Answering Helen Zille

I seem to recall, not so long ago, in the South African National Convention at Sandton last year madam Helen Zille telling the gathered there that in the coming elections the opposition parties should try to rise above petty politics and concentrate on fighting the juggernaut power of the African National Congress (ANC). From reading her 2009 second week letter in the Democratic Alliance (DA), where she castigates the Congress of the People (COPE) for being not better than the ANC, I guess she’s no longer singing from that sheet.

Madam Zille writes; ‘it should be clear to all South Africans that the substantive choice in this election is between the ANC’s “closed crony society for some” and the DA’s “open, opportunity society for all”. . . The emergence of COPE, and the role it plays in breaking down the ANC’s monolith, should not blur this fundamental distinction. If it does, it could do more harm than good.’ Madam Zille further says ‘The split in the ANC is a direct result of the struggle for control between rival factions of a patronage-based system . . .’ And goes on to allege that the leadership of COPE is made of the same people that consolidate ‘the closed, crony system and blur the lines between party and state – a step which often signals the irreversible decline of an emerging democracy.’ Leaving aside the clear electioneering opportunism of madam Zille’s accusation, let’s see if there’s any credence in all this.

The most irresponsible statement Helen Zille makes is this; ‘Ironically, the party’s list selection process that most closely conforms to the “closed patronage model” is COPE’s. A small leadership group chooses every other representative in the party, including themselves.’ COPE ascertains that its leaders should be elected by its constituencies, which means the list of candidates should come from the Voter Districts (VD) [COPE operates on Voter District ground structure, along the Independent Election Council guidelines, instead of Branch system like most South African political parties.]

In Bloemfontein, late last year, when the interim national leadership of COPE was to be elected, it became apparent that most of the provinces didn’t have proper VD structures [It must be remembered that COPE is hardly few months old]. A decision was then made for the province representatives present at the party launch to make lists of proposals for national leadership. Most provinces came up with the required list, with the exception of Western Province that could not come up with an agreed list in time. I won’t get into the details of how that was resolved, its party internal matter. Suffice to say from the lists prepared by the provinces an aggregate was taken, based on proportional representation of all racial, ethnic, gender, age groups. The bulk of people on provincial lists became the present interim leadership structure of COPE. To say this was made by a ‘small leadership group’ of ‘closed patronage model’ is misrepresentation of facts to say the least.

‘While all candidate selection processes create a measure of conflict, it is predictable that the COPE approach will still result in profound ructions for the new party.’ Madame Zille writes. The only ruction COPE’s national election of leadership drew was the duration the structure should take. Some people felt two years was too long for an interim structure. Admittedly, there are tensions in the creation of provincial leadership at present. This because COPE is largely made up of groups from different cultural and political culture. COPE is learning the best ways to accommodate and represent these groupings. Indication is, with some difficulties, the principles of the party are prevailing.

As for the sore loser theory from Polokwane, it is tiring to have to answer this allegation. How is Charlotte Lobe a sore loser for instead, since she was elected in the present ANC National Executive Council from which she voluntarily resigned to join COPE at great political, financial and personal risk to herself. What gains of power is Terror Lekota looking for when he was not even willing to stand on the interim leadership structure of COPE and had to be persuaded in a protracted process to do so for the stability of the fledgling party. For that matter, most people who are in COPE leadership structure are doing so rather at great financial and personal strain; what is so attractive about that? And where does madam Zille feature people the likes of COPE second deputy editor,Odendaal, in her accusations? The fact is, COPE membership as it is now is largely made up of people who’ve never took any interests in politics before, and not of ANC breakaways as wrongly perceived.

Another misnomer is the notion of COPE’s lack of identity as insinuated by madam Zille when she says; ‘COPE now faces the challenge of showing that it is different from the ANC, that it is not merely a bunch of sore losers seeking to hold on to their positions by creating a separate electoral platform for themselves.’ COPE is a movement for the dawn of new era in South African politics, founded on the promise of commitment to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa as a will of the people of democratic values that are sensitive to individual and minority rights. COPE believes human rights overrides even democratic ones. That everyone's right to life, liberty, property, free speech, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights, are given by life and may not be subjected to vote, or depend on the outcome of electioneering.

Having seen how easy it is for majority political parties to manipulate the governing laws of the republic to suite the capricious and arbitrary power of the day, COPE founders saw that it is not enough to merely legislate laws if the values and ideals espoused by legislation for the public good is not robustly defended, or does not become part of the very fabric of political process. By doing so they woke many of us who were apolitical and complacent under the illusion that our country was in a correct political path.

COPE believes all political and legal developments must be measured against the moral principles that lie at the core of our human rights. Thus COPE sees that Rechsstaat, i.e. a society based on the rule of law, is not sufficient. We need to create a society based on social justice and dedicated to higher moral calling. This requires not simply good laws but also leadership of knowledgeable insight who are untarnished by duplicitous moral and ethical dubiousness. Hence COPE seeks to strive to be led by effective, competent, efficient, industrious leaders with organisational qualities and deeper sense of truth; a leadership who must despise personal gains at the expense of the public at large.

Another issue that has recently been in fashion is that of accusing COPE of evasive strategy when it comes to Affirmative action and Black Economic Empowerment. Madam Zille and Jimmy Manyi are examples of different extreme, which suggests that COPE in its endeavour in taking the mean between nationalist and liberal politics must be doing something right. For clarity, COPE’s Draft Policy Document has this to say on the BEE issue: ‘While in the recent past there has arisen a small group of empowered blacks or the so-called black elite, and there are signs that generally the middle-class is on the rise . . . there remains high levels of inequalities in South Africa. Race politics cannot be ignored; they still loom large. However, with class inequalities gaining prominence, race is gradually losing weight as a factor of inequality. What this means is that social tensions are not only limited to inter-race tensions; intra-race tensions along class lines are also slowly emerging. . .’

There’s another reality that is gradually emerging in South Africa – that of ‘poor whites problem’. COPE policy draft document says; ‘This also should not be overlooked on the account of the state’s Constitution imperatives however emotive this issue can be. This should be treated as part of the wider problem of rising class inequalities and poverty in society rather a special case . . . [All] this requires us to revisit some of the elements of economic policy, notably the BEE and give more meaningful effect to its broad-based component as well as to examine its social costs with respect of racial harmony.’ To an extent that it was suggested, by one of COPE’s prominent member, Farouk Cassim, that we should henceforth call this Grassroots Economic Empowerment (GEE) instead of BEE to clarify our stand of wishing to include all disadvantage people for empowerment.

It is perhaps not surprising that those of stagnant and moribund politics feel threatened by COPE’s gain of momentum and strategic positioning. Historical factors, especially its lure of proper mean between nationalist and liberal politics, are on COPE’s side, which is why it is quickly capturing the imagination of South Africans. But one would expect that at least even in politicking parties would be fair and try to criticise from an informed position. The firing pressures directed towards COPE will only serve to clarify its principles and purify its leadership. COPE is not prepared to enter into mudslinging with other political parties. Instead it invites all South Africans of goodwill to remember the rock they were hewn from, and rediscover the hope of the society they sort to build when Nelson Mandela became the president of the country.

Towards building the just society it envisages COPE commits itself towards working for:

• Rapid and sustainable economic growth.
• Distribution of resources in a fair and equitable manner that does not prejudice against others.
• Creation of fair and equal opportunities for all, regardless of colour, gender, age, or creed.
• A Constitutional democracy depending on the superiority of the constitution and committing to upholding it.
• Building a competent and apolitical public service that is composed of qualified civil servants who are committed to taking services to the people.
• Rallying all South Africans behind the idea of hard work and self-uplifment with commitment towards a vision of creating and sustaining conditions for prosperity and peace, especially in the African continent.
• Inspiring the nation with visionary leadership and commitment with moral and ethical values.
• Finding a new political narrative that fits our social needs and times, away from stagnant politics of prejudice, without neglecting our proud history of liberation struggle and individual rights.

An idea whose time has come

Opinion is growing in the South African public that the Congress of the People (COPE) is turning up to be nothing more than taxonomical adjustment of the ANC with same old prescriptions and cadences. Indeed COPE has been taking in a lot of detritus dumped overboard by other political parties, giving them fresh opportunities to reboot. It is therefore understandable when people question its bona fides, after all one of COPE’s rallying points is ethical behaviour. Why, for instance, must it welcome as a heroes convicts like Allan Boesak?

Granted, Boesak was given a presidential pardon that eradicated his criminal record, but COPE sells itself as the guardian of moral principles among other things, and rallies on politics that are built on solid principles. Because of this, more than other political party, COPE is judged harshly when it shows holes on its moral fabric. On the other hand most people tend to forget that COPE also promotes the combination of reforming spirit with its ideals of constitutionalism, defence of democracy and so forth. COPE is about new beginnings, trying to realise the full potential of the country, etc.

It is correct that repentant ex-offenders should not feel left out, but be re-integrated into society and accorded all their rights as enshrined in the Constitution. There’s a danger, seen long ago by Aristotle, of vices sometimes being virtues carried to excess; the error of puritanical organisations. By accepting Boesak COPE, on top of being practical, avoids excessive virtuousness, and the superficial culture of appropriating blame as the sign of virtue. I’m sure COPE is not a post-Freudian political organisation that relaxes moral views, pardoning all on pretence of understanding all. Rather by adopting the more strenuous position that regards real virtue as a thing that require more discriminating, even less immediately gratifying populist stance, COPE put itself in a stronger position, above the slack disposition of self-righteousness by readily apportioning blame to others, and dishing double jeopardy to those who’ve paid their debt to society.

Political parties must find value on people for what they stand for now, how they, heron, conduct themselves. Otherwise they’d have to refuse admission to many people, especially politicians who almost always have shoddy pasts, one way or the other. Once you start preventing people from becoming members of your party simply because of what they did in their previous political parties, positions of employment, family matters, churches, schools, rugby clubs, soccer clubs, etc., where do you end? I’m sure COPE wants membership of great stature and credible leadership with integrity, who respects the rule of law, and will uphold the Constitution, etc. But it does not have to be finicky about these issues. It is hypocritical bêtise, and suspension of reality, to say in politics there are no second chances, as if politics were not part of life. We all believe that everyone deserves a second chance in life. As much as we want to put our country back to sound ethical and moral principles we must avoid the high frisson of reification, treating people as disposable things and demonising them because of their past.

COPE has so far been making right noises towards progressive, pluralistic, consultative, participatory, ethical democracy. It has captured the imagination of South Africans who want to move away from exhortatory passé politics of nostalgia and perpetual myth making. True, if it wants to gain the confidence of the majority of South Africans it must find ways of reducing the disabling gaps between political rhetoric and practise to eliminate performative contradictions. The real test is on whether COPE is able to avoid the cloying carnivalesque delirium of the Tripartite Alliance (TA) they so eloquently criticise. The TA has fallen victim to its own myths making by placing too much credence on its rhetorical slogans, and by conducting itself as a self-appointed messianic custodians of our freedom. Most South Africans seek a fresh break from all the stale about the so called national revolutionary politics that glorifies barren ideologies and superficial radical appeal. COPE’s success will be determined by how much it makes itself platform of expression for the spirit of our times.

COPE has chosen what is termed progressive politics where political leaders acquaint themselves with sentiments and derivations of the masses, and the narrative order of the day. Progressive politics sublimate social tensions by adopting development social spirit for common good. If COPE promotes and practice that with structural integrity of democracy and justice, break the power of stultifying illusions that has been created by the TA, people are in intelligent enough to realise where their best future rest. Sometimes when an idea arrives at an opportune time, and finds right leadership of progressive spirit, it acquires a force of inevitability.

Too much power corrupts

Without belittling the global economic crisis, the shameful xenophobic attacks, the renewed fighting at the Gaza Strip, even the brilliant win of Proteas in Australia and all; this year for me go down as the one the African National Congress (ANC) showed its real intentions and scared the pants out of me with its shenanigans. That woke me out of complacency that our country, politically, was on the golden path.

It is a given fact of history that governments that hold power too long lapse into decadence and corruption. Leaving aside semantic quibbles about the callous meanings of the word corrupt, it is fair to say that the dictum of the English nineteenth century historian, Lord Acton, proved to be applicable to our post apartheid government after the pivotal moment in our modern history at Polokwane. The ANC Government has since been through crisis after another, largely from dearth of vision and lack of proper leadership. It has, in my eyes at least, lost moral authority due to scandals, sleaze, arrogance and incompetence. The worse part is that, instead of attempting to mend its structural flaws it tried to save face by amassing more powers through what can only be termed as tyranny of legislation (changing laws of the republic to suite its designs).

It has become clear that what the ANC Government, with its Tripartite Alliance (TA) partners, is seeking to do by its so called National Democratic Revolution is to establish a society of unified intent, a society where uniformity of thought is enforced by the tyranny of the majority. It is trying to adopt what in historical terms is called the machtsstaat, a state based on might of arbitrary will of the persons in power without the strict observation of the rule of law.

After the horrible apartheid years South Africa chose to follow the rote of a Rechsstaat, i.e. the government that is bound by law with powers limited by the individual rights of its people. This rule of law emphasises the absolute supremacy of law as opposed to arbitrary power, even that of the majority and has been known, since the founding of the United States Republic, as Constitutional democracy. In this system an independent judiciary interprets and enforces provisions of the constitution even when it means overturning the acts of a democratically elected legislature. Of course those within the TA tend to carelessly drum the sacrosanct of democracy even when it violates other rights.

For instance, the ANC National Executive Council (NEC) was at pains trying to justify it’s decision to unconstitutionally recall the president of the republic, Thabo Mbeki. {Our constitution states clearly that only the Constitutional Court may decide that Parliament or the President has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation. [The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, sec.172(4)(e).} The ANC NEC disregarded this in the recall, and the fact that in the South African system of governance only the constitution is sovereign. Section 2 of our Constitution Founding Provisions established the supremacy of the constitution above even the government. It says; “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.”

The supremacy of the Constitution was promulgated to prevent exactly these kinds of abuse of political power, and to control government power against the citizens. South Africa is a constitutional republic with checks and balances to minimise the impact of faction, and reduce the risk of the tyranny of the majority. This is the heritage it adopted from the American republic.

The American founding fathers realised the dangers of tyranny even from the majority rule when they established Constitutional democracy as means to control factions that may harm other citizens. James Madison, as if foreseeing what happened in SA since Polokwane, wrote in The Federal Papers that factions are “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” It is easy to control a minority faction by a democratic process. At worst, Madison wrote, a minority faction “may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.” But what of the majority disguising their abuse of law through manipulation and changing of laws?

Madison saw that the real danger arises with a majority faction. “When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” In a democratic system the tyranny of the majority and legislature (which represents the majority) is something always alive and was given colour in our country post Polokwane by the ANC. “[I]t is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.” Admonished Madison.

A person who tabulated clearly the dangers of the “Tyranny of the Majority” was the nineteenth famous French social commentator Alexis de Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America. He warned against the lack of sufficient limitations on majority rule and dire consequences of unfettered democracy. Thomas Jefferson, as Alexander Hamilton, Madison’s co-author, all came to a conclusion that power must be granted to constitutional courts as a barrier against the tyranny of political assemblies, and means of accountability for the government. With that the American government shifted away from majority rule towards constitutional principles, which South Africa inherited and improved in certain areas. To see that thrown down the window by a few elite group elected by political factions was highly disconcerting.

We’ve seen the reshuffles and cathartic upheavals within our government ever since Polkwane. We now find ourselves under the power of leaders with wry perspective and bruised egos whose faces we were never sold into during our last vote. And near moral and political collapse of our democracy that has been hijacked by factions. We’ve seen plotters and mutineers invoking the name of democracy, making us accomplices in their designs. Surely at some stage we have to say enough is enough.

Feel For Me a Brimming Bowl

Recently I attended a friend’s wedding held at Hermanus outside Cape Town. He’s the closest thing I have to a best friend. The following week he was leaving for the US to further his studies in one of the Ivy League education institutions. We were together at varsity in Johannesburg during the dying years of the eighties and early nineties, probably the most seminal years in the beginnings of our country’s democracy.

We sat together at the resort’s veranda watching whales in the moribund hours after the reception. It was a poignantly beautiful site that brought to mind something Keats said about a line in Spenser’s poem; “what an image that is—‘sea-shouldering whales!’ It sounds like something out of Homer, doesn’t it? Remarked my friend. The felicity of language and image has been both our passion. We sat back with our drinks, like whales in shallow waters, feeling the political weight of parting billows on our shoulders—the president of the republic had just been recalled by the ruling party under unsatisfactory conditions.

I think I understand now why you allowed your party membership to lapse after the likes of Mandelas were released; said he after a while (Though I had not been an official member of the African National Congress I still felt it to be my political home). Up till then he had been working in the national legislator. The recall of president Mbeki convinced him it was time to move on. We recalled how only more than a decade ago we brimmed with hope because we had worked ourselves into national pride. We wanted to be part of the brick and mortar of the new, brighter, future for our country. Now we were no longer feeling the spark that fired that pride. What had gone wrong?

We talked long about radical incongruities that cripple our national pride. It’s just politics, said I in the end, knowing very well that it was exactly what it was not. You see, to us at least, it was never about politics, but dreams of what the ancient Greeks called nomoi; the training of citizen for common good. To learn state laws—law here does not only concern regulating relations between people and their affairs, but formative creative agent aimed at instilling virtue of excellence in citizen-body. We thought we would be part of building blocks to instill culture of intelligence and modesty; paths of thoughts and practices inspired by democratic, human dignity and moral good.

We thought we could use politics to recover the African wellspring which was vandalised by the invidious experience of colonialism and apartheid. We meant to reverse the self-imposed loss of road markers, blood memory and subconscious mental habits of our people, so as to recover by excavation our indigenous ways. In short, we thought we would reinvest the notion of humanities with ubuntu. We believed the time had come for Africa to rediscover the expression of her soul, conceptualised by what Greeks termed paideia. [Paideia is a general education dating from the mid–fifth century BC, designed to prepare young men for active citizenship. It was further developed in the Roman notion of humanitas, set forth in Cicero’s De Oratore (55 BC). The Early Church Fathers, notably St. Augustine, developed it into a program of Christian education, built around the study of grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history, and moral philosophy.] We saw ourselves as agents of that in our country.

I mention all this to highlight the fact that, for us, it was never about politics, but about the refinement of our sentiments and moral sensibilities. When you disregard that, you kill the spark of national pride. We bought, lock, stock and barrel, into the idea of African Renaissance, the assimilation of creative energies from different cultural backgrounds and recovery of classical traditions, infused with penetrating light of what is best in all times. The eccentricities of the present ANC administration pour water into that spark. We found ourselves caught between our beliefs and their erratic behaviour, which we felt no longer correlates with our values and beliefs.

We needed a new home, a consistent political party that must stand outside the lure of false politicking. We need leaders that’ll take seriously the practice of our democracy, moral imperatives, social and economic justice. Who share our social view and moral principles. Who’ll not just give symbolic self-expression to them, readily disregard in promotion of group interest, or sacrifice to party interests. That is why we now see Cope (Congress for the People) as the new promise for our aspirations.
*
The bride came fetching her groom for their first married night. Our eyes filled with tears; voices faltered. It might be a long time before we see each other again. “I always make an awkward bow.” The poet assisted. “Fill for me a brimming bowl.” Said I as they left. My thoughts mounted on stilts and cleaved on the mystical air of mournful whale cries. In the stillness of my heart I wished all of them joy in their mating season. What’s that Zakes Mda starts his book of similar title with: ‘The sea is bleeding from the scars of HarSaul . . .’ Ah, ja! The ancient sea is accusing the precocity of things.

Ripeness is all

The van of political circumstances culminated to most South Africans, who were concerned by the wrong turn the politics of the country under the tutelage of the Tripartite Alliance had taken, answering the call of Terror Lekota to attend the National Convention at Sandton. Most of us who started this year as members of the ANC, albeit uncomfortably so since the purging that followed the present leadership of the ANC at Polokwane, never in our lives thought we could leave the ANC. But the unilateral decision by the NEC of the ANC to recall the former president of the republic, and the comedy of errors that followed that decision, was the last proverbial straw. We found ourselves caught between our beliefs and erratic behaviour of the leadership of our political home we’ve given our lives into, which we felt no longer correlate with our values and beliefs.


After making numerous means to engage our leadership our voice was ignored, nee, marginalised because we happened not to be of certain persuasion, or rallied behind certain individuals during the Polokwane presidential race. Surveying all this we felt we needed to find other means to reinstate the ideas of Freedom Charter we cherish. We felt we needed a consistent political party that must stand outside the lure of false politicking where we’ll be able to identify leaders that’ll take seriously the practise of our democracy, moral imperatives, social and economic justice. Leaders who share our social view and moral principles. Who’ll not just give symbolic self-expression to these values while readily disregarding them in promotion of group interest, or sacrifice them to party interests.


Coming from the National Convention it was clear that the majority of South Africans share our values. It put paid to those who regard us just as disgruntled members of the ANC, bitter because we lost or didn’t get power at Polokwane. The formation of the Congress of the People is not the winter of elite few’s distress but an answer to deeper aspirations of all South Africans. It is birth pangs of something beautiful and sublime for democratic freedom of our country that has long been pining to be born since it became clear that the dream of full non-racialism has not been fully realised even in the governance of the ANC.

The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, is quoted to have, when asked why he disagreed with Plato, whose protégé he was, answered: Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is the truth. Those of us who emerge from the struggle heritage of the Liberation Movement still hold the ANC dear, but dearer still is the truth. Therefore, sober and free from prejudice of ANC bashing, we’ve decided to forge a new way to consolidate and advance the democratic gains for our freedom. This demanded extensive soul searching and maturity on our part, even emotional and material sacrifices. Like an older child who has decided to leave his parent’s house, following the eternal law of growth, we took on this step that must never be taken for granted, or whose significance must not be underestimated. Ripeness is all, as Edgar remarked in Shakespeare’s remarkable drama, King Lear.

We all know the story; the dementia of the old king, put suspicion and hating against his own children, making impossible for them to remain home. It is with that feeling we left our political home to forge ahead to more freedom and diversity. We repeat. We should be better than our grumpy old men, and try never to use barbed tongues against our parents.

As we leave our home, fate strangles our hearts to free our heads. We take the responsibility of an older child to find our own way. We are aware that we must be vigilant, guard against blowing our inheritance with whores of foreign customs. Instead, like Joseph, we go before our brethren to plough the fields of Egypt, where we must gather granaries to bolster us when the drought comes. There’ll come a time when our fathers will send our brothers to seek food from our granaries. Like Joseph, we should be kind and not vindictive even then. We must share with them what we’ve learned as we all resume our much to a better life for all. For now, Men must endure / Their going hence, even as their coming hither: / Ripeness is all.

The shape of every historical present is structured by anticipation of a possible better future. We believe the Congress of the People is our best available means for the country to move forward against exhausted politics and ideologies. We need vigorous means to promote conditions for our freedom and democracy that are not determined by factional powers of the day, but based on strong ground of constitutional values. We need effective means to combat corruption, to move away from the endless schisms, empty barrelling and petrified vanity.

If anything our recent political experience has demonstrated that we should never again allow ourselves to be mystified by the lure of nostalgia into giving political power that serves power-interests and dead sloganeering. Even at the price of being called reactionary, anti-revolutionary, or labelled counter-revolutionary dissenters; we must never allow it again. Ranting of counter-revolutionary and all have become outmoded to the language and realities of our times. Our conditions have shifted. We need new politics to fit our era and social aspirations. We need ways and means to interpret even to those who do not yet see what the spirit of freedom fluttering within our hearts is doing. For too long we’ve been going in circles around the walls of Jericho, it is time we go to a higher place, to bring down the shackles of our mental slavery.

We must move to the next step of our liberation. Political emancipation, to be final, must also involve the liberation of self also from self. Slavery comes in different forms and is, more than anything, an internal mental disposition. We should not allow ourselves to be blinded by outmoded politics. Times are a changing. Nothing must obscure the complex diffuse of our naturalising social reality towards human dignity for all. Failing which the glories of our past, fast fading into empty sloganeering, would be nothing but just that, past. With the establishment of the Congress of the People the stage is set yet for the new trial of our invention.

All We Have Left Unsaid (Book Review)

I usually avoid books that win literature accolades for simple reason that I, almost always, end up confused about why. I’m happy to say Maxine Case’s book, All we have left unsaid, proved to be slightly different, a wonderful surprise despite the fact that it was a winner of the 2007 Commonwealth Writers’ Prize for Best First Book in Africa.

In a nutshell, the book is about two sisterly-motherly loves and growing up in South Africa during the late eighties. It is a personal painful story of discovery, and panting means of trying to stay at ease with the world. Danny (Danika), whose older sister is called Lili (Lilian-Rose), is a protagonist. She begins her narrative over her dying mother’s hospital bed. Naturally, the poignancy of the situation takes her back to their growing up years. The usual kitsch and tat follows, which in this case lacks complexity and depth. The hard truth, as written by Jessa Crispin concerning these kind of memoirs is that; Either your book must be exceptionally written (a trait hard to find in memoirs these days) or you must have done something exceptional. You must have travelled to the underground or the heavens and come back with fire or golden apples or at least a little wisdom. It can’t just be, “Daddy hit me, mommy got cancer” — everyone has a sad story, and it is possible to go through a trauma or experience something significant without gaining any insight.

On other matters; it is strange that in South Africa I should complain of an over edited book (we are known to be sloppy in this department). But Maxine Case’s book is over edited. The style of writing is taught and taut, as is fashion in our times. Such style of writing suites well a short story genre, where the reader is challenged to stay at his / her alert best to the end. In a long work things get to a point where it feels like you’re being pulled by a tight rope, or listening to jarring notes from a tightly pulled guitar strings. That’s where the machinery starts creaking.

All we left unsaid is an easy read; an easy read with habitual use of active voice that, at some stage, makes for forcible writing. It maintains a certain level of, not invention, but performance that makes a reader feels like he’s being dragged by the ear by a headmistress. Our era believes that sentences of description or exposition must always be lively and emphatic; like, for example, in Case’s book, the penultimate passage of page 42:

My father comes home all the time now that my mother is pregnant. He still brings us biltong and still lifts me in the air, but he doesn’t play with me as much as he used to. He also does not fetch me from school.

I know that conjunctions are passé in our era, but we tend to forget that it helps to insert them now and then, just to lift the strain on the reader if nothing else. The paragraph would have been fine even if written as:

Father comes home all the time now that mother is pregnant, bringing us biltong and lifting me in the air though he no longer play with me as much as he used to. He no longer fetches me from school either.

It may be that this style of writing breaks all modern rules of tautness by substituting transitives in created actives, but this creates space for continuous flow in the reader’s mind, rather than all the abrupt ends and immediate beginnings. The point is made better by William Strunk, Jr. in his educative book Elements of Style. “[A] writer may err by making his sentences too uniformly compact and periodic, and an occasional loose sentence prevents the style from becoming too formal and gives the reader a certain relief.”

The tendency of shortening sentences, simplifying diction, and throwing confetti of platitudes (some thing Case’s book suffers from I am afraid) shows patterns of increased pandering to the lowest common intellectual denominator. It is worse when it is combined with mockery of complexity and analysis that is sometimes regarded as wit in out times.

The book All we left unsaid reads like a chic-flick version Shirley Goodness and Mercy. Only it lacks true narrative transport because it has very little natural psychological insightfulness. It is not a work of art but a good read for those who want less introspection (strange thing considering the subject), and more intrigues of contemporary sensationist novelists. It is not in the calibre of Marian Keys (my obsession on the genre), but then again it is Case’s debut book and I for one am looking forward to her second attempt.

South African National Convention

The shape of every historical present is structured by anticipation of a possible better future. That is the answer I give to those who question my support for Mosiuoa Lekota’s call for a NC (National Convention), where he promise will be the discussion of the political state of our country before we go to next year’s national elections. Lekota’s call is the best means available now for our country to move forward against exhausted politics of the left and liberal paternalism. I don’t suppose it to be an anodyne panacea but it sure bits seating around waiting for Julius Malema to take us down vulgar ‘revolutionary’ path.

We need to promote conditions of freedom and democracy in our country that are not determined by factional power of the day, but based on strong ground of constitutional values. And we need to move away from the endless schisms within the ANC between empty barrels and petrified vanity. Nothing shows their impotence as the criticism against the former Premier of Gauteng, Mbazima Shilowa. Resigning as Premier, Shilowa, summed his reasons as follows; “I am resigning due to my convictions that while the ANC has the right to recall any of its deployed cadres, the decision needs to be based on solid facts, be fair and just . . . I also did not feel that I will be able to, with conviction, publicly explain or defend the NEC’s decision on comrade Thabo Mbeki. You stand by your own if you think they've been wrongly dealt with. I'm doing no more than that . . ." Fair enough. It is his individual prerogative.

What puzzled me was the reaction of the YCL Gauteng secretary Alex Mashilo who felt Shilowa’s condemnation of Mbeki’s recall and resignation is a gross misconduct against the ANC. Why? Except that the ANC has become dupe to its own self-generated propaganda. It no longer recognises the discrepancies between official and practical consciousness as explained so aptly by Antonio Gramsci. Shilowa here is a typical individual who feels the party imperatives are unable to be transmuted into forms of routine social behaviour he has grown into; so, instead of living a life of contradiction, gives in to one pull. Such a move is unthinkable to an individual, like Mashilo, who leaves by exhortatory forms of official consciousness. Factual content and moral imperatives means nothing to him so long as he fulfils action-guiding power of formal ideology. And there lies the dividing rub that, presently, is turning comrade against comrade within the TA (Tripartite Alliance).

Terry Eagleton in his seminal book, Ideology, wrote; “It is astonishing how subtle, resourceful and quick-witted mean and women can be in proving themselves to be uncivilised and thickheaded. In one sense, of course, this ‘performative contradiction’ is cause for political despondency; but in the appropriate circumstances it is a contradiction on which a ruling order may come to grief.” Listen to the ever chaotic, ever contradictory opinions of different individuals within the TA and you’ll understand. Things have changed in the South political sphere. Or, rather, judging by their mounting anger and rising porcupine quills, are realising which direction the wind is blowing.

No amount of political mystification or wishful thinking will ever again afford the TA opportunity to lure the polity into giving it political power that serves power-interests and effects of false-consciousness. They may howl all they want about the ‘national revolution’, and label dissenters as counter-revolutionary. The revolutionary ranting has become outmoded to the language of the realities of our times. Conditions have shifted. For one, we’ve all become haute bourgeoisie, including the so called revolutionaries. Whoever is not is doing their damn best to be, or living with pretentious internal contradictions. The desire for consumer commodities permeates every aspect of our lives. Anyone who wants to arrest this flow will have to do so by framing their language around social interests of the society.

It really does not matter how men, like Shilowa, manage to escape the ideological conditioning of their former parties, into progressive consciousness of our times. What’s important is we all move to the next step of our liberation. Political emancipation to be final must also involve the liberation of self also from self. Slavery comes in different forms and is, more than anything, an internal mental disposition. We should not allow ourselves to be blinded by nostalgia of outmoded politics. Times are a changing! Bob Dylan would say. Nothing must obscure the complex diffuse of our naturalising social reality towards our human dignity, not even the glories of the past that are fast fading into empty sloganeering. Let’s go to the National Convention and discuss progressive ways to take our politics to the new generation!

Leaving the infested house

On Sunday (19 Oct. 08)afternoon, the breakaway group from the ANC held what it termed a Mass Resignation from the ANC to join the movement for the NC (National Convention) called by the former Defence Minister, Mosiuoa Lekota. The meeting was held at Noluxolo Primary School, Samora Machell (Philippi), one of the poorest townships of Cape Town. A little more than thousand (by estimation) people gathered, among whom, hundreds to hand back their ANC and SACP membership cards, including 11 Councillors.

The atmosphere was charged with emotion, sometimes poignant as long serving members, like Dan Nokhatywa, speaking on behalf of the resignees, recounted his experiences in the ANC of the past 39 nine years. He concluded by echoing the former secretary general of the Dullar Ohma region, Mbulelo Ncedani, earlier accusation that ‘the ANC has been hijacked by people who violate its values, principles and traditions.’ They said they had no choice but to seek new homes who respect values of freedom, and said ‘being a member of the ANC is not about the flag and logo, but the spirit and traditions freedom and democracy.’

The former Premier of Guateng, Mbazima Shilowa, addressed the meeting as the main speaker. He started with an anecdote of a infested house. Speaking in strangling Xhosa he said; ‘When your house is infested by vermin; first you fumigate it. But if that does not work, you are forced to seek another home.’ Shilowa went on to echo the religious song used by the religious minister who opened the meeting; Lizalise idinga lakho, Thixo Nkosi yenyaniso (Fulfil your promise, God King of truth). The mood became sombre at this point as Shilowa went on to counteract those who accused them of being power hungry, elite group, blue lights politicians, and so forth. He invited them to come and see who’s answering their call; ‘poor people who have no water, electricity, formal housing . . .’

At pains to emphasize need for respect and discipline, Shilowa admonished those going to the NC never to intimidate others or use cohesive means to promote their cause. Paraphrasing Ghandi he said; ‘We must be the change we want to see being ruled by.’ He invited the Tripartite Alliance leadership to be democratic enough to allow those of their membership who want to attend the NC. ‘If you say we’re just a few, what are you so afraid of? Those who’re sure of themselves do not go around looking over their shoulders. They walk proudly straight, believing in themselves and their cause.’

‘We, the people of Mzantsi, black and white, rich and poor; need to seat down and say: What is our take on democracy, and discuss it openly, all of us. We need to develop shared values for South Africa, of respect and democracy we can all believe in, even if we have different ideas how to implement them . . . We need to say, for instance, we supported proportional representation, because we believe in its redeeming qualities, but now we’re wiser.’ Shilowa said. He went to narrate how former President of the Republic, T. Mbeki, was dragged through mud by few people who elected themselves by the grievances they had against him. ‘Make no mistake; the president did not resign of his free will, he was pushed. When you ask a person, you do so before the decision to oust him is made.’ Shilowa concluded that perhaps the time has come for us to elect our presidents, members of parliament, councillors, and so forth from the ground. ‘Let’s discuss such things on the coming Convention.’

He admonished those who had decided to resign from the ANC to take another moment and think things through. ‘No one should resign if they’re not ready. I was ready when I did, and am not going back to Egypt again, even if the road ahead gets tough.’ He told those who are ready to go out and spread the news of the NC. He said the present leadership of the ANC has made it impossible for them to remain in the house they so loved, and now they were homeless, gathering bricks and mortar to build another home on principles of freedom, respect for others, democracy, discipline, morally and otherwise.

The meeting started and ended in lively new political songs that had seminal meaning to the situation:
Sasimxelele uSkwasha sathi lo ngunyaka wethu! (We told Skwasha this is our year!)
Viva! Viva! Terror wethu! (Viva! Viva! Our Terror!)

Another song was more to the point after Ncedani told people they must remember that they were not anti-ANC but pro-freedom and democracy:

Samshiya uMantashe, salandela uShilowa! (We left Mantashe, to follow Shilowa!)
Soyika ukutshabalala! Siyoyika! Siyoyika! (We’re afraid of perishing! Are afraid! Afraid!

When in African society songs are used in this manner, you know something significant is in the air. The architects are drawing blue prints and workers gathering building materials.

What Direction Will I Vote?

The recent call by the Archbishop emeritus of the Anglican Church, Desmond Tutu, that if the current situation within the ruling party persists he won’t vote, might understandable but it is ill advised. An intelligent calculation would tell you boycotting the voting polls to register your dissatisfaction with the ANC will achieve very little except hand it victory still, albeit at a lower margin of voter turnout.

It is imperative that all of us who are eligible to vote do so, not only as a duty to our young democracy, but to categorically demonstrate that South African political life is not solely dependent on the ANC. Even when we decide to be sceptical about politics our basis should not be psychological but philosophical, i.e. based on our search for a better political concept. For those who fill let down by the ANC the search, even if its starts on the ideal, must come to reality and find out what approximate that ideal. Hence I’ve been doing a mental check, rather elimination to see about my alternatives. If I start from the basis that I’ll vote next year, the next question becomes for what.

The DA has its attraction to me, like liberal values (albiet not always practised to best ability) and principled organisational skills. But I’m wary of its history and past tendencies of grovelling politics coupled with distasteful opportunism. There are personal issues also. The DA for me is still too much of a white world (I say white world, not too white. I do not mind skin colour, just attitudes). My experience in studying in a liberal campus taught me that in a white world you are in the juggernaut path of subtle prejudice, perennial suspicion, soft exclusion and latent racism. I understand this might be unfair to the DA since I’ve never belonged to the party and so do not know its internal attitudes, but I can’t help my historical baggage, which I realise now I need to work on it too.

There’s been a lot of hype about the UDM (United Democratic Movement) in black areas lately. Everyone is talking about Injengele (General), referring to Bantu Holimisa’s past history as a General in the Transkian army where he staged a coup d’etat to get read of a corrupt regime. He became the beloved of denizens Transkie since then, but I’ve never been able to fully share the general love. Granted he conducted himself reasonably well as a ruler. I suppose we don’t have to judge him by that, but I find scarce material to judge his party policy and so forth. Also I’m not in a habit of following personality cults.

I think the Christian Democrats are fundamentalist howlers who are bent on capitalising on South African’s highly religious sentiment. As much as we need religion to base and develop our value system, with the fact that the virtue of religion is justice towards God and other people; it must keep out of active politics. I strongly support the separation of powers between State and Church, for the good of religion more than anything.

I think the Pan Africanist movements, like PAC (Pan Africanist Congress), have lost direction, or at least their élan by failing to keep up with social realities of the present age. To add insult to injury they are embroiled in serious internal turmoil that has just assailed the ANC. Fatalism is the best way I can define their wretched condition. It is not serviceable to our social needs. It is unfortunate that Black Consciousness has become so successful that it has become more of a cultural movement than a political entity. I find it offers me next to nothing in my search for a political concept. This leaves me with the ID (Independent Democrats).

I’ll probably vote for the new party being promoted by Lekota and Shilowa provided it avoids personality cults and its policies are not inchoate. The duo gives me hope of direction for what the politics of our country should be moving towards. They need to quickly find ideology. By ideology I don’t mean systematically distorting modes of communication, but functional suasive strategies directed towards achieving expressive effects of our lived experience and aspirations. Lekota has been able in the past, through the UDF (United Democratic Front) to service us with an idea that politics as a power process must be accountable to the polity. If he can sustain that and develop it into the realm of ideology, that is, the means by which power interests service social significance then they might have a winning ticket.

Naturally, Lekota, will garner a lot of support, especially from people like me who broke their political teeth on organizations of civil strife in the 80s, like UDF. The signs are there. Having spent most of the past decade in the wilderness, feeling a little jaded from the diet of honey and locust (Qhilika, ferment honey drink, sometimes having a bacchanal raving party while waiting for the country to come into its senses); we feel things have gone far enough. South Africa has now fully entered the arena of discursive struggle where it needs to dispel the power of common illusion, even illusions that express real needs. What the country needs is a consistent political party that must stand outside the lure of false consciousness in communicating a social reality that is recognizable to the polity without being cavalier. It needs leadership that takes seriously the message and practise of moral imperatives, social and economic justice.

South Africans are ripe for a party that shares their Weltanschauung (worldview), that’ll exhibit a certain style of perception which is not parochial or elitist. Who would promote a kind of symbolic self-expression without promoting certain group interest at the expense of the others, or readiness to sacrifice truth to less reputable goals of party interests. Lekota’s party seem to me to look more and more like what we’ve been looking for.

Message in the song

The Liberation Movement in South Africa has always garnered its support mostly through the song. Hence it was not surprising for me to see that the two conferences of the ANC this past weekend at Langa (dissident) and Gugulethu (official) did most of their combat through songs more than anything. I attended the breakaway party meeting at Langa where the atmosphere was charged. The predominant song was:

Oliva! Oliva molo soja! Oliver! Oliver greetings soldier!
Thina sigxothiwe ekhaya! We have expelled from our home!

The Oliver who was being invoked is Oliver Tambo, the late ANC president before Nelson Mandela whose spirits the attends felt was being raped by the present ANC leadership. It was a little amusing to see the former president of the republic, T. Mbeki, raised to a saintly stature with the likes of arch bishop Desmond Tutu, Mosiuoa Lekota and Smuts Ngonyama:

Awu Zizi(Mbeki)! Ndibambe ngesendla! Hey Zizi (Mbeki)! Hold me by the hand!
Ndigaw’ embuthweni! Lest I fall away from the Organisation!
Intliziyo kaThabo ingcwalisekile! Thabo’s heart is pure!
Sizo ngcatsha kuyo! It’ll be our refuge!

Thabo Mbeki’s name was alternatively replaced with that of Tutu, Lekota and Smuts. Malema, president of ANCYL, was warned that the Freedom songs are a cultural and heritage of South African folk spirit. He was told he knows nothing of sacrifice and spilling of blood for freedom principles so he had better shut his mouth because such thing were done long before he was born.

Then Imbongi, by the name of Phumlani Msutu came to the stage. He admonished people to keep their spirits down because rage can invent many ways for the destruction of the nation. He said husband men are more useful in time of poverty than men of war. He said things in Polokwane begun in foolishness, and proceeded in legitimised crime, and that, if not reigned will end in misery for all. He said feral madness prompts a perverted mind. He was amazed at the blindness the devil sows to invent mischief. He said those in power do not care what mischief they sow to procure their ambition. They blow coals of contention to follow their lust without caring for the misery they brought t the poor. They desire domineering, vainglory, revenge and malice to satisfy their spleens and the madness of avarice. They’ve no remorse, and no bounds of shame to satisfy their parasitic fawners. They pretend zeal for desired reformation when all along they just want to avert the guilt of one person and attain vain titles. They have fine speeches to please the mob, while promoting the filthy transgression against civil laws. They do not know how to govern their action with discretion and providence. Conquered by vanities and fopperies of the time, with no end to empty words, like filching wasps, they prey on ignorance of the masses. Their lives are an opposite of what they preach. They square circles, convince others to fast where they themselves feast. How much is enough?

I was shaken to the core. I guess that’s what the prophets of Israel did for the nation. The greatness of the nation of Israel lay in the fact that no matter how far they strayed from the ways of YHW they always, somehow, found their way back to their true calling. How will the South Africa fair?

Mosiuoa Lekota, the driving force behind the call for a South African National Convention admonished his followers in the meeting not to follow the calls for violence, but instead to work for peace, even when prepared to lay their lives for principles of democracy and freedom, like they did under apartheid regime. He said he’ll exhaust his energies working for a constitutional democracy in the country, and called to every South African of goodwill, within and out of ANC, to join him in the quest, and ways to achieve it that’ll be democratically discussed on the democratic National Convention yet to be announced. He emphasised that it was time for South African politics to move on with mean and women ‘who are trust worthy and honest’ on the helm.

What came out clear from the meeting was that things on the South African political sphere have changed, changed utterly. As one of the songs went:

Lekota imbi lendawo Lekota this place is ugly
Khuw’ thethe qabane! Speak comrade!
With the next generation, iANC ivile. The ANC has heard.
Yizani nibone indaba Come and see
Yonakel’ eWestern Cape! Things are ruined in Western Cape!

Lekota told those gathered that similar gathering are being planned for Eastern Cape and all other provinces. Having been in my home province, Eastern Cape, and saw how most the branches were not just disgruntled, but ready to secede last December, I believe what we’ve seen in the Western Cape is just a spark that’ll inflame fire in like provinces. Perhaps, that is what South African politics need at this juncture, purification by fire.