[YCLSA Discussion] Is there a healthy contestation?

[Mduduzi H Vilakazi]

Let us engage!!   Contestations were highly discouraged by leaders of the ANC. At the unbanning congress of the ANC TM and Hani were both nominated and available for the position of the Deputy President. They were both withdrawn from the race by availing someone whom they regarded as their political father, Sisulu. Thus no contestation continued.   The issue of popularity and (popular) demand never rose during the exile era. Modise was popular in the exile camps to an extent that he could have rose to the ANC Presidency with ease but respected the unwritten convictions in the ANC of seniority and open leadership engagement (thus could not use his popularity to contest Tambo). What happened to our beloved movement in the current dispensation? Are leadership discussions limited to the final lists disseminated to branches? Is block voting, the only solution to arrive at the leadership resolution in congress?   Equally, the notion that Mbeki was not suppose to stand in Polokwane applies to Zuma. They are both liable for the “divisions” within the ANC. Someone regarded as their senior or their equivalent should have been brought in (Not Tokyo) solely to discourage the two from contestations. This means that the others in the top six from both sides should have been discouraged in the same way the presidential office should have been treated, they are as well liable for the damages caused by this unhealthy contestation.   It is in the above backgrounds that the party (SACP) always have uncontested leadership. This does not suggest that democratic principles are not upheld but elements that are divisive are highly discouraged. In fact, leadership elected out of consensus quickly deals with developmental issues as resolved by congress than “contested” leadership that has to deal with organizational healing and unity before exercising its intended responsibilities. A lesson should be drawn from the party on how contestations are avoided.   I am deliberately raising this debate in order to spark a debate on respect of seniors. Where were these seniors pre and in Polokwane? If they were there, what is it that they said? Who listened to them, if they said anything? If they were not there, why are they quiet? Did our behaviour scared them away or is the current situation no longer conducive for them to make some interventions.   If those who supported TM are seen as enemies of the ANC (or loyalists of individuals), so are those who supported JZ. The unhealthy contestation in Polokwane will live with us for the next minimum of 30 years. It was a lesson that people should not be happy when contestations take place in the ANC at all levels. Contestation means that all avenues of political engagements were explored and none seemed to provide a solution, thus contestation became the only option.   I do not agree that one party was wrong while the other had a right to contest. If there is anything that divides the ANC is en route to and contestation in Polokwane.   Let me commend the President of the Youth League for a matured interview last night. I agree with him, aggrieved members should be given a hearing than to be booted out in the organization. I as well agree that TM as a member of the organization should assist the ANC during the campaign for the 2009 general elections. Let me give my understanding on the resignation of Mbazima.   I have patiently followed the discussion on Mbazima’s resignation but with no major principles brought in the discussion. Mbazima raised certain principled standings and misread by ourselves. Maybe, we are too passionate and excited about the triumphalists’ victory in Polokwane to a level where we have no further analysis but to quickly suggest that one is a TM loyalist.   I do not want to dismiss the loyalist view (but it should apply both sides of the ANC factions) but my view is as follows:   Mbazima was a deployee of the ANC in Government (Political head in Gauteng). All decisions of the ANC should find _expression_ in the day to day political work of the deployees in government. The NEC is constitutionally the highest decision making body in between congress. Mbeki was a deployee leading government (Political head – South African government).   In this instance, as a provincial head, He was supposed to brief the provincial cabinet on the resolution of the NEC to recall TM. He was expected to explain the reasons behind the recalling. He was expected to respond to questions from the legislature (should such arise) on the recalling of the state President.   He is swimming in a pool of confusion on how recalling a deployee unites an organization. He can obviously fail to respond to such questions on such an issue at the above mentioned forums which would constitute organizational ill-discipline. In order to avoid such an embarrassment, he decided to step down as a political head in Gauteng.   Was not his resignation the “right thing to do”? Was Mbazima supposed to stay on to embarrass both the ANC and Government on his failure to defend the NEC resolution? I think that we are being unfair in thinking that people’s resignations are solely because they are someone’s loyalists.   The call by Malema to “Kill for Zuma” is a loyalist statement. It was and is not viewed as such by the triumphalists who were quick to point out that Mbazima is a TM loyalist. The factional engagements by some among us raise eyebrows on their synthesis level of political maturity. Being quick to label some as loyalists of TM forgetting the loyalists of JZ makes one to wonder what informs their ideas.   If others call for one to resign, they say “do the right thing” because it suits them. Now someone in the name of Mbazima did the right thing, because they did not make the call, it is not right (He is an Mbeki loyalist). I want to maintain that Mbazima did the right thing to voluntarily resign before unnecessary calls are made by those who are impatient to use state resources for their personal aggrandizement.   In future, let us all accept voluntary resignations in the same way we accept forced resignations. Finally, let us focus on 2009 general elections. This message and any attachments relating to official business of the Mpumalanga Provincial Government (MPG) is proprietary to the MPG and intended for the original addressee only. The message may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. If you receive this message in error, please notify the original sender immediately and destroy the original message. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy, use, distribute, or take any action in connection therewith. The MPG cannot insure that the integrity of this communication has been maintained, nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception and / or interference. The MPG is not liable whatsoever for loss or damage resulting from the opening of this message and / or attachments and / or the use of the information contained in this message and / or attachments.