Nkosana Sibuyi

A PEOPLE OF THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW

Posted by Nkosana Sibuyi: 03 August 2009

Professor Wole Soyinka, in his Nobel Lecture, This Past Must Address Its Present, on 8 December 1986 made a sharp-witted observation when he opined: “Intellectuals, writers, scientists, plain working men, politicians – they come to a point where social reality can no longer be observed as a culture on a slide beneath the microscope, nor turned into aesthetic variations on pages, canvas or the stage”

Prof Soyinka’s observation calls upon humankind to listen again to the urgings of their strength of mind. Without doubt, there is a pervasive force in Mzansi Afrika. Arguably, this enveloping force, since the December 2007 Polokwane National Conference of the African National Congress has and continues to shape the political ecosystem of the national polity. A scientific analysis of the balance of forces reveals that there is a gamut of issues at play in the current conjuncture: The Public Broadcaster, Transformation of the Judiciary, nationalisation of the mining industry, appointment of a National Police Commissioner and many others. Essentially, it would not be in the best interests of humankind to gainsay the evolution of or allow carbon dioxide to flow onto these matters in question.

Some, who consider themselves polymathic, may argue that these socio-political developments are necessary although not the only determinant for an evolving society such as that of South Africa. Significantly, they remind us of where we come from, who we were and ultimately will enrich and shape who we become and the future we create for ourselves and children. A careful reading of the developments since 2007 attests that there is an emergence of a persistent force of triumphalism that seems to be dominating the public and socio-political discourse. Linked to the above, there is also a debate on (re)defining legacy in both the apartheid and democratic polity.

Former president Frederik Willem de Klerk announced the un-banning of political parties on 2 February 1990. This decisive political development consequently led to the release of Nelson Mandela on 11 February 1990. Appreciably, the first democratic elections in the country took place on 27 April 1994. Having led the National Party to South Africa’s first democratic general election of 27 April 1994, Mr De Klerk was inaugurated as one of South Africa’s two Executive Deputy Presidents. In June 1996, his Party withdrew from the Government of National Unity (GNU) and he subsequently resigned as the Executive Deputy President of the country.

Mr De Klerk, like Mr Nelson Mandela received a number of awards and honours in recognition of the role he played in bringing about democracy and peace in South Africa. Together with Mr Nelson Mandela, Mr De Klerk received the Philadelphia Peace Prize in July 1993. On 10 December 1993, he was the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize with Nelson Mandela. However, it could as well be argued that the developments that played themselves out during Mr De Klerk’s reign represent the National Party legacy in essence. They do not define his legacy although they enhanced his integrity and credibility during the period in question.

Mr Nelson Mandela as the first president of a democratic South Africa served for five years. During his reign, reconciliation, nation-building, unity, social cohesion and peace in the country were some of the principles that defined his presidency. In sagacity, these principles were envisioned by the African National Congress. From this standpoint, they define the ANC’s legacy. To facilitate the liberation of black people in general and Africans in particular, the ANC decided on the policies and the President-elect was mandated to implement them. These values, doctrines and main beliefs are not a product of an individual decision.

Legacy is actually a judgement of history. There is a welter of tomes written about former president Thabo Mbeki. These volumes were both antagonistic and non-antagonistic. Some of the writers of these books are Jovial Rantao and Adrian Hadland, Allister Sparks, William Gumede, Ronald Suresh, Mark Gevisser, Brian Pottinger and others.

The fulminations expressed in these books have to a large degree, been based on conjecture rather than facts. In the midst of this age-defining debate one could argue that there is a gross impertinence of analysts and social commentators whose reflections have outlived their usefulness, appropriateness, relevance and centrality. I am afraid that we have not ascended the rudimentary stage. At a broader, concrete and organic level, these books have failed to recognise, acknowledge and appreciate that the legacy is not about Mbeki. It is a democratic legacy that Mbeki helped to shape – shaping its character and nature. This legacy was basically shaped by the ANC. It is an ANC legacy. For instance the Apartheid Legacy is not FW de Klerk’s legacy. It is the National Party legacy. In this context, a legacy is a defining epic of the future created. In a sense, it is wrong to particularise and personalise the nature of the legacy created before and after the dawn of a democratic epoch.

Admittedly, the ANC has played a cardinal role in the epic struggle for human emancipation and recovery of human dignity. At the centre of the leadership provided by Seme, Luthuli, Moroka, Xuma, Mahabane, Tambo, Mandela, Mbeki, Zuma and others is a concrete reflection of the recovery of human dignity and integrity. They skippered the collective struggle for liberation whose raison d'être it was to build a democratic, non-sexist, non-racial and prosperous South Africa. This was the sine qua non that defined and shaped the spirit and natural world of the struggle for liberation for South Africa that belongs to all who live in it as expressed in the Freedom Charter.

Prof Soyinka, in his book, The Burden of Memory, the Muse of Forgiveness, reminds us that “Beyond Truth, the very process of its exposition becomes part of the necessity, and depending on the nature of the past it addresses, the impact it has made on the lives of the citizens, and the toll it has taken on their sense of belonging, it may be regarded as being capable of guaranteeing or foundering the future of a nation.”

The eponymous points made by Soyinka around the nature of the past, how it influences the present on the sense of belonging and the future building of a nation constitute the kernel of the debates South Africa has had on Mbeki’s role both as the President of the country and ANC.

On 20 February 2008, I attended a debate, THABO MBEKI: BEFORE AND AFTER POLOKWANE at the University of Pretoria. Mark Gevisser and Mac Maharaj were the two protagonists debating on this subject matter. Gevisser posed a flurry of questions and reflections on the Thabo Mbeki Legacy. An argument was raised to the effect that there was confusion at Polokwane which was a symptom of the anger against Mbeki and the commitment to reclaim the ANC. “A brilliant man has failed to overcome his weaknesses. Why did he contest for the ANC Presidency in Polokwane? He was convinced that he is the only one who can defeat Jacob Zuma in the electoral contest. He thought a Zuma Presidency will be disastrous for South Africa,” Gevisser said

“Why was Mbeki convinced that he will win? The African Renaissance was one of Mbeki’s mantra and he was also characterised by a feeling of disconnection. This is a disconnection of not knowing when to go. Mbeki was concerned about his legacy. Polokwane has showed us that leaders are dispensable.” Gevisser continued.

On the other hand, Mac Maharaj said that a perception was created in Polokwane that Zuma and his bad guys are not good for the country. Mbeki and his good guys are good for the country. “There is a need for a vibrant civil society in South Africa. State institutions are being abused. Calamity will emerge if the ANC undermines the needs of the people. People have changed after Polokwane and they are now free to express themselves. Polokwane opened the space for debate and consensus,” Maharaj postulated.

Maharaj posed another critical question: “is Mbeki dangerous in power or is he dangerous out of power? Mbeki failed to capitalise on South Africa’s asset: Nelson Mandela after South Africa had emerged as a moral power in the world. His dream is doomed to be deferred for the rest of his life.”

On 14 October 2008, I also attended a session which discussed Mbeki’s Legacy. On the panel, there was Dr Mathews Phosa, Dr Essop Pahad, Mbhazima Shilowa, Prof Pityana, Moe Shaik and Onkgopoptse JJ Tabane. Although there were diverse views expressed during this debate, there was a general consensus that Mbeki has helped create a new edifice to build a better Africa and a better world, thus catapulting South Africa to box above its weight in a global world.

Recently, I watched a film BEHIND THE RAINBOW: WILL POWER CONSUME THE DREAM? This film was produced by Johan El Tahri and Steven Markovitz. The film chronicles Zuma and Mbeki’s relationship during the liberation struggle in Swaziland, Manzini, the formation of the United Democratic Front (UDF), the announcement of the un-banning of political parties, Nelson Mandela’s release from prison, the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) strategy, the 1997 Mafikeng ANC National Conference, Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment, the Arms Deal, Mbeki’s announcement when he relieved Zuma from Cabinet, the 2005 ANC National General Council, the 2007 Polokwane ANC National Conference and Mbeki’s resignation as President of the country. Clearly, it is significant to appreciate that there is a parallelogram of forces that have shaped the evolution of the ANC as both a national liberation movement and ruling party.

Mbeki announced his resignation as the president of South Africa on Sunday, 21 September 2008. Since his defeat at the ANC National Conference in Polokwance and resignation, to a certain extent, there was an insidious feeling amongst certain people that Mbeki’s leadership style and approach around the perceived culture of over-centralisation and the discouraging of dissenting views has finally come to a complete halt. There was even a proposal by others that the ANC should apologise to the country about the manner in which government handled the HIV and AIDS pandemic. Some even expressed a view to the effect that there was a culture of denialism around whether or not HIV can cause AIDS. Others called for a radical change on how the mediation and resolution of the economic and political dynamics of Zimbabwe are handled.

During the 2009 election period, former President Thabo Mbeki, we were told, “is the Dalai Lama of the Congress of the People (COPE)”. It could be concluded that the way these issues have been languaged seeks to cast aspersions on his trustworthiness and perhaps all of these are intended to undermine the integrity and credibility of Mbeki.

There is an absolute need to appreciate and recognise that the presidencies of both Mandela and Mbeki were informed by different election manifestos. In this regard, it needs to be noted that certain political programmes were emphasised during their presidencies. In a sense, it should be acknowledged that there were certain political, tactical and strategic emphases during their reign in the government’s programme of action. On that score alone, let us pause and note here, by the way, that the 1969 Morogoro, 1985 Kabwe and 2007 Polokwane Conferences shaped the definitive role of the ANC to respond to contemporary political challenges of the moment. Morogoro and Kabwe heightened the struggle for the liberation of the oppressed to provide a new texture in accordance with the national democratic revolution. Nonetheless, Polokwane, in view of the ANC as the ruling party opened up the ushering in of new changes on issues related to governance and social transformation.

In Britain, Mr Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair and built on what existed before. At no stage did he disown Blair’s contribution. Madiba served for five years and Mbeki, nine years and six months. Both of their contributions have helped to shape the country that South Africa became.

Tellingly, Prof Soyinka, in his book, Climate of Fear, posed a provocative question: how deeply would it undermine the fabric of society? For the ANC as the ruling party, an honest response to this question becomes fundamental. Those with a long political memory may recall that in 1949 Dr. Alfred Bitini Xuma, former president of the ANC was found to be too slow and moderate, and consequently was replaced by Dr James Sebe Moroka. Notably, the circumstances that prevailed in 1949 and in 2007 are fundamentally different. Unlike in 1949, in 2007 the ANC was the ruling party and thus implementing the election manifesto in a manner that seeks to improve the quality of the lives of all South Africans. However, there is an observed impression that has been created that Mbeki and Zuma’s struggle and contests for leadership was not handled in a manner befitting the legacy of the ANC.

The above notation is linked to what Prof Soyinka said in the Nobel Lecture, “it is the hearthstone of our creative existence. It constitutes the prism of our world perception and this means that our sight need not be and has never been permanently turned inwards. If it were, we could not so easily understand the enemy on our doorstep, nor understand how to obtain the means to disarm it.”

My own view is that the prevailing conditions and circumstances (social economic and political) tend to produce their own leaders. Mandela was produced by circumstances different from those that produced Mbeki and Zuma. The legacy is always contestable particularly if the circumstances that produced that particular leader change fundamentally during the course of his Presidency. In my considered view, Mandela entered the fray at the time when South Africa needed some stabilisation or pain-relief type leadership. The balance of forces at the time also impacted heavily on the appropriate leadership style he had to espouse. It was not so much his intelligence that counted, but the prevailing circumstances also had a hand on how he conducted himself and reached out to minorities.

Mbeki entered the fray at a relatively calmed moment. The forces against revolution were either defeated or neutralised as both the Strategy and Tactics documents of 1997 and 2002 indicated. Therefore, he could push ahead more swiftly and the policy space allowed for that, because people were becoming impatient with the pace of delivery. Zuma entered the fray when the public mood was on a downward trend, in part because of the immediate economic experiences of people, occasioned by staggering levels of inequality, poverty and unemployment. These circumstances produced a Zuma leadership personality. This is exactly what happened in Latin American countries – Venezuela, Brazil etc; popular leaders from a leftist orientation have assumed positions of leadership. By the same token, the Bush Presidency contributed to the emergence of Obama.

This reflection may sound like a hair-raising analogy or exercise, but for genuine apostles for social change the challenge has not yet reached levels considered unimaginable. It may as well be that the contemporary challenges were hermeneutically challenged, at times done perfunctorily, intellectually superficial and unconvincing. Notably, this does not seek to provide an answer but a principle thus helping the country to unmake and remake some principles of our political culture without boiling down to mere hocus-pocus. Perhaps, the acuity of the approach should be premised on the need to liberate ourselves from somnambulistic instincts and outline the basic architecture of the challenge at hand in an evolving society. One of the seminal lessons that the country and the world has learnt from Mbeki is that he emphasised the collective at the expense of the self.

Indeed, as Dr Ali Mazrui once said, we are a people of the day after tomorrow.