Keeping the congress together

NOT very long ago, ANC Youth League (ANCYL) secretary-general Sandiso Magaqa stood up at a national executive committee meeting of the ANC and unleashed his best performance since his elevation to the national stage.

This was at a time when the ANCYL appeared to be on the backfoot, with its president Julius Malema having recently been charged along with his cohort of leaders and President Jacob Zuma, criticised by many as a ditherer of note, appearing uncharacteristically decisive against a wayward youth league. This was at a meeting where would-be ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula reportedly broke down and shed tears for the revolution that, according to him, was being torn asunder. But the moment belonged to Magaqa who, at St Georges Hotel, stood up to tell the truth as he saw it.

“We are being criticised from left to right. We are told that our conduct is un-ANC. I hear a lot of things being said against us (ANCYL leadership) and I do not understand,” Magaqa said. Pointing his right hand at the ANC’s top six officials that include Zuma, his deputy Kgalema Motlanthe, secretary-general Gwede Mantashe, treasurer Mathews Phosa, he continued: “I do not understand because all of you… and I can count what each of you did… taught us these things when you were fighting former president Thabo Mbeki.”

There was silence. Magaqa remained resolute. “All these things you are taking us to DC for, all these things you are publicly condemning us for, these are the things we learnt from you,” he said, reminding the Zuma leadership of the tactics conveniently used ahead of the ANC’s Polokwane conference – tactics they now condemned.

It was, for Magaqa, a moment to tell off the people who mentored him in his “wayward” ways.

It was by no means a mean feat for a new arrival in the City of Gold, but a necessary attempt.

When he sat down, Malema stood up. “Ahead of Polokwane, we were taught, by you (his hand pointing at the leadership), that we needed to fight to save the ANC. We were told that the ANC of Thabo Mbeki was bad because it was controlled by big business; it had embraced tribalism and the Xhosa-nostra was an issue.”

As an example, Malema narrated a story of how he and Fikile Mbalula met businessman and activist Saki Macozoma and, when they told him that the ANC wanted to make Ngoako Ramatlhodi head of the National Prosecuting Authority, Macozoma almost spilled his expensive whiskey and then asked them: “How could the ANC do that and I don’t know?”

This, for them, was evidence of how the ANC was being controlled by business. But Malema, supporting Magaqa, observed: “Whereas we were told these things about business and tribalism, today, the ANC remains beholden to business and for you to get a BEE deal or a tender, you need to speak the language of the president.

“The family of the president is the one that gets deals. Duduzane Zuma. Need I say more?”

At this point, Mbalula was getting a bit emotional. He stood up and told members of the NEC that they got where they were because of a 2007 slate that was drawn by him and a few others. “Some of you don’t know how you got here (became NEC members)”. He then shed the tears about which many have reported. This version was narrated by two senior members of the ANC NEC who wanted to make the point that the case against Malema would eventually be managed politically because there was hypocrisy all over it.

The three had set out to expose the hypocrisy of discipline as meted out in the party. And they did.

This is why senior members from Winnie Madikizela-Mandela to Tokyo Sexwale were prepared to voice their disenchantment against the ANC process – triggering Zuma’s remarks last week that those who criticise the ANC’s handling of the Malema case were unprincipled but, that notwithstanding, they should make a case for a political deal if they believed such was warranted.

But this almost choreographed attack on Zuma and his cohort – and Zuma’s response to it – brought afore the issue of whether Zuma could maintain some semblance of unity as the party marches to its elective conference in Mangaung next year. For Magaqa and those who spoke after him, it was important that the ANC leadership was told – in a direct way – that the things the ANCYL was today charged for doing are the same that they were taught by the current leadership.

Mantashe, weeks later, acknowledged the “chaos” that prevailed in the pre-2007 conference, but argued that the existence of the chaos could not be used to perpetuate it.

But others said if the ANC’s actions against Malema were to be seen as a genuine effort to clean itself up, the efforts needed not to end with Malema. They said such cleaning up should go to the very top of the ANC leadership who, according to Magaqa, are the very people who introduced the chaos ahead of the Polokwane contest.

If Zuma be the gaffe-prone president inherited from a process against which Mantashe now correctly speaks, should he too not be subjected to the cleaning up that Malema is also undergoing? Madikizela-Mandela, Malema and others believe the ANC will “self-correct” in Mangaung, by which they imply that Zuma might not survive to serve another term as ANC president in 2012. This is especially so, goes the logic, given the fact that those, as Mbalula put it, who “put him there” had turned against him.

For some, Zuma was good not so much for its sake, but because he was the only guy who could help get rid of Mbeki. With this problem gone, so too should he. But will he?

In politics, they say power is not given, it is taken. But will those who clamour for his removal see it through? Let’s look at the pointers.

Zuma’s own rise point to the difficulties his opponents are going to run into.

First, Zuma was fired, or “relieved” of his duties, so he could openly campaign and mobilise his forces for his survival. He and his group of the disaffected were dubbed the walking wounded. If it is true that Motlanthe is a candidate for those who want to see Zuma’s back, Motlanthe will not be able to campaign openly. This is largely because he still works at the Union Buildings. It would be unworkable, even if he were to argue, as did Magaqa, that he learned from the best. In any case, he is not so inclined.

Second, Zuma rose to power on account of open support from a somewhat united ANCYL. While Mbalula had to quickly suspend and remove Reuben Mohlaloga, and thus signal his intents to throw out anyone who dared contradict the leadership in their support of Zuma, the Young Lions appeared a united force in their support for Msholozi. When the ANCYL celebrated its birthday, this became a birth year, with celebrations taking place in all provinces and most regions. For Zuma, this meant he could attend as many as possible, galvanising his troops.

Today, Malema and his core leadership have been decisive on Motlanthe, but the noise coming from KZN suggests all is not well.

That the ANCYL has had to call on the ANC to “show consistency” by disciplining members who pronounced their preference of Zuma for a second term, against ANCYL wishes, told a story of the powerlessness that has plagued the youth body. That the ANCYL in the Eastern Cape also refused to organise buses to support Malema and other leaders when they appeared before the ANC DC is, in itself, telling.

Third, the ANCYL has put its foot in the mouth by insisting that those who will lead the ANC are only those who agree with its ill-thought-through programme of nationalisation and land expropriation without compensation.

This is limiting and counter-productive. It is also indicative of a people who, when they fail to use force of reason to convince, place exclusive conditions of associations. It is an Orania principle.

Fourth, Zuma could count on Cosatu. When one of the Cosatu affiliates had a conference, elective or not, his supporters would use this to spread the gospel according to Zuma. Even though the SACP did not have much to provide, Blade Nzimande and Buti Manamela formed part of a slate of speakers at all events where Zuma spoke to create a veneer of respectability to the line-up. So, from these three, there was a proliferation of activities. Even funerals of regional leaders, Zuma, free from state activity, attended.

Today, Motlanthe is burdened with a lot of international travel and much of government work as a leader of government business in Parliament, when he is home.

The SACP has made it clear it wants Zuma for another term.

Cosatu was meant to pronounce on whether it would support Zuma or not at its central committee meeting in June but failed because of divisions.

The fifth reason why Zuma might still be sleeping peacefully is that his route to Luthuli House was made of a number of court battles, which allowed him and the Alliance leaders to use these as rallies to engender support for him.

This opportunity is not available to others, except perhaps Malema. Even then, the number of people coming out to support him seemed to peter out on his last appearance.

And last, perhaps importantly, others look at Malema and ask if he is the embodiment of an ANC that will be better than Zuma’s. Claims of tender manipulation against him do more harm to those he seeks to support than good. Even those who want Zuma out ask if supporting Malema’s ANC is not moving from Zuma’s bad to Malema’s worse?

Will it, for the ANC faithful expected to gather in just over a year, be a case of choosing the devil they know rather than taking a leap of faith with Malema and hoping for the best?

I am yet to be convinced that Zuma already has a king-size headache – though this might change in the future. Holding the party together might seem challenging for him, but he still has a good night’s rest.