*Letter from the President* *Nothing to fear from vigorous debate*
[image: Letter from The President] In recent days and weeks, our newspapers and airwaves have been filled with all manner of divergent views on a whole range of subjects. In some instances, the exchanges have gotten very heated, whether about racism at the University of the Free State or the amount of force police officers may legally use to catch criminals. This is not abnormal. As we have said before, South Africans should not fear debate. Nor should they be concerned about the expression of different views, whether within the ruling party, the Alliance or broader society. Debate is a fundamental feature of a democratic society, and is necessary for the development of ideas and social progress. No person or organisation can claim a monopoly of wisdom, nor can any idea be immune from scrutiny. No organisation, and certainly no liberation movement, can hope to develop and grow if it does not create space for open, democratic debate. Indeed, the resilience of the ANC during even the most trying times is due in large part to its ability to accommodate a diversity of views and interests. It has been able to remain united and coherent by working to ensure that all views are heard and considered within the structures of the organisation. What distinguishes the ANC from a debating society, however, is that each discussion leads to a decision, and each decision forms the basis of united action. The principle of democratic centralism, which is widely misunderstood by those outside our ranks, requires that once a decision is democratically taken within the collective after open debate, all the members of that collective are bound to respect, defend and implement that decision. This means that while all ANC members are encouraged to vigorously debate any matter before the collective, they should undertake that debate in a disciplined matter, and respect the majority decision. That doesn’t mean the matter cannot be opened for review at a later stage. Debate is not restricted to the ANC. Within and among its Alliance partners there has long been a culture of debate. For many decades the Alliance partners have sought to influence the thinking of each other, and have made themselves open to influence. This has been done in the understanding that the correctness of any decision can only be enhanced by exposure to a range of different perspectives. Thus, over the years, the South African Communist Party (SACP) has had an impact on the thinking of the ANC and vice versa. The ANC and SACP have had a profound impact on the political direction of the progressive trade union movement. This gave birth to a very unique relationship between the ANC and organized revolutionary trade unions which has been aptly captured by Chief Luthuli in his famous assertion that the African National Congress is the shield and the progressive trade union movement the spear. Those outside the Alliance (and even some within) have struggled to understand this cross-pollination of ideas. Indeed, many people fear it. And so arises this feverish pre-occupation with a “left takeover” of the ANC. This is not new. For years, the ANC has been advised to break with the SACP. There are those who fear the “unhealthy” influence of the trade union movement. The point that many people fail to grasp is that the ANC, by its own definition and by any objective standard, is in fact an organisation of the left. It is a multi-class national liberation movement with a bias towards the working class and poor. This is evident in its policy positions and in the programmes it has pursued over the last 15 years in government. These policies have been, and continue to be, the subject of ongoing debate, within the ANC and within the Alliance. Not everyone agrees with every policy position, but all are bound to respect the collective decision. The policies that this administration is pursuing do not belong to one person or any group of people. They are the policies of the organisation, adopted in Polokwane in December 2007, captured in our 2009 election manifesto, and detailed in government’s Medium Term Strategic Framework. As government proceeds to implement its programmes it is guided by these policies, and follows the strategic direction provided by the constitutional structures of the movement. This is borne out, for example, in government’s economic policy. There has been much talk in recent weeks about who exactly determines the country’s economic orientation. This talk is not confined to those outside the movement and Alliance. There are some who promote the idea that economic policy will be determined by one or other Minister, and that a great struggle is on to determine who that Minister should be. We should be cautious about accepting this idea. As soon as we start associating government policy with one individual, we risk forgetting that these policies are developed collectively and reflect an organisational position. Though there are Ministers responsible for coordinating economic policy, they do not determine policy. That is the function of Cabinet, drawing on the positions of the ANC which is the key policy formulator, guided by the mandate of the electorate. Policy arises from debates in the ANC, through a very intensive process leading up to national conferences, where resolutions are taken, thus informing the policy direction. There is nothing therefore in the argument that the Alliance partners determine the policy of the ANC. It appears that people get mistaken when Alliance partners raise their views in an open debate, commenting on policy. What is surprising is that people always forget this, and yet ANC processes are so open and so transparent. To demonstrate that people quickly forget this, when an ANC member expresses his view on any issue, people immediately ask: “is this new policy?” They forget this elaborate and close to scientific policy making process in the ANC. We should not be afraid to debate policy, but we should be cautious not to associate certain policy positions with individuals. There is an unhealthy tendency to label comrades, sometimes even to call each other derogatory names. This detracts from the purpose of debate, which is to critically examine differing perspectives. Rather than impugn the motives of comrades, we should concentrate instead on exposing every view to scrutiny, regardless of who expresses it. We should not shy away from debate. Nor should we fear criticism of our views, whether by comrades or in broader society. It is important that we debate economic policy. It is important that we debate how to improve the effectiveness of our police, and how we can better safeguard the lives of our police men and women. We need also to debate how best to respond to incidents of racist and sexist abuse. Though these may be emotive issues, we should nevertheless be able to conduct these debates in a way that deepens our understanding of the issues. No person should be afraid to express themselves on any matter, just as no person should assume that their views are beyond criticism. If the history of the African National Congress is any guide, the expression of difference is not something to avoid; it is instead something to encourage and to nurture. Only once all views have been canvassed can we say that our decisions are the best they can be. Only then can we be united in action. [image: Jacob G. Zuma] On 11/2/09, Mbulelo Ngaba <[email protected]> wrote: > > Leadership, that elusive trait of individuals in many sectors of our > society, needs to be nurtured, developed and maintained so that people can > have confidence in their existence. Leadership is not about control but it > is about being in control. As one would say about the erstwhile Nazi leader, > Adolf Hitler OR our own African dictator from Uganda,Idi Amin.Those guys > tried to control everything but they were both not in control of the > situation in their countries. One would say something to the contrary about > Winston Churchill and also our own leader of the ANC in exile, OR Tambo. OR > rose above any personal aspirations to become one of the best leaders of the > ANC at the most of trying times. He was one of those leaders who always had > his eyes on the ball so to speak and this is evident in the way he handled > any crisis situation that tried to rear its ugly head in the movement. He > never acted radically or aggressively but ensured that at the end of the > day, the organization is led soberly and harmoniously. He tries by all means > to ensure that whatever differences comrades had, but the fundamental issue > within the movement was unity. > > > > The ANC is still fortunate to have a leader who is almost in the same mold > as OR and Rolihlahla,the leader by the name of Jacob Gedleyihlekisa > Zuma.Ubawo uMsholozi ukutsho.When the succession debate was being raised > both in the public and in this forum, I think comrades fear that there may > be some notion of the perishing of leadership within our movement. The past > 15 years or so nearly saw to the demise of the leadership core within our > movement.Yes,former President Thabo Mbeki is an intelligent leader but in > terms of what I have defined above, he did not fit well. The ANC nearly got > destroyed under his leadership. Those that were with him in that strategy > decided to form a breakaway party. He did not always have his eyes on the > ball OR perhaps his was a different ball game altogether. > > > > I have tried to define leadership above and mentioned those leaders who led > us to the democracy we are enjoying today. Even though that enjoyment is not > complete, I must acknowledge that. But leaders are different and the way > they deal with issues is also different. In this case I’m referring to that > charismatic leader of our movement and former SG of the SACP.He was that > kind of leader who would sacrifice his own in order to see people leaving in > happiness, in love in peace plus under favorable economic conditions. Bra > Chris was not apologetic about those aspirations because he, like any > communist, believed that some of the things that I have mentioned have the > same meaning as democracy. He believed that you cannot be said to be leaving > under a democratic order, whilst you go to school in an empty > stomach,barefooted,studing ander trees, whilst there is some person/s with > millions, big cars and houses. Like the leaders I have mentioned above, Ta > Chris was not radical OR aggressive, perhaps not to his people but to the > cruel system of *capitalism.*that he did not compromise on and was, as > I’ve said not apologetic. May his soul rest in peace and I believe with the > current consciousness and revolutionary spirit in our movement, his goal > will be achieved. > > > > Now comrades coming back to the question of succession and leadership, > which is the main issue of my writing here, I concur with President Jacob > Zuma that in Julius Malema,we have a leader in the making. The guy can be > radical and aggressive when addressing issues, but for the right > reasons.Malema knows who the enemy of our revolution is and he tries to > address that wherever he goes. He is outspoken. He and has never uttered any > word to hurt the people of South Africa.He is a brave young man who is > looked up to even by other formations in our society, for instance a Taxi > organization in Gauteng who would like to engage him on the issue of the > BRT.Instead of some of us trying to engage the young man,we only criticize > him,that only shows the type of cowards some of us can be. It is like being > engaged by a young man to a debate, who is able to talk sense ion > issues.Instead of taking on the guy head on to show that you are older and > more matured,you react with emotions and start throwing 9insults into the > boy.You do not show any sense of reasoning and logical thinking,which are > traits that are non-existent to some of the critics of young men like him. > Now I think the ANC and the movement at large must protect this young > comrade,who can emrge as one of the greatest leaders the ANC has ever > had.Lest we lose him like it happended with Chris Hani. > > > > Now at this point I would like to challenge anyone with a view to the > contrary and we can take this matter foraward.More especially young and also > aspirant leaders of the movement. > > > > Amandla!Matla! > NB: This email and its contents are subject to our email legal notice which > can be viewed at: http://www.treasury.gov.za/Email_Disclaimer.pdf > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
