Diversity should build not break the ANC, writes Chris Maxon.
If media reports around the ferocious contests that have come to characterise elective conferences of the glorious ANC are anything to go by, they must be seen as a concern that requires thorough understanding and analysis.
This is more so because looking back at the history of this movement one is attracted by “one organisation comprising multiple identities”. These have become its virtue of existence and survival over the years.
The traditions of ANC survival and continued popular support over a century are a history of traditions that persisted in differing degrees and forms in different places and times.
The bearers came from isolated towns and cities, different religious beliefs and customary traditions, and various educational backgrounds. They were young and old. Sometimes they were activists who had endured detentions and harsh prison conditions.
But what permeated through to create what we today refer to as the “ANC traditions” is the common identity within multiple diversities.
What is noteworthy, though, is that in this diversity of traditions, religious beliefs and social backgrounds, there has never been a discussion on how these belief systems interact and what systems inform which decisions or actions for the various people within the ANC.
Over the years the various components of the ANC in their own right have expressed their distinctness in various ways.
Different experiences and understandings have influenced divergent conceptions of democracy within the organisation and in society.
Nowhere in Africa has a liberation movement transformed itself seamlessly into an organisation of post-liberation.
Governing a state alone presents numerous challenges that are not only different but, in some respects, clash with the requisites and principles of waging a successful liberation struggle.
To substantiate the point let me share views expressed by the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF) national chairman, Simon Khaya Moyo, when he said: “No liberation movement will ever be replaced by people coming from nowhere. This applies to Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe, ANC in South Africa, Frelimo in Mozambique, Swapo in Namibia, MPLA in Angola and Chama Cha Mapinduzi in Tanzania.
We are not just neighbours with South Africa. We share a common liberation history, culture and values. Any of us who are not part of this revolutionary journey should think again because the train will not wait for anyone.” These are some of the comments that we hear within the ANC as well.
Some members and leaders especially, are deeply affected by taking their movement through to ultimate triumph, and readily assume a sense not only of the rightness of their cause, but of their entitlement to the power that follows.
Power is not for them the result simply of a popular vote that may be reversed in a later election but is instead the culmination of a lifetime mission.
However; unless we appreciate the different experiences, the distinct and multiple identities within a common identity, it will not be possible to understand the character of some of the differences and tension that have emerged and may still emerge.
The various components also represent distinct practices and expectations of what it means to be an ANC member and what different people hope to derive from such membership.
The Communist International once proclaimed; “to carry a membership card is only an expression of a will to become.”
Today nonetheless it may also define, as Raymond Suttner argues, what describing the ANC as a “broad church” means, and what may be included or excluded from that concept at different times and under diverse conditions.
But the question that continues to loom large is this: given such a rich history of survival and surviving multiple diversities, what creates the current disturbing traditions? Others may ask, controversially, whether the expectations and practices of ANC members recruited in the dark days of the 60s, 70s and 80s were the same as those of a person joining post-1994 democratic breakthrough.
The reality of the situation today is that the various experiences, expectations and practices that make up the ANC may have worked as both a limiting factor and a catalyst for ANC’s growth in the current trajectory of a democratic South Africa.
What we tend to refer as “ANC culture” actually refers to the various phases and experiences that do not replace each other over the years but are carried over. When these come together, harmony in common identity disappears and contests erupt.
This result in the contest to be the dominant culture which can only be secured through the leadership collective that is elected in each conference.
It is expected that a particular leadership choice will influence the conception and practice of democracy within the ANC and society at large. This is because some experiences tend to lean towards greater popular participation than others, greater internal democracy or more or less centralisation.
Therefore, the fierce contests are clearly about domination and, as others have argued, also about access to state resources. In many instances we have seen this resulting in dominant executives; weak branches and shrinking space for critical deliberation and contestation in ideological work. This may lead one to argue that the current contests are about the dominant culture which is seen only through the leadership choices. Sadly, the traditions of multiplicity in diversity are slowly becoming an illusion.
The media reports alleging fierce conflicts and commentary suggesting “comrade against comrade” consequences can only be understood through the prism of the different and complex experiences and diversities that make up the collective culture and identity of the ANC.
These complex practices and expectations of members from various backgrounds result in what we see as ferocious contestations and gun battles including murders. But within each of these experiences there are many variations.
For example, those who joined the struggle pre-1994 do not necessarily represent the limiting element, militaristic, top-down and bureaucratic styles.
It actually contains some diversity within a common experience – exiles, Robben Islanders, underground operatives and UDF activists, for example.
Likewise, those who joined the movement post-1994 democratic South Africa cannot be simplified as a golden era comrades with no political and liberation struggle experience. Within each of these cultures there are many variants that qualify to be said to be catalysts for the growing ANC.
The threats facing the ANC are correspondingly more insidious, and arise overwhelmingly from within: from the kind of movement it is, and the conceptions held at a particular period by the dominant culture.
All that must be emphasised is that; in combination and infusing a common identity, the diverse and multiple identities actually create the general character of the ANC and define its tradition.
The road from liberation is a long one, but allows the possibility of eventual reconciliation between the aspirations expressed in struggle on the one hand, and the need for stable and accountable post-liberation movement on the other.
* Maxon is a government communications official and a social commentator writing in his personal capacity
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
Daily News