|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
La
Gazzetta del Sud Africa
Luned́, 15 Gennaio 2007
|
|
|
The time is ripe for better, bolder journalism
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the week that the ANC celebrates its 95th anniversary, it is to be expected that some commentators will reflect on the state of the movement that is now the oldest political organisation in Africa and one of the oldest in the world.
Writing in The Star this week, former Vrye Weekblad editor Max du Preez added his voice to the commentary, in an article entitled 'The time is ripe for a New ANC'. It is but one of a number articles written in recent days about the ANC, many prescribing remedies for the various ills supposedly afflicting the organisation.
For its own part, the ANC will use this anniversary to review its performance in responding to the needs of the people of this country, guided not only by successive electoral mandates, but by the vision contained in the Freedom Charter of a new society. During the course of this year, as it prepares for its 52nd National Conference in December, the ANC will undertake an extensive and in-depth evaluation of the organisation, its strategy and tactics, and its policies and programmes.
As it does this, the ANC will not be timid about acknowledging and celebrating the important strides made, both as an organisation and as a nation. But it will not shy away from critically and honestly examining its record in terms of the popular mandates it has received, identifying
shortcomings, and determining how to address these.
Obviously, the ANC's approach to analysing itself and its performance differs from those of Max du Preez and other commentators. Such divergence is the basis for the vigorous exchange of views and opinions we seek from a democratic society.
These commentators do not need the ANC to tell them they are perfectly entitled to express whatever views they may have about the organisation, and are perfectly entitled to pursue whatever political objectives they may have.
By the same token, the ANC does not need the permission of these commentators or others to itself engage in this vigorous exchange of ideas, particularly when the subject of the engagement is the ANC itself.
While these points may appear self-evident, such has been the response to our previous efforts to answer our critics where they are wrong that it has unfortunately become necessary to consistently reiterate these points.
Predicatable pitfalls
While describing the ANC as probably "the most mature and pragmatic liberation movement in the world during the last half century" and conceding that the ANC "did very well as a ruling party in many ways", Max du Preez claims the organisation has gone downhill since 1994.
"But [in contrast to its successes] it also stepped into the predictable pitfalls: trying to 'Africanise' the civil service and parastatals too quickly and sacrificing expertise and capacity; building a small elite instead of broadening the redistribution of wealth; re-racialising society;
and allowing greed, nepotism and corruption to take hold and become part of the culture. It started to neglect its branches and ordinary members and increasingly centralised policy and decision-making. When it was faced by the first real test to its cohesion, in the person of Jacob Zuma, it was torn apart."
This, he says, calls for a "New ANC", one that is redefined, refocused and re-energised. This must be done by a new set of leaders, what he describes as "the Third Force" in the ANC. "There are many bright, charismatic, visionary people in the ANC. It is time for them to be bold and brave. It is time for a Save the ANC Campaign."
The intent behind Du Preez's article can be interpreted in one of two ways.
On the one hand, his article could be seen as a further contribution to the vigorous campaign being undertaken by those forces in society who seek to defeat the ANC and thwart its efforts to overcome the legacy of apartheid. Many within that number have clearly decided that the ANC and its programme of national liberation cannot be defeated through the ordinary democratic process. If the ANC cannot easily be defeated at the polls, then another
option for these forces is to change the character of the ANC, seeking a 'new ANC' that is less inclined to serve the interests of the masses while being more inclined to serve the interests of the privileged.
The notion that this article might be pursuing such an agenda is borne out by Du Preez's insistence that the ANC needs to be "redefined"
On the other hand, the article could be motivated by nothing more than a desire to see the ANC advance towards the achievement of its historic mission. It may be that he shares the ANC's vision of a united, non-racial, non-sexist and democratic nation, and, like the ANC, seeks the fundamental transformation of our society. It may be that he is therefore offering
friendly, constructive advice to the movement.
Yet whatever his motivation for writing this article, whatever agenda he may represent, Du Preez's analysis is wrong, many of his claims unfounded, and, consequently, most of his proposed 'remedies' out of step with reality.
Let's begin with the ANC's perceived failures. He does not explain why these so-called pitfalls were "predictable". Perhaps it is because they are seen to reinforce the prejudices that many within the white community had (and which they maybe were not even able to admit to themselves) about the advent of a predominantly black government in South Africa.
So has the ANC's performance since 1994 reinforced these stereotypes? Or put more correctly, has the ANC been deficient in meeting the needs of the people of South Africa and in fulfilling its electoral commitments?
Du Preez says the ANC tried to "Africanise" the civil service and parastatals too quickly, sacrificing expertise and capacity. Presumably he is referring to the efforts of successive ANC-led governments to ensure that the public service is more demographically representative, redressing gross inequalities in representation with respect to race and gender in particular. At the same time as the government was undertaking this necessary task, it was also having to forge a single public service from the many disparate departments and institutions created under apartheid. It also needed to ensure that a public service previously designed and operated for the benefit of one-tenth of the population was now able to effectively serve
the entire population.
There are, of course, challenges facing the public service, and there are substantial problems to be overcome in improving the quality of service provided to the people in a number of important areas. The ANC-led government is particularly attuned to these challenges, and has detailed processes and programmes in place to respond to them.
Yet, it would do the cause of honest analysis a great disservice to suggest that the public service and parastatals under the ANC-led government has not served all the people of this country more effectively, more consistently and with greater commitment than under any previous administration. There is no credible evidence that the process of ensuring a more representative public service has contributed to a decline in the capacity of the state or
in standards of service.
Concentration of wealth
Max du Preez, together with all of those who make a similar claim, need to indicate exactly which of the laws, polices and programmes of the ANC-led government has led to the building of "a small elite instead of broadening the redistribution of wealth". In fact, numerous studies indicate that where government is able to directly and indirectly impact on the distribution of
resources it has made a tangible and significant impact on the lives of the poor. It has ensured the redistribution of public resources through investment in education, health care, housing, land, basic services, and social grants; shifting the tax burden to the benefit of low-income earners; ensuring government goods and services are procured from a broader pool of
emerging companies; and providing finance and technical assistance to small and medium businesses.
If Du Preez is concerned about the concentration of wealth in society, then he is not alone. But he is wrong to pin the blame for that concentration of wealth on the ANC. In fact, there has been "a small elite" with all almost exclusive access to the country's resources from the very beginning of the colonial conquest of South Africa. Since 1994, the ANC has worked to ensure
a more equitable distribution of the nation's wealth. There is clearly a long road ahead and many struggles still to be fought, but it is a downright fabrication to suggest the ANC has not acted throughout the past 13 years in advancing the interests of the poor.
The ANC is further accused of "re-racialising society". One would imagine that before one could re-racialise a society, one would first have to successfully de-racialise it. Quite clearly, the struggle for the deracialisation of society is far from over. Not only is racial prejudice still a feature in many aspects of our national life, but there remain massive inequalities on the basis of race and gender with respect to income, assets and opportunities. It is ironic that as the ANC and many others within society work to overcome these racial divisions, they are themselves accused of racism.
As we noted before, in an article published in the Cape Argus last year: "The ANC seeks not the creation of new racial preferences, but the equitable representation of all South Africans in the workforce and in accessing other social and economic opportunities."
"Most South Africans abhor the artifical racial categories that were thrust upon us by colonialism and apartheid. Yet we are bound to use them if only for the sole purpose of measuring the extent of our progress towards a truly non-racial South Africa. We cannot achieve real non-racialism without being forthright about the racial inequalities that still exist."
The ANC has, according to Du Preez, allowed greed, nepotism and corruption to take hold "and become part of the culture". Again, this is not a correct reflection of reality. Nepotism and corruption in the public sector, and in society more broadly, is an aberration. It is the exception, rather than the norm.
That does not mean that is not a problem, nor does it mean that it is not a danger to which we must be alert and responsive. The ANC has been consistent in warning of the potential damage that could be wrought by corruption and the development of culture of greed. The ANC has also been at the forefront of responding to this potential threat, promoting the adoption of codes of ethics and regulations for public representatives, members of the executive and senior public servants. It has strengthened oversight bodies, investigation agencies and legislation dealing with corruption. It has also worked to curb corrupt practices within its own ranks, developing and implementing clear rules prohibiting any misconduct relating to public
positions or resources.
More could be done, and more needs to be done. But, thanks to the efforts of the vast majority of public representatives, government officials and ordinary South Africans, these dangerous tendencies have not "become part of the culture".
These are just some of the many claims made by commentators and in the media that do not hold up to close scrutiny. There are others in Du Preez's article that, due to limitations of space, we are unable to deal with here.
Yet these claims are so regularly repeated, seemingly without any thought or critical examination, that they begin to slip so easily off the tongue. But how many of the people who so frequently repeat these assertions have actually taken the time and effort to honestly investigate their validity? How many simply write these falsehoods because they have seen it written elsewhere so often that they feel compelled to toe the line that has become the "consensus" among commentators?
Perhaps it's time for those people who seek to comment on the South African political landscape to examine more critically the range of assumptions that pass for conventional wisdom within the public discourse. Perhaps it is time for a more rigorous, bolder form of journalism in South Africa.
|
|
