INEVITABLY, the decision by the ANC’s national executive committee to recall former president Thabo Mbeki was always going to be controversial. But perhaps, depending on which school of thought you come from, it has exposed some deep-seated fault lines in our body politic that will help the country as it continues molding a new society from the debris of the apartheid edifice.
That, two weeks after the watershed decision, the debate over whether this was in the national interest is raging is understandable. Never in the country’s nascent democracy has there been such a single event that triggers such a gamut of emotions. From the chattering classes to those who are at the lowest rungs of society, this is the only talking point.
As expected, many people are wondering what will happen to Thabo Mbeki. Will he simple disappear from the country’s political theatre? Will he follow his King Lea inspired advice to Madiba that that the sage retire to rural Qunu in the Eastern Cape ‘to tell old tales, and laugh at gilded butterflies and hear poor rogues talk of court news’?
There is nothing wrong with a nation talking with itself – there is nothing wrong with introspection at a time like this.
That is exactly what we all did in June 2005 when Mbeki found strength and courage from the inferences of a high court judge to justify his belief that Jacob Zuma’s position in the cabinet had become untenable. At the time, the world applauded Mbeki and indeed the Judge Hillary Squires’s judgment had roasted JZ’s goose.
While the hoi-polloi disagreed, the upper middle class thought reason had prevailed. In truth however, Zuma’s axing did more to boot out an outsider than cleanse our government of a man whose position had become untenable. He was also a victim of the G8 conference in Glen Eagles. Things have gone pear shaped since then. Once again the nation is talking.
But there is one thing I fail to understand about Mbeki – especially his reasoning. Long before returning from exile, it was always clear that Mbeki’s fate was not in the hands of the general membership of the ANC. He was never popular. In fact many thought he got away with too many things while other comrades were severely clobbered by the leadership for not walking the straight and narrow line at the time when a minor cock up could cost lives.
Today, MK cadres — resting on JZ’s bosoms – tell any reporter who is prepared to grant them an ear that they felt T’bose was a law unto himself. They thought he took advantage of OR’s soft spot for him and often marched out of step with the rest of the cadres. TM’s rise to power and his triumph in the 1993 elective conference in Durban did not come as a result of his popularity among the rank and file. Other popular leaders did his bidding. His bulldogs intimidated all contenders and publicly humiliated dissenters. With many of the potential rivals out of the way, the tragic death of SACP secretary Chris Hani only served to accelerate his ascent to power. His clean sweep at the Mafikeng conference in 1997 also came from the popularity of his backers like JZ, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela and others.
The signs of his diminishing powers were clear during the Stellenbosch conference in 2002 where his rivalry with Madikizela-Mandela nearly embarrassed him. By then the allegations that Zuma had feasted from the arms deal trough were already swirling. Such has been the ferocity of the dog fight between the two leaders since then that at some point Zuma sympathisers and ANC supporters – their membership was never confirmed – burned T-shirts bearing Mbeki’s face while others staged walkouts from public addresses by the ANC leader.
If Mbeki had been the supremely intelligent operator that he is made out to be, he should have seen the writing on the wall. He should have then decided to take the nation into his confidence. At the height of his influence, Mbeki should have changed the electoral laws and put his fate in the hands of the voting public. Given his lack of popularity within the ranks of the party, his fate was never safe in the hands of 3 000 ANC delegates. They never liked him. They were force fed him by the elders. Even his father Govan Mbeki did not give him his blessings to lead an organisation as complex as the ANC broad church.
The demise of the power of the elders – to an extent as a result of Mbeki’s centralisation of power – and the viciousness of his sword left him in the cold. So, if Mbeki is as smart as we all say he is and is such a democrat, why did he not change the electoral laws and put his fate in the hands of the voters? It would have been a shrewd move indeed. But it would not have surprised people who have read of the man’s style being described as comprising Machiavellian tendencies. That would have given South Africans a real democracy rather than the farce we are now fed by our rulers. It would have given the voter the power to choose his leaders. Mbeki would account to the citizens and not Luthuli House. And the citizens wouldn’t have asked him to fall on his sword as Luthuli House did. He would have started his campaign with a review of the Chapter nine institutions, which are draining the fiscus.
Such a review would ultimately include a review of the electoral laws and citizens would support a move that would give them power over their elected representatives. Elections would stop being a once-every-five-year event that gives politicians blank cheques to do as they please with the vote until the next round.
All people in democracies – no matter how dumb they maybe – have a right to elect their leaders. Even if they end up electing a despot, it’s their democratic right. And in a democracy, people get the government they deserve. Why should Africans not be allowed to vote for their choices of despots when the so-called civilised world is already being run by despots – brought into office through the ballot?
Some of my friends say a review of the electoral system could see us ending up with someone like Tony Leon for a leader. I think that would be sad for Africans in this country – but it would be democracy. And they say democracy is an arse.
Surely, if Mbeki is as smart, shrewd and as calculating a politician as we have read of him in recent volumes, he should have figured this. That would have made him the darling of the voters, transformed us into a real democratic state and, most importantly, saved his skin.
Being smart does not always mean putting one’s own skin first.
The real question is, if he was that shrewd as some make him out to have been, why didn’t he do all these smart things you reckon he should have done?
The only person who believed Mbeki an intellectual giant was Mbeki himself.
However, I am very happy with our present electoral syatem of the president being the the nominee of the ruling party or ruling coalition. It is effectively similar to the prime minister system of Britain and Europe, and much more stable than the American system.
Both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair were replaced mid -term by their party, not by the electorate. I see no difference in what has happened to Mbeki. The electorate votes for the candidates/political parties and the ruling party or coalition must then choose the president, through delegates voting in parliament.
This is a very refreshing piece of writing for TL.
But the ANC, dominating the legislature like everything else, would not have given Mbeki the power to change the electoral system even if he had wanted to – and it is extremely doubtful he would have wanted to, because he would not have felt he needed to. In SA’s monocracy it is far easier to gain and retain power by working the party structures, and Mbeki evidently thought he was going to win at Polokwane. (Remember his hero is Coriolanus, who despised the Roman rabble.)
Please explain to your friends that though they much prefer to see the ANC in power, you are nevertheless right.
‘Democracies’ are places where the people decide the government they get, not the other way round.
This does result in them getting dreadful leaders from time to time.
But then ‘democracies’ are also places where the people can get rid of them.
Correction
Mbeki made serious errors of political judgement. One of which was to believe the unpragmatic myth of the fabled ANC values of not campaigning but appealing to the “inherent” better judgement of the ANC mob.
Hence forgot that politics in the words of Scaiffe is war not public relations. He introvertedly failed to defend his fort against a vicious attack that did not even care about respecting the juristic persona or office of the President. But why?
I bet we will have to wait for so many answers when this man,whom Trevor Manuel called his favourite economist, writes and publishes his memoirs.
@ Zukile! So, you suggest Thabo Mbeki should have changed the electoral law for his own personal advantage and by coincidence to the advantage of the electorate? You also suggest that he should have been an autocrat in order to create the real democracy so that we can elect him to be the despot that he is? On the face of it your argument seems plausible but on closer scrutiny, it lacks crucial elements of logic and reason. What this country requires is the counter-balance and ultimately an alternative to the intoxicating power vested in the ANC.
It would be quite difficult for the pipe smoking intellectual to change the electoral laws without the blessing of the ANC and your piece Zukile make no mention of the role of Parliament on that score, I think the downfall of Mbeki is attributable to his stubborness, quest for absolute power (Centralisation of the ANC) and poor or lack of sensible advice.
You make some statements that are unsupported by facts and/or are not logical:
1. Please adduce facts supporting your statement that Zuma a victim of the G8 conference in Glen Eagle?
2. Please adduce facts supporting your conclusion that “the hoi-polloi disagreed, the upper middle class thought reason had prevailed”.
3. The ANC (post-Polokwane) asserts that Zuma’s victory and Mbeki defeat are a product of a robust democratic process. In fact the defeat of Mbeki in Polokwane, as well as the reversal of the NWC decision regarding Zuma’s role as ANC deputy President by the NGC, were sufficient illustration of the ANC leadership’s dependence on the membership. No one has adduced any fact that serves to prove that the organs of the ANC (such as the conference, NGC, NEC, branches, etc) could, pre-Polokwane not have acted in the manner that they did in Polokwane. We can therefore safely and reasonably conclude that Mbeki was dependent on the support of the membership, contrary to your assertion, and that he did in fact have the support of the membership, hence his election to progressively senior positions. (a further illustration of the probity of the foregoing conclusion, is Mbeki’s failure to prevent the election of Lekota as chairman, inspite of Mbeki’s support of another candidate).
4. The statement “TM’s rise to power and his triumph in the 1993 elective conference in Durban did not come as a result of his popularity among the rank and file. Other popular leaders did his bidding…”, can equally be applied to Jacob Zuma, Mbethe, Mantashe and many other leaders. Success in a democratic process is not determined solely by a leaders popularity, it is also dependent successful lobbying by influential interest groups (such as unions, churches, veterans, etc), who act as “bulldogs” and sometimes intimidate all contenders, hence prior to Polokwane and in Polokwane, there was a notable reluctance by many leaders to extend their candidature, because of factional intimidation, although they may have wished to stand. The illustrations that you use to show that Mbeki was not popular are therefore of little use in proving that he was unpopular.
Your suggestion that the manner for Mbeki to have shown that he was a savvy political operator should have been to change the electoral laws, therefore “taking the nation to his confidence”, is mind boggling for its absurdity. It is clearly a suggestion steeped in the unsubstantiated belief that his sole objective in life was to attain and hold political power, and that the only illustration of political ability is attaining power and holding onto it.
To suggest that 3000 delegates “never liked him” when in fact he was elected unopposed to the ANC’s deputy presidency, and Presidency (TWICE) constitutes a distortion of an extraordinary nature (More particularly when you consider that 38% of the delegates in Polokwane voted for him in spite of the active campaign against him by Cosatu, the SACP and the ANCYL. In this regard, it is worth noting that there was hardly any organized formation within the tripartite alliance, government or civil society which campaigned on his behalf and he was reliant on individuals to argue the case of his reelection, yet still garnered 38% of the vote!).
You further suggest Mbeki was “forced fed” to the ANC membership by “the Elders” (who you do not define) and proceed to mention Govan Mbeki (who could be defined as an elder?) as having not supported him, which is clearly contradictory. Also, you do not even substantiate your suggestion that Govan Mbeki did not support Thabo Mbeki (have you considered, for example, that he may have been fearful that the presidency would endanger Thabo’s health, or that he knew that Thabo’s attainment thereof would result in him having less time with his family, or any other million similar permutations, nonsensical or otherwise!!!?).
You regurgitate the unfounded conclusion by commentators and the media that Mbeki centralized power at his own behest and for his own self interest (without in anyway explaining why he would seek to do this). No mention is made of the democratic resolutions emanating from the Mafikeng ANC conference for the assignment of extraordinary powers to the ANC presidency and recommendations of the Presidential Review Commission Report, adopted by a cabinet led by Mandela, for the merger of the deputy presidency to the presidency. The centralization of power in the presidency of the state and the ANC cannot be contextualized without an analysis of the aforementioned factors resolutions and the PRC Report/findings (which cannot reasonably be attributed solely, or even primarily, to Mbeki’s mechanizations!).
The paucity of your position is further illustrated by your belief that Mbeki, to prove his credentials as a democrat, ought to have unilaterally changed the “electoral laws and put his fate in the hands of the voters”!!!!! You see this as a “shrewd move”, by I would see it as an extremely undemocratic and Machiavellian move.
Zukile you write exceedingly well. Your blog is a fresh look on politics in a country where so many so-called-political analysts give such monotonous ‘analysis’ and keep recycling the same ideas. Well done and keep it up.
Contrary to what Ferial Haffejee’s M&G told us, Nbeki greatest weakness was that he was a moral disciplined leader. I do not doubt that he pushed through unpopular ideas but take into account that South Africa needed a strong leader willing to take into account the neccesaity of the unpopular stance. It would have bothered his moral side if he sought to change the constitution that would suggest that he was trying to cling to power. When he stepped down, i think he did so with a great sense of relief. The moral disciplined cadre tires of the immorality of politics.