Implications of Zuma winning ANC leadership race

THE colonial state was founded on the notion that natives could not be trusted with the vote and, therefore, they had to be excluded from governance issues. The value system that underpinned the colonial state informed the constitutional order of the day.
The role of the colonial state was to promote, protect and sustain the hegemony of the settler community. At the core of the colonial state was the need to commodify native labour and this was achieved by systematically alienating natives from economic resources.
The debate about the continent’s future cannot be complete without a critical examination of the ideals, principles and morality that should provide a compass to citizens when making choices about who should govern the post colonial state.
In a colonial state, the masses were denied the right to vote because the outcome of such an enterprise would have produced unacceptable monsters whose values would threaten the status quo and thereby undermine the integrity of the colonial state. What has changed, if any, in post colonial Africa?
In as much as the settlers did not trust the masses to make their own leadership choices, the leaders of post colonial Africa appear to share the same sentiment but have invented new and persuasive arguments about why the freedom of choice particularly in deciding on who should lead the national democratic revolution must not be generalised and liberalised.
There are no better laboratory cases of two post colonial states sharing different economic circumstances and yet having a common approach to politics than contemporary Zimbabwe and South Africa.
In South Africa, there is a contestation for power, albeit within the same political formation i.e. the African National Congress, whereas in Zimbabwe it is between an opposition and the incumbent leaders. The contestants are: Zuma versus Mbeki in the South African case, and Mugabe versus Tsvangirai in the Zimbabwean case.
Mugabe and Mbeki are generally perceived to be intellectual giants and their supporters see in them the only reliable custodians of the national democratic revolution. In fact, eloquent arguments are often advanced why change of guard must not be contemplated not only because the revolution will be sacrificed, but that they epitomise the kind of leadership required in a post colonial state notwithstanding their effectiveness in addressing the poverty challenge that confronts the respective countries.
In contemporary Africa, there are many leaders who fit into the Mbeki/Mugabe category. Over the last 50 years, Africa has produced similar intellectual giants and in each and every country where such giants have taken the leadership mantle, the tragedy is that rhetoric has failed to alleviate poverty and entrench democracy.
Mbeki faces opposition from within his ranks whereas Mugabe faces opposition from without. Both Mbeki and Mugabe come from the womb of the liberation struggle with impeccable credentials as leaders who stood against the very principles that their citizens accuse them of promoting and entrenching.
Their respective parties, ANC and Zanu PF, are to hold their congresses in a few weeks time. Whereas Mugabe will be endorsed at the forthcoming congress without any opposition, the same cannot be said about Mbeki who will preside over a conference as an underdog. Nowhere in Africa has an incumbent leader presided over a congress in which his fate is uncertain.
Both Mugabe and Mbeki appear to have addressed the gender issue in government. The only difference is that Mbeki’s deputy in the state is a female and yet in the party it is his foremost opponent. In Zimbabwe’s case, Mugabe has two deputies in both the state and party one of which is a female.
Whereas the Zimbabwean economy is in the intensive care and begging for a doctor with the right medicine, Mugabe is not under any real threat. However, the South African economy is fundamentally sound and Mbeki can rightly claim some credit for it and yet it is evident that his leadership is under a tsunami-like threat.
Despite the many negatives that appear to stick on Zuma, he has emerged as the most trusted person to lead by the rank and file members of the party. What is clear is that the profile of Zuma would not have been acceptable in a colonial state to qualify as a leader. In a strange twist, the forces that appear to be against Zuma are the same people who were champions of the struggle against racism and the denial of civil rights to the majority.
After all, the liberation struggle was about giving people the right to choose without conditioning their choices. In as much as Zuma did not nominate himself, it now appears that he is being crucified by his colleagues for being popular. Although he is acceptable as a deputy to Mbeki in the same party, there are people who believe that he cannot be promoted to number one. It appears that being a President in post colonial Africa has been redefined to exclude so-called populists with little or no regard to the constitution of the party or country.
When will the masses have the freedom of choice in Africa? This question can be best answered by reviewing what President Mbeki in the aftermath of the nominations wrote in his weekly online newsletter. The President in his article entitled: “Defend ANC’s principles”, makes the argument that in nominating Zuma with his perceived populist political baggage, the party risks negating the founding principles and values of the party.
The same argument was advanced by Minister Alec Erwin in an article entitled: “Delegates face test of strength”. Minister Erwin whom I presume has no problem with Zuma being number two in the party, makes the following arguments: “For those who think that the worst is behind us and we can now indulge in the facile electoral politics of the developed world, there will be a rude shock awaiting them should their plans succeed.”
He is arguing that if Zuma is elected as President of ANC, South Africa will turn back the clock of progress and return to the former apartheid days. Naturally, any right thinking member of the party when presented with this logic would not dare elect a person like Zuma.
In other words, Minister Erwin shares the same values as the architects of apartheid who passionately believed in responsible governments. They resisted using the state machinery against the march of freedom of choice and it appears that notwithstanding Minister Erwin’s liberation credentials, he still believes that electoral politics is a luxury South Africa can ill-afford particularly if it produces a leader in the form of Zuma with a popular base.
Who benefits from a leader without a popular base? Although the liberation struggle was underpinned by a collective and popular cause above personal interests, a leader that emerges from the collective is easily regarded as a threat to the very same people who derives his legitimacy from the masses.Minister Erwin then argues that: “The South African society and economy are not yet in a position where nationhood, tolerance and prosperity can be taken for granted. The prospects for these can only be achieved by an effective developmental state.”
In advancing this argument, the risk exists that it may be construed that he is saying that Africa is not ready for democracy and leadership should be reserved for intellectuals or incumbents. Could he be suggesting that if Zuma is elected, the effectiveness of the developmental state will be compromised? How familiar is this argument in Africa? Who benefits from such arguments?On the gender implications of electing Zuma, this is what Erwin had to say: “In the ANC Women’s League, sisterhood and respect were sacrificed to the expediency of electoral politics.”
By getting the nomination of the league, Zuma is now accused of being opposed to the emancipation of women, tribalism, and unprincipled populism.I believe that Erwin is aware that five of the top six positions in the party currently under the leadership of President Mbeki are held by men and yet he makes the accusation that four of the top six nominated by Zuma’s supporters are men. It is only in government that President Mbeki has placed confidence in women. The manner in which the gender issue is now being raised in relation to Zuma tends to dilute the message and leads to the unfortunate suspicion that women are being used as fodder by selfish men. It is not clear whether Erwin is suggesting that democracy should be suspended to allow the assimilation of women into leadership positions.
In a democratic state, how are such women to be selected? Who should they represent? Who benefits from such women being elevated without the blessing of the grass roots?
What is evident in the South African context is a clear value struggle between the contestants, making the outcome of the conference a significant development in the history of the continent. If Zuma wins, the implications are frightening for those that believe state power must be exclusive and the masses must be spared from choosing their leaders.
In the case of Zimbabwe, President Mugabe has made the argument that he does not face any domestic opposition. Rather, he argues, post colonial Zimbabwe has been confronted with a dangerous imperialist-inspired and sponsored opposition led by puppets.
A line has thus been drawn that Zimbabwe will never be a colony again, suggesting that any electoral outcome that produces a leader outside the liberation framework will be resisted and undermined. Accordingly, the masses can only make one rational choice i.e. maintain the status quo at all costs even if that means more poverty.
Whose values should inform a post colonial state? It is evident that the ruling elites have arrogated to themselves the right to choose what is right for the masses.
If the masses want a Tsvangirai as their leader, this will be resisted. The perception in both Zimbabwe and South Africa is that the opposition to the incumbents is being engineered by global capitalism supported by naïve comprador labour movements.
Accordingly, the contestation for power takes an ideological context in which the ideals, principles, and revolutionary morality of liberation struggle are mischievously used to deny competition for the highest offices in Africa, effectively changing the address of sovereignty to the wise leaders of the struggle who see in themselves as indispensable custodians of the revolution.