Through our endeavours to safeguard liberty and freedom, the ChirpRoom has launched ‘Left Watch’ to monitor leftwing lies, ideas and totalitarianism.
The nationalisation debate is once-again heating up, and the ANCYL is calling for at least 60% of South Africa’s mines to be nationalised, further stating that they hoped that other industries would also be nationalised in the future. “The youth wing of the ruling ANC reiterated on Monday that it would push for the nationalisation of local industries starting with mines, saying investors afraid of the process were not welcome.” (Article found here).
I found this survey here.
1. What does your political party affiliation mean to you?
It means that I can connect with South Africans from all walks of life and be a part of a political movement that will bring radical and much-needed positive change to South Africa.
2. What does the government of South Africa mean to you?
I am proud of some of the things the state has done; but at the same time our government resembles an inefficient machine which struggles to do what it must (i.e grow the economy and look after its citizens). Furthermore, the state is riddled with cronyism and corruption, and is far too big for its own good.
3. How do you feel about opposition parties?
Opposition parties are integral to the future of SA; as it will likely be a grand-coalition of opposition parties that will win an election in the near future. I am very negative about certain opposition parties due to their members (such as the FF+), but I have a lot of respect for the leaders of all the major political parties in SA.
4. What issues should the government address immediately?
Unemployment. Once unemployment is eradicated we will see the end of sky-rocketing crime statistics, and absolute poverty.
5. How often do you discuss politics in social situations?
As often as I can.
6. Do you think many young people vote? How and why?
I think many young people vote because they want a better future for themselves and their (future) children.
7. What does it mean to vote?
It means that we are exercising our human right to elect our own government democratically, and taking responsibility for the future of our country. Voting has a special significance in our country because so many of our fellow citizens were denied this right; we should proudly place our ‘X’ next to our party of choice on election day not only because we care about our country and the welfare of our fellow countrymen, but also in solidarity with the people who fought to achieve freedom and equality for all.
8. How do you define democracy?
Democracy is the right to elect a leader, party or movement to represent you in government; a government for the people, by the people.
One of the things I most enjoy about politics is the constant game of deception, subterfuge and obfuscation involved. Nothing is ever as it seems and everything that comes out of a politician’s mouth should be taken with a pinch, nay a jar, of salt.
When, during the run-up to the ANC’s national conference in Polokwane, all the party’s senior leaders were denying that a vicious succession battle was underway, any thinking person would have seen right through the lies. In fact, that pre-Polokwane period taught me a very important lesson of political observation: the more vehemently an ANC leader denies a problem in the party, the truer it is.
Sometimes though, the truth is not hidden but right there in front of one’s eyes, more obvious than one thought…but in photo negative. Here’s a classic example: The Mail & Guardian article “ANC Youth League targets Mantashe” (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-01-15-anc-youth-league-targets-mantashe), posits the notion that nationalists in the ANC are becoming nervous about a possible “left/communist takeover” of the ANC now that they have a place at the table of power after helping Zuma defeat Mbeki at the Polokwane conference. This is said to stem from concerns about Gwede Mantashe’s dual leadership roles as ANC Secretary-General and SACP chairperson and was heightened by the booing of the ANC delegation, especially Julius Malema, at the SACP congress (deliciously ironically enough) in Polokwane. Other incidents like the spat between the ANC Youth League and Jeremy Cronin (supported by the Young Communists’ League) over the nationalisation debate was also said to be a manifestation of ideological conflict between communists/socialists and nationalists in the ANC.
I hate to burst any bubbles but this analysis is downright wrong because it departs from an incorrect premise. It assumes that ideological divisions in the alliance and the ANC are real, genuine and impassioned. Balderdash. The only source of division and tensions in the ANC and the alliance is competition for access to state power and public office and therefore state resources and the public purse. As soon as one understands that this is the narrative and engine of intraparty politics and dynamics in the ANC, the rest is easy to figure out.
The giveaway extract in the aforementioned Mail & Guardian article is this: “Given Zuma’s perceived lack of decisive action, the league has decided to take matters into its own hands and “take the ANC back”. At the same time it will promote Mbalula, its choice for ANC secretary general in 2012.” At first glance, it seems that the ANCYL is concerned about a communist takeover of the ANC hence their gunning for Mantashe hence their promotion of Mbalula as a replacement for the position of secretary-general at the ANC’s 2012 national conference. But the real truth is, drum roll please, it’s the other way around!
Mbalula and his supporters want him as secretary-general therefore they must gun for Mantashe therefore they must have a reason to malign and adversely characterise him. His dual leadership role gives a most opportune narrative to work with because it echoes and taps into a longstanding tension between nationalism and communism in the ANC that’s been simmering under the surface in the party for decades. The ANCYL and the anti-Mantashe clique couldn’t give a continental breakfast about communists in the ANC; they just need to play the part so as to make their story consistent and not seem as though they’re waging an individualised battle against Mantashe (which is technically what they’re doing but only by default).
It’s not about ideological divisions in the ANC; it’s about factional divisions and which faction can mobilise to get its leaders in positions where they can dispense patronage. The ‘ideological division’ is just a smokescreen or veneer over the real issues. In the same way that the Mbeki-Zuma battle was characterised as a contestation between two styles of leadership – aloof and autocratic (Mbeki) vs consultative and affable (Zuma) – and in the way that what are actually class divisions and ‘political elite vs professional middle class tensions take the appearance of racial divisions, so seeming ideological divisions in the ANC are only the surface story, not the actual reality.
Now, it’s always been assumed that when the ANC splits, it will happen along ideological lines with the leftist/socialist/communist/’workerist’ and economically populist rump of the ANC likely breaking away from a centrist, social democratic and economically conservative grouping. I’m starting to think that the split won’t be ideological; instead it will be the result of good old-fashioned ego contests, factional competition for access to power and patronage and conflict over state resources. But, if it’s any consolation to the analysts and prognosticators, the split will at least look ideological.
It was dark, stormy and very windy that night and I was looking out over the unlit, flat expanse around the house when I was suddenly overcome by a wave of fear and dread. My imagination was acting up and I was starting to get the sense that there was something out there in the darkness, something dangerous and malicious (and it didn’t help that I used to be scared of the dark as a child so my mind is very good at imagining monsters and things that go bump in the night).
I realised a short while later though that my feelings were nothing more than the reawakening of primordial fears conditioned by millenia of evolution when our ancestors learned to fear the dark because all sorts of nasties like sabre-toothed tigers would hunt during that time while our ancestors were huddled in their caves or around a campfire. There was now no rational reason for me to fear the dark – there weren’t any sabre-toothed tigers roaming around – but the feelings of fear were there and real nonetheless.
I didn’t think anything of it until I was reflecting recently on the state of our politics and the two impulses that underpin them, as they do all politics: hope and fear. These are the two main voices that echo in the recesses of the South African public mind. People generate and project their fears and hopes onto political parties, leaders and ideas. It’s why the ANC maintains the majority of black support (black hopes), it’s why the DA wins the majority of minority support (black fears of a return to apartheid and minority fears of suppressive and discriminatory government), it’s why Mandela is so iconic, it’s why Zuma is so popular and it’s why I love Helen Zille.
The situation is very tricky: the ANC projects an illusion of hope, the DA voices fears concerning the potential threat the ANC poses in reality and COPE (once upon a time) tried to project itself as a vehicle of hope. Our political landscape is littered with imperfect players and our politics is dysfunctional until we achieve the realignment of politics. I don’t think we’ll ever escape the pull of the “hope vs fear” mode of politics but we at least need to get to a place where two viable contenders can battle it out in the ring in a fair and balanced fight. If we can’t choose the rules of the game, let’s at least have good teams on the field that make for entertaining viewing.
P.S. I’m not normally one to use sports metaphors. It must be the Soccer World Cup fever catching on!
Throughout the year we’ve witnessed the passing of many of South Africa’s most infamous politicians.
Helen Suzman (1917 – 2009)
For many years Helen Suzman was the only representative of the liberal Progressive Party in Parliament, the lone legislative warrior against the injustices of Apartheid. Renowned South African author Nadine Gordimer had this to say about Suzman: “Helen Suzman had the brains and dignity to stick to her weapons and their target; her impeccably informed gift of debate hit the bull’s eye of apartheid laws.”
Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri (1937 – 2009)
The former minister of communications died in April, just before the elections. She was described as a selfless leader. Kgalema Motlanthe said this of Matsepe-Casaburri: “In her various leadership capacities and responsibilities, she has served the country with distinction, honour and selflessness.”
Manto Tshabalala-Msimang (1940 – 2009)
One of South Africa’s most loved and disliked politicians; Msimang left an indelible legacy on South Africa’s health policy. “Let us use the death of Dr Tshabalala-Msimang as a milestone on our journey, a signpost towards a future with an Aids-free South Africa,” the Anglican Archbishop Thabo Makgoba said.
I read an insightful blog piece by Marius Redelinghuys about the Congress of the People’s (COPE) ideological advancement, if one could call it that. The political party started out with an ideology known as ‘progressivism’, which left political analysts and ordinary citizens scratching their heads. What type of progressive party would they be? Economically or socially progressive? People might have wondered if their new ideology was a nice way of saying liberal. But it wasn’t that, not at all.
Young COPE (or is it ‘Cope’?) members like Marius have begun the internal dialogue which will hopefully lead to a strong, defined ideology for the party. An ideology that means something; not one that baffles people or makes the party look a little inept at understanding political theory. If COPE took the plunge and came out of the proverbial (political) closet, and announced that they were social democrats, I’d have much more respect for them. If the party could base their policies on real political rhetoric and ideas, they would be much more credible; instead of claiming their policies are ‘progressive’. read more…
