BY DALE MCKINLEY
A cursory perusal of the political events in South Africa over the last two months might leave one with the impression that there is a fundamental political battle raging between the South African Communist Party and the African National Congress as well as within the SACP itself. Nothing could be further from either reality and/or the truth.
The latest round of apparent battling, emanating from the August 29-30 anti-privatisation strike organised by the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and its subsequent political fallout is part of the on-going practice of a well-honed political game of appearance and manipulation.
Unable to contain, fully, the increasingly hostile attitude of organised workers to the privatisation of the state and a politically dysfunctional ANC-COSATU-SACP alliance (as evidenced by the strike itself), the very same alliance leadership resorts to playing up the appearance of serious political divisions as a means to co-opt and control genuine debate and working-class struggle.
What ensues can be accurately described as a pseudo-debate that has a carefully constructed logical progression and is inscribed with a political cynicism that has become the hallmark of the SACP leadership.
Not long after the anti-privatisation strike, leaked reports surfaced of supposed moves to force SACP leaders Jeremy Cronin and Blade Nzimande out of the ANC national executive, thus giving the implicit impression that a key part of the SACP leadership represent an undesirable "left" influence that is at fundamental odds with the political mainstream of the ANC.
Such a tactically inspired, and internally sourced, appearance of left-right division was exactly what happened back in 1998 just prior to the SACP's 10th congress. Then, it was reported, with great excitement, that Cronin was about to be dumped due to public utterances against the ANC government's Thatcherite Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) policy. And, just as was supposedly the case in 1998, the main "issue" is presented as one of "dual mandates".
Conveniently for the SACP leadership, this has been an issue that has been raised time and again since the 1991 negotiations between the ANC and the apartheid regime of F.W. de Klerk, but never "resolved" either politically or organisationally.
The problem of "dual mandates" is, at first, presented as revolving around fundamental conflicts of political and organisational interest, framed by policy disagreements — now privatisation, previously, the entire ideological thrust of GEAR. Unofficially, certain SACP and ANC sources talk about an impending "parting of ways" while officially blaming either the press or other nefarious enemies of the alliance for wanting to break the "historic" alliance.
Revealingly, the consistent "resolution" to these evidently primary contradictions is always the same — an even greater immersion of the SACP (and often COSATU) leadership into the ANC. Thereafter, it is always announced publicly that there is increased unity of political purpose.
The fundamental "debate" over dual mandates becomes one of minor disagreements about emphasis and degree. However, within the membership ranks of the SACP where there has occasionally arisen a more critically informed politics, there is the further need to make these "debates" appear real.
It is announced with great seriousness that SACP leaders who are not following the "party line" will receive a corrective internal roasting — just as supposedly was the case with the divergent positions around GEAR.
Internal SACP discussion papers pointing to this or that problem with the functioning of the alliance and the carrying out of SACP mandates are penned and presented as evidence of vibrant organisational debate. But, the formula followed is always the same — whatever genuine protest there might be within the rank and file, it is fed into, and dealt with by, a discussion within the party's central committee.
In the latest installment of such SACP "debates", the party's provincial leadership is trotted out to inform the public that there is much anger within the ranks, an anger evidently so intense that it can only be doused by the expectation of "public statements" of the offending leaders that are consistent with the "line" of the party (as opposed to any meaningful political action being taken).
The rank and file wait expectantly, the meeting is held and the only public statement made proclaims enhanced fealty to the "shared strategic perspectives" of the SACP-ANC leadership.
Like the political magicians they have become, the SACP leadership conjures the internal "debate" right out of existence while making it appear as though something meaningful has actually taken place.
Things do not end there though — the "debate" is further extended by engaging in a tit-for-tat battle of discussion documents within the SACP-ANC leadership. In the most recent example, a section of the ANC leadership set up an amorphous "ultra-left", supposedly operating from the ranks of the SACP and COSATU, as the main threat to the alliance. This is the same diversionary tactic used during political negotiations in the early 1990s and during the GEAR debate to avoid dealing with any of the truly substantive issues such as the programmatic sterility of the alliance for the working class and/or the consistent ideological gymnastics of the SACP-ANC leadership.
True to form, the SACP leadership plays its part in the game by issuing its response. Completely ignoring the very reasons why workers are upset in the first place, its document declares that the "positive aspects" of the ANC document are its "affirmation" of the importance of the alliance and its "commitment (to) deepen shared strategic perspectives".
On this terrain then, the supposed political divisions are framed by a political "battle" of declarations with no political or organisational substance and certainly no basis in reality.
Accordingly, the SACP leadership accepts the notion of a Trojan horse "ultra-left", thus turning the "debate" into whether or not the SACP or the ANC has a better way of dealing with it. The SACP leadership can thus present itself as the socialist knight who will guard the historical legacy of the alliance's struggle for democracy and the party's "socialist strategy".
All the while, the "fundamental" issue that started the whole thing — the politics of privatisation — fades into the background. The pseudo-debate is further consolidated.
The final act of the charade is the perfunctory intra-alliance leadership meeting/summit. Here, the same SACP-ANC leadership that is supposedly under intense scrutiny once again feigns defiance — this time, by not "succumbing" to an ANC attack on its support for the anti-privatisation strike.
However, it does not take much to resist succumbing to an interpretation — there is nothing at stake, it is a pseudo-battle. No matter, the SACP leadership can then make claims to its membership that it is not giving in to ANC pressure, covering up the fact that the only issue at stake in such game-playing is a rhetorical interpretation of intent not actual policy formulation, not actual political strategy, not actual workers' interests.
In place of real issues, the SACP leadership posits a fear of "witch hunts" and the closing down of debate, when in reality this has already triumphed in the realm where it matters most — actual debate within its own ranks about the political character and viability of the alliance for the very working class the SACP claims to represent.
The SACP leadership has shown that it is not prepared to countenance such debate. It should come as no surprise then that the "results" of the meeting are mutual calls for more talking, and more documents.
The leadership of the SACP-ANC might continue to provide itself with degrees of political security and cover by playing the working class for the fool. In the longer-term though, they are only fooling themselves. Political cynicism and hypocrisy are as tenuous as they are despicable.
[The author is the former chairperson of the SACP's Johannesburg Central branch.]
From Green Left Weekly, December 5, 2001.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.