By: Clyde Ramalaine
Despite the often straightforward claims of renewal and self-correcting as advanced by some of its leaders, the actual status of the party in electoral preparation and organisational nucleus was laid bare last week by Motlanthe.
As we have alluded to in part one of this trilogy, Motlanthe flags critical issues of factionalism and the presence of money in determining and defining an ANC that is divided to its core. He also flagged the leadership of the ANC as sowing divisions and lamented a leadership that hitherto has failed to work for unity authentically. The report, tabled at the most recent sitting of the NEC, necessitated a response from ANC President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Ramaphosa’s response to this indictment, unfortunately, again underscores the usual self-interest of politicians. Notorious for never owning up but instead deflecting and exonerating himself. Let us hear him in his own words. It conflates instead of critically engaging. In a sense, Ramaphosa’s response reminded me of the biblical parable as told in the synoptic Gospels of the Sower that went out to sow some seeds. In particular, the seed that fell on rocky grounds and summarily sprung up quickly in blossoming, yet when the sun emerged, it was scorched into death. Ramaphosa quick concession registers an insincerity, and a means to an end. It seeks to piggyback instead of doing and honest introspection.
Let us hear Ramaphosa in response to the strong indictment Motlanthe’s report raises of his lack of leadership, as cited from a leaked recording of the NEC sitting:
“We need to follow it through. In some cases, it may be painful, but we need to follow it through. We’ve got to take a stand as leadership and starting with myself. And I said right at the early stage when this whole thing of factionalism reared its ugly head right after the 54th Conference – it was comrade Nkosazana and myself who made it clear that we did not want to be seen to be leading any factions.” [sic]
This response from Ramaphosa, as captured in a leaked recording of the NEC meeting, starts with the need to follow through but quickly is up-ended by the incessant necessity to absolve himself. Ramaphosa also is not honest about when the factionalism started; he deliberately wants to paint it as something that evidenced its head post his election. The first error he makes is to assume the leadership he refers to is naturally exempted from the allegations of sowing division, being factional and labelling others, and allowing money to be the deciding factor of ANC elections at all levels.
The truth is that Ramaphosa’s entire CR17 campaign aimed to denigrate a non-contending predecessor [Jacob Zuma]. It deliberately sought to portray the latter as the father of state capture in which he, as second in charge, was wholly unaware of and squeaky clean. This was perhaps the first seedlings of factionalism. His stubbornness to dare to tell the ANC who makes up his slate in dream-team birthed factionalism. To, therefore, plaint factionalism as post- NASREC election is simply not truthful. It is more honest to admit that a lusty CR17 in the aftermath of his bought election expressed themselves in triumphalism, and they showed that to compel him to betray an agreement he had with Zuma.
There was no reason for the ANC to repeat what it did in 2008, but his CR17 triumphalist insisted on having Zuma removed when we all knew Zuma would step down much earlier than his term. Ramaphosa knew that but opted to fall for the triumphalist dictate of a lusty CR17 that remained in campaign mode until now. Former President Zuma told that to me in one of our two private meetings. He aimed to introduce Ramaphosa to BRICS and Africa, which was planned to coincide with the BRICS conference scheduled for May 2018.
From that triumphalism, it engineered processes and means at all levels of the ANC to let their power count. The showing of that power was the removal of anyone they deemed a Zuma supporter regardless of quality, loyalty to the organisation, or useful to work for the progress of South Africa. CR17’s campaign was against a none contending Zuma, whom they draped as present in Nkosazana Dlamini- Zuma.
Unfortunately, regardless of whether NDZ was offered a cabinet post, the CR 17 Factionalists continued dealing with everyone they remotely associated with his predecessor. These naturally became the demons while CR17 gravitated to the deception of it being angles a media sponsored campaign that remain to this day divisive and cancerous for the unity mandate as instructed by the 54th Conference.
Ramaphosa: seemingly factionalism and disunity died down and flared up which division –
“It seemed to die down, but it has flared up again, causing huge divisions in our movement. The renewal process that we need to be implementing must deal with this, and unless it’s accompanied by disciplinary processes, not of the vindictive type but the corrective type, we will never be able to rid our movement of these types of divisions. This is the time to do it.”
There is much to be analysed in this ‘confession-cum self-exonerating defence’ of an ANC president. Firstly, to assume factionalism, the cradle of his presidency, ever seemingly died down somewhere is simply disingenuous. Factionalism does not exist by itself and has no identity unless it is given such. How Ramaphosa as the ANC leader, can dare to assert factionalism has seemingly died but flared up again is simply beyond me because that very same factionalism defines his ANC slate and administration and NEC.
Ramaphosa takes refuge in claims of discipline.
Ramaphosa ‘ supported a proposal for the ANC to establish a special committee made up of not politically active people to deal with disciplinary issues arising from the disputed candidate selection process. He said:
“If we do that, it will show the seriousness [with] which we are dealing with the process of renewal and the issue of discipline.”
Clearly, Ramaphosa’s best response to the ANC candidate list crisis as outlined in the context of corruption and factionalism better understood in factionalism and triumphalism is to seek another disciplinary structure. What then to make of the existing disciplinary structures as afforded within the ANC constitution since the wrongs directly translate to the same ills its existing disciplinary structures adjudicate on?
Secondly, to take refuge in an unidentified faceless apparent group of people who are ‘not politically active’ when we have ANC veterans that cannot see eye to eye and despite better sense retire in leaving the political arena instead opts to contests in the very same factional regalia and subculture exactly where will these apparently authentically objective and non-contaminated persons supposedly former leaders of the ANC be found? His refuge in disciplinary action is again the failure to analyse what is at the root properly. It’s again the new instigator doctrine that drives Ramaphosa’s thinking.
Also read: Motlanthe’s Report – Where Motlanthe’s Report falls short?
For some reason, Ramaphosa believes that if he can identify culprits, he can discipline them and thus fix the multi-layered problems attached to the ANC’s election of candidates. This taking refuge in easy solutions confirms a leadership wholly out of touch with reality. Is this another obfuscation in establishing new parallel structures as if the problem is so unique? Is this logic advocating that the ANC must establish a new disciplinary structure for every specific crime, contravention, or incident of non-ANC culture? This is simply not sustainable at any functional organisational level.
Ramaphosa: “The renewal process we must be implementing must deal with this we must deal with it.”
Reading this, Ramaphosa will forgive us for asking when did this dawn on you, Mr. President? Does it mean you have been oblivious or absent in awareness of the systemic problem the organisation you lead manifests until now? The better question is why it was hitherto not dealt with under your leadership. You are about to enter the final year of a five-year term and should account for your failure to have dealt with what you now see as an urgency to deal with in the interests of the less explained renewal phenomenon. When must the renewal process be implemented as directed by the Conference that saw you become president, albeit by betrayal and billions? Sir, we not talking of an account in which you again seek to hide behind others in the blanket of ‘we made mistakes’ but an honest admission that you as leader had failed to lead on this front and perhaps is not fit to lead the ANC into any renewal. At the same time, you work for a factional self-interest agenda of a second term.
I wish to postulate that the ANC, since December 2017, never had any functional or coherent organisational president but necessarily a president of a CR faction. Ramaphosa has remained the leader of the CR17 now morphed into the CR22 faction that must win at all costs regardless of what it may cost the organisation.
Perhaps some in the ANC commit an error is an expectation of a Ramaphosa leadership to bring organisational unity. They do not appreciate that his presidency owes its existence directly to the notion of factionalism and continues to feed on ANC disunity for its upkeep. That is simply a bridge too far.
*Clyde N.S. Ramalaine
African Global News Resident Political Analyst
[…] Also read: Motlanthe’s Report – Ramaphosa’s reluctant concession- cum self–exonerating defence for … […]
[…] Also read: Motlanthe’s Report – Ramaphosa’s reluctant concession- cum self–exonerating defence for … […]