Are they just an odd couple, two political mavericks unwilling to accept defeat, or are they the brave leaders of a new political force to be reckoned with? The ruling African National Congress (ANC) dismisses former ANC chairperson and Defence Minister Mosiuoa (Terror) Lekota, and former labour and ANC leader and Gauteng Premier Mbhazima (Sam) Shilowa as mere power-hungry opportunists.

Lekota and Shilowa, however, believe they are here to make a difference in a country that desperately needs change in view of the ANC’s assault on democracy and the rule of law.

Old leopards

Some say they are a fresh breath of political air, others that they are simply old leopards trying to present their spots in a fresh guise. One thing is for sure: the ANC has unleashed a formidable propaganda machine to try and discredit them with selective disinformation and even outright lies. Which in turn can suggest only one thing: the ANC fears them.

Whatever one’s view, everyone knows the Sam and Terror Show is in town. We caught up with them after the historic National Convention, with its central binding theme of defending the Constitution, which brought together thousands of individuals and a large number of organisations with usually quite disparate views.

The party known as the Congress of the People – after a false start with the already taken name of South African Democratic Congress. It may be born out of the ANC, but it certainly will not be just a mini clone of the mother if Lekota and Shilowa are to be believed.

Very different to the ANC

They insist it will adopt a position very much different to the present-day ANC. It aims to appeal to a broad cross-section of South Africa’s 22-million voters and not just to the disgruntled faction of the ANC’s 600 000 members.

The new party appears to be positioning itself in the mould of a liberal-democratic party rooted in constitutionalism, possibly with a pronounced social-democratic slant in its yet to be formulated policies. In contrast, the ANC, apparently increasingly guided by its communist and labour components, seems to be veering off to a more centralised, developmental and even socialist outlook.

And despite some of the leaders of the new party having once been members of the SA Communist Party (SACP), the Congress of the People (CoPe) will strongly distance itself from the communist and socialist labour influence now so much in evidence in the ANC.

It will, however, just as the ANC always claimed to do, try to appeal to a broad cross-section of South Africans. The new party will also claim much of the same heritage as the ANC, but only up to the point where its leaders say the ANC deviated from its own values.

Thus it will lay claim to liberation struggle credentials by virtue of past contributions of its founding leaders, the Freedom Charter and other such symbols. This may still trigger considerable aggression from the ANC, which claims sole ownership of this heritage. It is already up in arms over the new party’s name, dating back to the 1955 Congress of the People that gave birth to the Freedom Charter. The ANC also challenged in court the earlier chosen name, South African Democratic Congress. Nonetheless, at the same time, there will be an attempt to build a new party beyond its original ANC nucleus.

A modernised party

As Shilowa puts it: “We don’t simply want to attract people who were in the ANC. We want to become a different party, a modernised party. While our history (in the ANC and liberation struggle) is very important to us, we are focused more on the future.”

To understand where this new party may be headed, one has to understand the forces that drove Lekota, Shilowa and a host of others away from the ANC bosom. For ordinary dissident members of the ANC, the motivation for the split started with their anger over their defeat in what they saw as a carefully orchestrated “coup” by the Zuma clique, aided and abetted by the SACP, the Congress of SA Trade Unions (Cosatu) and the ANC Youth League (ANCYL), at the ANC’s national conference held in Polokwane in December. For them, it culminated in the humiliating removal of Thabo Mbeki as President of South Africa only months before the end of his full term.

Lekota and Shilowa concur that, in addition to those two events, the decision for them and many others to leave the ANC and form a new party was further informed by the following factors: the purges carried out against them; the spectre of tribalism represented by Zuma’s loyal Zulu supporters; their perception that the communists had hijacked the ANC; the exclusion of high-ranking ANC politicians from the rule of law and equality before the law; the party’s embracing communist practices such as high levels of centralisation and the erosion of the distinction between party and state; attacks on the judiciary and other democratic institutions; the perceived growing preference of the ANC leadership for autocratic decision-making; high levels of intolerance towards anybody holding different views to the leadership cabal; disrespect for senior leaders like Mbeki and the pro-violence views of some leaders like those of ANCYL president Julius Malema; the failure of the ANC leadership to rein in the likes of Malema; the perceived moral decay among the new crop of leaders and their high levels of tolerance of corruption; and the view that the ANC had strayed from the values and principles of its own constitution and the Freedom Charter.

Lekota, however, is adamant that his reasons for breaking with the ANC, contrary to popular belief and the ANC’s accusations, had nothing to do with Mbeki. His reasons, he says, were directly related to what he sees as a “very steady deterioration away from the norms and principles” that first attracted him to the ANC. He nonetheless believes the way in which the ANC removed Mbeki as President showed total disregard for the provisions and spirit of the Constitution and constitutes dire threat.

Nothing but a coup

Shilowa also believes the removal of Mbeki was nothing but a coup. He also points out contradictions in the ANC leadership’s defence of their actions. “Mathews Phosa said Mbeki was removed on the basis of his many policy failings. That’s fine, but why did they then choose to keep some of the ministers who were party to the policies that they say were problematic? And Zuma said they lost confidence in Mbeki, but yet they want him to come out and campaign for them in the elections.”

Shilowa takes it further when he says that after Polokwane, it was clear the ANC would be marginalising large numbers of ANC branches to exclude them from decision-making, while people viewed to have supported Mbeki were hounded out of the ANC and government.Shilowa points out that in contrast, the Mbeki leadership never purged those who spoke out against Mbeki’s dismissal of Zuma as deputy president.

Many have wondered whether they raised their concerns while still in the ANC. Lekota says he did raise a number of critical issues repeatedly, but to no avail. Shilowa also points out that most of the issues raised by him and others occurred only after Polokwane, by which time, he says, the organisation’s culture had already changed and issues were no longer discussed at branch level. In the Western Cape, a major split had developed, yet for eight months, the Zuma leadership failed to respond to some 42 memos and many appeals from the aggrieved and sidelined faction.

Policy pillars

Out of the issues that triggered the split in the ANC, the National Convention identified the pillars around which the new party is likely to shape its policies and electoral platform at its launch in December. These are:

• Defence of the Constitution and democratic values;
• Defence of moral values, tolerance and respect;
• Defence of the rule of law, equality before the law and respect for the judiciary;
• A renewal of the democratic system and electoral reform to make it more representative and accountable.

Lekota and Shilowa say they are proposing that a similar electoral system to that used in municipalities be introduced at national and provincial level, combining constituency-based and proportional representation. His party would look at the proposals made by former IEC chairperson Frederick van Zyl Slabbert to see how these can be utilised in formulating constituencies.

But the party is also quite specific that it wants to see the national president, provincial premiers and municipal mayors elected directly by the voters. It also wants to avoid the current excesses of cronyism whereby, in the words of Lekota, “fraudsters and drunks” are elected as councillors, with delivery the victim and budgets remaining unspent.

The desire for electoral reform also stems from the fact that at the last ANC national conference, only some 60 percent of 3700 delegates with voting rights out of 600 000 ANC members elected Zuma (and by implication the country’s next president), while the losing 40 percent of delegates, the rest of the ANC’s membership and the country’s 22-million voters had no direct say in the matter.

However, now that the initial hype and public interest around the acrimonious and very vocal split in the ANC has perhaps died down somewhat, the question is whether the new party will still be able to bag the big numbers in support. Lekota and Shilowa are confident of attracting large numbers of South Africans from the ANC, from other parties and from the ranks of those who never voted before. Lekota foresees considerable realignment within the party political sphere and says some parties have indicated they may disband and join the new party. “There is a huge groundswell,” he says.

Shilowa believes they will win in a number of provinces. He mentions the example of Blaauwberg outside Cape Town where the ANC has not made any inroads and, he claims, 800 white residents have indicated their willingness to work for the new party in the run-up to the election.

Utilising all available modern technology such as e-mails, websites and text messaging to recruit supporters and generate funds, Shilowa says the party has several Facebook and other Internet sites, each attracting memberships upwards of 60 000 people. Lekota says his party will co-operate with others in a coalition if necessary to defend the Constitution. And Shilowa adds: “It is a little too rich for the ANC to say we cannot enter into a coalition with other black or liberal parties when the ANC itself is in coalition with the party of Verwoerd.”

They dismiss accusations by ANC leaders that their party is for the wealthy, the middle classes, for whites or intellectuals. They point out that the ANC itself was founded by intellectuals while several ANC leaders are among the wealthiest people in the country.

Lekota is also adamant that skilled, qualified and experienced white South Africans should be embraced, before importing skills from elsewhere, to help grow the economy and eliminate poverty.

The new party has yet to articulate its views on economic policy, but it is expected to revolve around the market-friendly policies introduced by Finance Minister Trevor Manuel and others under Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki. But for now, the party still lacks significant support from big business.

Shilowa says they will be working on that and have received pledges of financial contributions from business individuals more than from corporate entities so far, though actual contributions are still low.

Refuse to be cowed into silence

Summing up the problem many foresee in this regard, he says, “We hope that business will refuse to be cowed into silence by the ANC.”

At the other end of the spectrum, Shilowa – who once headed Cosatu as its general secretary – says there is considerable support among workers for the new party. While it would be “illegal and unconstitutional” for Cosatu to prevent its members from supporting the new party, he says, they could well in future be forced to consider an alternative labour organisation, not so much one aligned to their party, but one allowing freedom of political choice.

When asked where they see themselves a year from now and whether they would be available as leaders of the new party, Shilowa laughs and says, “We’ll have to wait and see.”

Lekota also does not want to speculate – he is “quite advanced in years now” – but would consult his colleagues and comrades if asked to lead as “one cannot be tired now at a critical time when our democracy is threatened”.

Modesty aside, the Sam & Terror Show is not leaving town any time soon – but exactly what imprint it will leave, remains to be seen.


RSS
Digg
de.li.cious
facebook