The ANC In December – What Is At Stake?

• RAYMOND SUTTNERFairly often it is suggested that the ANC may not be able to hold its December conference, now frequently called an “elective conference”. Alternatively, it is said that it may emerge very weakened by divisions, may split into two parts, or may in fact collapse as an organisation and disappear. There are, undoubtedly, other gloomy possibilities.

The claims that sources say that president Jacob Zuma is very worried about his “legacy” and is consequently pleading for unity between competing candidates for the ANC presidency and working, as are some others for accommodating winners and losers in whatever electoral outcome that emerges.

What is at stake in talk of the ANC’s existence being under threat? In truth, the ANC has survived many threats to its existence and took decades to become the dominant force of the 1950s, facing challenges from various Africanist and more mass-based trends in its earlier years.

The answer to the question of what ANC survival means in 2017, will be very different from what it was in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and immediately after its unbanning. In these earlier periods the ANC was defined by clear political ideas and people joined the organisation, often at great risk to themselves, in order to advance aims with which they identified.

The ANC was understood for most of its existence to represent an emancipatory vision, couched in different ways at various times, but from the 1950s (and that period built on earlier efforts at self-definition) it embraced an idea of the South Africa that the ANC wanted to see instead of prevailing apartheid conditions.

This vision was not developed by the ANC alone. It was most famously concretised in the Freedom Charter, adopted at the Congress of the People, in 1955, following a lengthy campaign of consultation and collection of ‘demands’ from people located in diverse geographical locations and from different population groups and strata of society.

The result of the extensive consultation was that the charter became a document that “spoke to” people, that embodied their own suffering in general declaratory terms but also in demands that referred to eccentric forms of oppression found only in apartheid South Africa and sometimes only amongst some sections of the population.

The ANC split in the late 1950s with Africanists breaking away to form the Pan Africanist Congress, disagreeing with some clauses of the Freedom Charter.

It had nothing to do with who held this or that position in the organisation. It had nothing to do with money, as can be seen in the historical record. It was related primarily to the difference in vision of the Africanists and the supporters of the charter.

In the years that followed the ANC debated these and other issues repeatedly, because the Africanist vision and other contested issues have never disappeared from African nationalism and the freedom struggle.

Historically, Africanism had at certain points, been stronger than the organisation and membership of the ANC in earlier periods, as with the Industrial and Commercial Workers Union (ICU), described by Helen Bradford as a liberation movement and the Garveyites and related movements.

More importantly, after the banning of the ANC and PAC in 1960 (and the SACP 10 years earlier), there had to be repeated reviews of strategies and tactics, how to realise the goals set out in the Freedom Charter and other policy expressions.

The ANC and its allies now pursued goals under very difficult conditions. Over time these policy statements were also concretised and reviewed, before 1990, where the ANC and its allies drew lessons from other experiences and this led to avoiding fetishising nationalisation or public ownership. This can be seen in the constitutional guidelines, published by the ANC in 1988.

These debates raged, inside and outside the country, in Lusaka, in the camps in Angola and in London and other countries, in various continents. Inside the country, these and other ideas were debated in Robben Island and other prisons, in underground structures and mass organisations, when the space emerged for these issues to be discussed.

In every case there was contestation. The contestation was over ideas, how different classes should relate to one another in the struggle against apartheid and after the victory that slogans declared to be “certain”.

Debate raged over how the struggle for socialism related to nationalism, in a period when Marxism enjoyed considerable support not only in the SACP but also within the SACP, in a time when ‘the party’ as it was then known, enjoyed considerable prestige. Other debates included how land and agricultural questions should be addressed, how best to relate to cultures of different peoples, what rights minorities could claim, what status should be enjoyed by traditional leaders, etc, etc.

Given that many people lived under bantustan rule, some asked how the ANC and its allies should relate to these government structures, given that they existed and were a fact of life. There was sometimes ‘purism’ – that there should be no engagement whatsoever with collaborationist structures and sometimes greater pragmatism, notably in the case of Walter Sisulu and Nelson Mandela, given that the ANC or MK did not have the capacity to protect people in many of these areas.

As the struggle advanced, internationally, through armed and underground struggle and in the last decades, through mass activities by popular organisations inside the country, the apartheid regime found itself on the back foot.

That is not to say that the slogan ‘victory is certain’ could be counted on to be true. Victory, in the sense of defeating apartheid still had to be worked for long and hard and in different ways, over which people struggled, argued and debated.

They also carefully reviewed and drew lessons from campaigns that had been waged in various terrains of engagement with the regime.

Put briefly, the late 1980s saw a stalemate or what the famous Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci called a ‘reciprocal siege’ where neither side could defeat the other. These were conditions where a negotiated solution became a possible way of achieving a democratic outcome.

In 2017, some commentators look back on this period with contempt, as one of unrelenting concessions made to the oppressor.

The leadership of the ANC, SACP and Cosatu did not have one view, but everyone believed that if freedom could be achieved by reducing bloodshed through negotiations that should be pursued. It should be remembered, that it was primarily the blood of the oppressed people that was being spilt.

I was one of those who was lukewarm about negotiations. I had followed the instruction to pursue insurrection in the 1980s and followed the default position that there was nothing to negotiate except the immediate transfer of power to the majority of the people, led by the ANC.

In consequence, I had mixed feelings about the swift pace of events between calling for insurrection in 1989, (notably in the SACP conference held in Cuba in August), the unbanning of previously illegal organisations and the start of talks. At these talks, the ANC leadership made unilateral concessions such as the suspension of armed action. Many of us were shocked and we did not like gestures of that sort and could not see how that would strengthen our hands in any negotiations that could arise.

We also had illusions about the power of MK, believing that we were being robbed of military victory. It is hard to recapture the emotional power that MK held over many of us, how we celebrated their attacks on police stations and other actions.

In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch. It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.