THE recent issue of The Economist, which offered a grim commentary on South Africa’s political economy, became one of the focal points of political discussion in the past week.
The African National Congress (ANC) issued a detailed dismissal of the commentary. What was most revealing about the ANC’s response was the sense of insecurity in the governing party about how it is viewed by outsiders. The problems pointed out by The Economist have been highlighted several times by ordinary and prominent South African citizens.
Figures such as Desmond Tutu, Njabulo Ndebele and MamphelaRamphele, have expressed serious misgivings about various aspects of South Africa’s political leadership. Even some of the intellectual heavyweights in the ANC have started breaking ranks with the prevailing culture of silence over the leadership drift within the ANC. The standard response from the ruling party has generally been to ignore all protests.
In the few instances where the ANC cares to respond at all, it would label those expressing genuine concern about the state of leadership in the country as part of a “liberal offensive”.
The arrogance of power has convinced it that nothing its citizens do or say will affect its dominance. It is assured that the black majority is on its side and owes it a huge debt for bringing them liberation.
Given the growing indifference of the ruling party to critique and correction, it came as a surprise when it offered a lengthy response to The Economist.
Tellingly, the ruling party cares more about how its leadership is measured by outsiders than it does about the opinions of South Africans.
Yet the biggest confidence challenge for South Africa’s leadership is not so much how it is perceived by outsiders, but more how its citizens judge its moral and intellectual gravitas. This is also the ultimate test of legitimacy. By continuing to ignore the protests of its citizens, the ANC is delegitimising itself.
One of the aspects of The Economist’s article that was widely ignored in much of the analysis was the flawed conclusion that suggests the shadow of the ANC will rule South Africa indefinitely. In its view, as long as South Africa is not falling into a one-party state, a split in the party will produce hope for change.
What this means in effect is that, even in its deformed state, the ANC is seen as the only party that South Africans should fix their hopes on as it will eventually give birth to a splinter group to catalyse change. This is wishful thinking.
The problem with this view is that it reaffirms the false notion that the ANC is omnipotent and that there can be no independent agency for progressive change outside of the ruling party.
There are many within the ruling party who are genuinely hoping such a prospect will be the destiny of politics in South Africa. They are waiting passively for such a moment.
This view ignores the fact that if there is another split in the ANC, it will not be the first, and may not be the last.
Parties such as the Pan Africanist Congress, the United Democratic Movement and the Congress of the People are all offspring of the ANC.
So far, they have disappointed. Splinter groups of the ANC will always bear its genetic imprints and deformities. As such, they will be poor handmaidens for change.
Our concept of change should therefore not be based on an illusion of a splinter party that will look like the ANC in its former glory — less corrupt and with better leadership.
That is yearning for false hope and it is rooted in a sense of shame among the black middle class. It has been a huge disappointment that a black-led party of liberation has come crashing down like a gigantic cripple. The black majority sees a part of itself in the traditions of the ANC.
But the ANC is dying. The concluding prognosis of The Economist’s article serves to fuel this distorted view of change being possible only through another breakaway from the ANC.
Given the evidence in front of us, we should stop entertaining any possibility of a splinter group coming out of the womb of the ANC to rescue South Africa. Imagining a different political agency beyond the ANC will begin first as a personal journey, on which we ask hard questions about the kind of change we would like to see and how to conceive its drivers.
Ultimately, it is when we start exploring new possibilities for driving change — both in civil society and at the party-political level — that something new will gradually emerge. This requires active engagement in individual initiatives, as part of civil society, and through political processes.
We would also need to be content that building an enduring platform for change may not come through some big-bang political development, but may take gradual but consistent action in a positive direction.
• Qobo is affiliated to the Centre for the Study of Governance Innovation at the University of Pretoria.