” would truly have resonance.
Two leaders, two dilemmas. Will Zuma prove his reputation for appeasement by giving the nod that allows Malema’s appeal to succeed? And will Zille cement her reputation for being controlling by contriving Mnqasela’s exit?
It must be something about having a surname starting with the last letter of the alphabet that makes them try harder (after the years of having their names read out last on any list?).
Because both Zuma and Zille work incredibly long hours!
William uses the old trick of comparing Zuma to Zille in hoping to give legitimacy to the white dominated DA – a party that is the refuge of the old Nats http://southafricana.blogspot.com/2010/12/myth-of-da-liberalism.html The voting records speaks for itself!
In addition to the DA’s expert use of FEAR politics to govern in the WCape, and their politics of personal character assassination, they now resort to SEX to sell peddle they politics. SIES.
Julias Malema’s courageous voice on the other hand is attacked by the DA and their cohorts in our media mafia because he dared to speak the uncomfortable truths that threaten our democracy – land expropriation, nationalization, racism etc.
While Zuma suffered in jail for his belief in freedom, truth and justice, Zille collaborated with the apartheid regime in conducting psychological warfare against to quell the rising student protests.
Have to disagree with you. The ANC is a broad church. The DA stands resolutely for specific principles.
In the ANC broad debate is (ostensibly) welcomed. I say ostensibly because what a political party says and what it actually does is not always the same.
In the DA, I would assume some debate is also welcomed. However, calling Mazibuko’s candidacy “window-dressing” seems to me a SEVERE undermining of the DA’s strongly espoused meritocracy principle.
In that, Mnqasela is effectively claiming that the party leader is breaking a core principle.
Even the broad church ANC may struggle with such dissent. I certainly cannot see the DA standing for it.
This is not a Zille issue. It is a core DA principle.
As to this: “After all, without a sufferance of plurality the DA could never have so effortlessly absorbed the old National Party — apartheid relics about which the adjective “racist” would truly have resonance.”
That is total conjecture. Firstly, the National Party was officially disbanded into the ANC, not the DA. Secondly, the DA is less of a broad church than the ANC, and from what I can observe as an outsider, they have not wavered in their principles – which means ex-National Party members that do not fit in would probably not last long.
PS. I am neither a member of the DA, nor the ANC. Both parties are too strong on the social democratic aspect for me, with the ANC also leaning way too much to the statist side.
Methinks Zille is trying to contrast her strength with Zuma’s weakness. It’s probably an intelligent tactic, but it’s not, at this stage, attractive. I know how easy it is for a woman to discard others’ opinions without consideration…we get sick of being treated like fools and eventually retaliate without listening properly. Zille would do well to start varying her reactions with full knowledge that some criticism is constructive. We aren’t all out to ‘get’ her, we just want her to be the best that she (and the DA) can be!
It is very discouraging to see what is taking place in the DA that the Democracy have no pace and not respected. You cannot speak your mind without worrying that you will targeted . Is that democracy?
@Harris: “Zille collaborated with the apartheid regime in conducting psychological warfare against to quell the rising student protests.”
Of course, you will provide us with a source to back up this claim, won’t you? I am no Helen Zille cheerleader, but you often attempt to discredit Zille’s anti-apartheid activities with absolutely no evidence to back up your claims.
Zille is an idiot to think that today after so much hard work that a man like Masizole, who sacrificed his life and did what many thought was suicidal to build the DA in black communities will not defend himself. Madam fails to understand and come to grips with the fact that not all black leaders are puppets in the DA and Masizole is a very good example and a future for our country.
Viva Democracy Viva!!!!!!!!
@Reducto: Don’t give in to the troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
@ WSM “.. will Zille cement her reputation for being controlling by contriving Mnqasela’s exit?”
What is admirable about Helen Zille, besides being honest, hard-working and a damn fine leader, is that she is controlling:
Her behaviour is controlled – and she keeps control – and marvellously well too!
Which cannot be said for Zuma or the ANC.
It is out of control in every sphere of governance – from corruption to non-delivery to corruption to incompetence to corruption to racism to corruption to nepotism to non-accountability and of course, covering up their own corruption – and if caught, releasing themselves from their own criminality.
Zille knows what she’s doing and knows how to do it.
Zuma knows how to do it (and often – and unprotected, nudge, nudge, wink wink -(no control here) but certainly has no clue how to run a country – except into the ground.
On the issue of control, why has birth control in this country not been addressed?
How is it possible for any political party to even attempt to keep up with housing, education, healthcare and job creation for the poor that keep procreating at a disproportionate and alarming rate?
Of yes, of course, I forgot: The ANC need the votes of the poor to maintain themselves as part of the vulgar rich. Silly me.
@sivuyile: What do YOU think Mnqasela meant by calling Mazibuko’s candidacy “window-dressing?”
Because therein lies the issue. A political party has a policy, which addresses its principles and objectives. People join and serve the party because they support those principles and objectives. One of the DA’s principles is meritocracy. If Mnqasela is implying that Zille is undermining those principles and objectives, then he is implying that Zille is bringing the party into disrepute, and must back that up with verifiable evidence. If he cannot do so, then he is therefore bringing the party into disprepute, and should be disciplined (much in the same way as what happened with Malema).
So… what do YOU think Mnqasela meant by that statement?
@Reducto: I agree with Skerminkel. Dave Harris does not want to debate. He has already decided for you, without knowing or consulting you, what you think. Therefore what you really think is irrelevant. Only what Dave Harris has decided what you think, will he accept as your thoughts. It is as if you don’t even exist as an independent, rational thinker. Yes, I know it sounds a bit fascist, but maybe that is because it is quite fascist?
Facetious definition of a “racist:” One decreed by Dave Harris as such, based on zero facts, evidence or truth.
As to Dave Harris’ link, the last comment on that blog is interesting:
“hahahahahahaha. blow me down, you are thick. do you honestly believe the tripe you write?”
@Reducto
“you will provide us with a source to back up this claim, won’t you?
Actually, your knee jerk reaction demanding “proof” is a typical reaction from a denialist when faced with the uncomfortable truth.
Helen Zille was a inexperienced white reporter during the apartheid era, who was a simple pawn used by the feared apartheid security police to conduct psychological warfare using their media mafia to instill fear into kids protesting against apartheid. If she was such a freedom fighter, then why is is so difficult to find any of her writings and publications that prove that she was against apartheid during that time? Strange isn’t it?
@Harris: “Actually, your knee jerk reaction demanding “proof” is a typical reaction from a denialist when faced with the uncomfortable truth.”
Stop being childish Harris. You made a pretty big claim. The onus is on you to provide a source to back it up, not calling anyone who asks for a source a “denialist”. Why do you think academics reference their work?
“Helen Zille was a inexperienced white reporter during the apartheid era, who was a simple pawn used by the feared apartheid security police to conduct psychological warfare using their media mafia to instill fear into kids protesting against apartheid.”
If you are going to make such a claim, back it up with some evidence. How exactly was she used as a pawn? Do you have any evidence for this? At all?
I have simply never heard such claims from anyone but you. So I think it is fair to ask you to back this up.
I generally avoid reading Harris’ trolling tripe but as it happens, I do know something about Zille’s apartheid years. I am not aware that she ever claimed to be a ‘freedom fighter’, but she certainly was a fine, principled journalist on the Rand Daily Mail and anyone who wants to check her anti-apartheid credentials could trudge down to the old public library to do so.
So, what did you do during the struggle, Dave?
Who actually gives a toss what Zuma does to effectively save his own skin?
The ANC is like the Costa Concorida.
It is on the rocks and sinking.
And you can be certain – when it does, Admiral (not admirable) Zuma, with a few spare planes to accompany him just ‘in case’, together with the likes of madshipman Malema – will jump ship and save their own skins.
They will be supported, besides the extra planes, by huge money-belts and comfortably get away in large lifeboats filled to the brim with cash.
In fact, they’ve got enough money to keep them afloat for years.
So why worry? They don’t:
If you don’t like the food or the price or the service; if the manager won’t take your bribes or allow you use their premises to ply your own personal dirty business, you’d better go somewhere else.
When the D.A. says ‘Equal opportunity; non racist; non sexist’ that is what they mean – but then, of course, they are honest.
If Mnqasela doesn’t like the way the DA is run; doesn’t respect its leader; doesn’t support its ideals and tenets of democracy, why didn’t he leave anyway?
- or is his objective, like Tony Ehrinreich’s, to simply conscientiously object to everything?
In fact why did he join the DA in the first place?
Why not revert to a party like his Cope compatriot did? (with no token blacks, just token leaders) i.e. go whichever way the wind blows – as long as it blows money in your face.
Mnqasela should find another home or start his own party or perhaps even do some honest work to follow the money trail .. whatever …
The DA did fine before he joined them.
It will do fine after he’s left them.
It certainly doesn’t need ‘moles’like Mnqasela to infest it.
During the Apartheid years, Helen Zille was an active member of the Black Sash protest movement, who were part of the United Democratic Movement led by Albertina Sisulu, and she was also the journalist whose investigations broke the Steve Biko story – otherwise you would none of you have known the history of his death.
‘SPOT THE DIFFERENCE’
or
COMPARISONS ARE ODIOUS – AND OBVIOUS
* DA (Democratic Alliance) . * ANC (ANarChy)
* Honest * Dishonest
* Competent * Incompetent
* Hard-working * Lazy
* Equal opportunity * Jobs for Pals
* Dedicated * Implicated
* Representative * Racist
* Forward thinking * Backward thinking
* Quality leadership * Lacking in leadership
* They’re ‘HOT’, man! – Check out their latest advertising!
* ‘Coitus Corruptus’ – The closest they get to ‘hot’ is Nando’s
@siv: “It is very discouraging to see what is taking place in the DA that the Democracy have no pace and not respected. You cannot speak your mind without worrying that you will targeted . Is that democracy?”
Actually, your comment is probably the most frightening one I’ve read on the blog. It shows an absolute lack of understanding how a multi-party democracy works.
In a multi-party democracy, political parties with strong policies contest for voters by informing them how their policies are good for the country. These policies should be clear, consistent, and unambiguous so that we the voters know exactly what we’re getting when we vote for a specific party.
The ANC’s approach as a “broad church” has actually undermined that to some extent. Since many policies seem always to be up for debate in the ANC, it is very difficult as a voter to determine all the specifics they actually stand for.
Democratic contestation should happen BETWEEN parties, not WITHIN parties. But clearly the ANC has still not made the full transition from struggle organisation to political party. Neither have many of the voters, who vote on pure emotional attachment (or ‘loyalty’), rather than on objective assessment of a party’s policies.
Sadly, we are still democratic infants in South Africa.
What undermined Democracy and Opposition Parties in South Africa was Mandela’s “Unity Government” ideal – which ideal has done the same in Kenya and Zimbabwe.
History is all about “Unintended Consequences”.
Mandela’s “Unity Government/ Broad Church” is based on the African lekotla/indaba idea of everyone talking and reaching concensus. Except that that was NOT how it worked. Anyone (provided they were male) could speak but the decision was not by consensus but by the chief, after he had listened to all.
Which is not very different to the Greek democratic ideal of their city states, where again anyone (provided they were male) could speak, and decision was by elected senators.
BUT both were applied in communities of less than 6000 people who all knew each other, and who the crooks and windbags were.
All that happens in “Unity Governments” in a national state is that all opposition ideas get suppressed by the majority, and if the minority speak out they get accused of disloyalty to the government they are part of. Both Tony Leon and F W De Klerk have pointed this out in their autobiographies.
If you are black in the DA you remain a subject of madame period and they fail to accept masizole’s opinion because he is not a garden boy by a political activist with a clear conviction of non-racial and non-sexist philosophy. He doesnt see race before competency hence he supported Athol Trollip for his competency and political experience not his skin colour.
Now the Arab League has proposed another disasterous “Unity Government” in Syria, and the Russians oppose any resolution because it might have “Unintended Consequences”
Does the Human Race NEVER learn? Will it continually repeat the same mistakes?
I have news for the Russians – history proves the “Unintended Consequences” of doing nothing are worse than the “Unintended Consequences” of doing something!
“For evil to succeed, it only requires that good men do nothing”.
And why bother to have a United Nations at all if all they do is go around in circles of endless debate?
What I would do, if I was the UN Security Council, would be to authorise a strong peace keeping force into Syria – whether the government wanted it or not.
And I would make sure that this force was comprised ONLY of Arab state members. Syria, like Iraq, is governed by the Baath Party, who are neither Shia or Sunni but Arab Nationalists.
That would stop the killing and give everyone time to negotiate.
Dear God —- “What fools these mortals be”
“If you are black in the DA you remain a subject of madame period “. Interesting. One could also argue that if you are non-black in the ANC you need to be a totalitarian fascist or communist (a Cronin or Duarte) and entirely without scruples or principles. Or on reflection maybe this is unfair to Cronin – he has principles, he is simply not allowed to express them.
I’d vote against the DA if I thought they might gain control of the country while Helen Zille is still around. Her controlling attitude and general opposition to personal freedom may even poison the DA (assuming the party ever supported personal freedom rather than a groupthink nanny state).