Friday, 17 July 2015
It is important to start by indicating that many of us have a great respect for Comrade Trevor Manuel. Much for his contribution in our liberation struggle. But less about his flirtations with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the financial oppressors of developing countries. He has however compelled us to respond to his opinion piece entitled “Blurring of the blur”, which was published by the City Press on 12 July 2015. This because the piece is an unprovoked vitriol presented under the guise of engagement. Manuel has acted un-comradely in a manner that cannot be left unattended.
Manuel questions the legitimacy of the SACP to think, to decide on its programme and implement it. He does not, however, state whether he has, and if yes, where he derives his legitimacy. Neither does he question capitalist barbarism. The vampire-like economic exploitation that sucks the blood of the workers. The material basis of social inequality and driving structural force of poverty, unemployment, crime and corruption in our modern day society. The system that plunges workers and societies into one crisis after another, creates misery for many and pleasure for a few.
Manuel’s posturing is pathetic. He has chosen to disregard ANC resolutions in the name of the ANC. This in order to isolate SACP General Secretary, Comrade Blade Nzimande, for advancing SACP and those resolutions, from the rest of the ANC and SACP leadership who have been doing the same.
Manuel alleges that at the alliance summit that ended on 1 July 2015, Nzimande “chose the concluding press conference to raise matters about the media tribunal, indicating that this was an SACP call, not an alliance one”. FACT: the whole of pages 62 and 63 of the resolutions of ANC’s 53rd National Conference held in Mangaung in 2012 call for independent media regulation. Specifically, through the establishment of a Media Appeals Tribunal. By the way Mangaung reaffirmed the relevance of the resolution, which was first adopted at the ANC’s 52nd National Conference held in Polokwane in 2007. Yet Manuel, an honourable man, says this is neither an alliance nor ANC call.
A few days between the end of the alliance summit and the start of SACP 3rd Special National Congress, ANC Treasurer General, Comrade Zweli Mkhize, addressing the annual general meeting of the South African National Editors’ Forum consistent with ANC conference resolutions, “called for a review of… the media’s ‘peer-driven’ system of regulation, saying it needs more independent adjudicators” (see City Press, ‘Mkhize calls for more media regulation’, 2015-07-05 15:00).
The SACP is calling for independent media regulation, first and foremost on its own right, and for a debate on this matter. It cannot be that everybody is subject to independent checks and balances, including the broadcast media, parliament, the executive, and even the courts, except for a section of the media, mainly print, which only intends to do “self-regulation” or the so-called co-regulation, whatever that means.
What about the judiciary?
Emerging from its last summit the alliance “expressed concern at the emerging trend, in some quarters, of judicial overreach, thus bringing into question the very fundamental principle of separation of powers on which our democracy rests.” The declaration further stated that: “There are already commonly expressed concerns that the judgments of certain regions and judges are consistently against the state, which creates an impression of negative bias.”
The alliance declaration correctly states that the “summit also expressed concern at recent statements of the Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court. Speaking at Georgetown University in Washington, he said that in South Africa the judiciary should take a more direct political stance than even in the US. By implication, the Deputy Chief Justice gave notice that our courts should be involved in matters that are properly in the jurisdiction of the executive and parliament.”
The declaration concluded that: “In a more direct inference during a speech in 2014, in the name of defending the Constitution, he raised concern at the “uncanny concentration of power” in the President in regard to appointments. Amongst other things he refers to the President’s responsibility (after consultation with the Judicial Services Commission and the leader of parties in the National Assembly) to appoint the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice. But this is, precisely, an explicit requirement of Section 174 of the Constitution. Is he proposing changing the Constitution in the name of defending the Constitution?”
The declaration was read by ANC Secretary General, Comrade Gwede Mantashe at the alliance summit concluding press conference. The problem, for Manuel, is when Nzimande expresses the same views which form the collective alliance and SACP mandate. Only then, according to Manuel, does the same mandate constitute an attack on the judiciary.
The idea that South Africans have no right, especially if they are SACP members or leaders, to express the views of the Party and the alliance about the judiciary is wrong in the extreme. This becomes even more dangerous when it is propagated in the name of our constitution. There is no part of the constitution that prohibits any South Africans, individually or collectively, to exercise their freedom of expression in relation to the judiciary. No part of our constitution says only the other two organs of the state, parliament and the executive can be publicly scrutinised.
In the academia, judgements are being thoroughly scrutinised and criticised. It is unfortunate that academic content does not make news in our media, for some to mischaracterise it as an attack on the judiciary.
But also, the judiciary itself is not a homogenous entity in terms of its conclusions, based on the same law as they do. Magistrates and Judges do arrive at completely contrasting conclusions. In fact there are judgements that contain criticisms of other judgements. Higher courts do reverse decisions of lower courts. Judges who constitute the same benches, including at the constitutional court, do arrive at contrasting conclusions on one and the same matter. Yet when citizens express themselves, it is said that the concerns they raise constitute an attack on the judiciary, but especially if they are SACP members or leaders. By the way, we are still a long way from achieving full transformation of the judiciary. This task will not be completed without discussion, including agreements and disagreements. Labelling disagreements with a conduct as an attack is an anti-intellectual and anti-freedom of expression despotism.
In our courts of law for instance, disruption is not allowed. Law and order apply. Why must disruption be allowed in parliament to collapse its functioning? Why must the law and order that apply in the court of law not apply in parliament to protect its proceedings - which are equally important for our democracy? Does the application of that law and order in our courts mean that freedom of expression in those courts is prohibited? No court of law has ever allowed the sort of a behaviour that has disrupted parliament to disrupt its own proceedings. On the contrary, a person may be charged for the display of such behaviour in the court of law and be removed from it.
Where does the SACP derive its legitimacy? Manuel asks.
The South African constitution provides for, and protects the right of every citizen to freedom of association and the right to organise politically. “St” Manuel says this legitimacy does not apply to the SACP.
Is it wrong for the SACP to organise itself, to recruit and to accept new recruits who approach the Party on their own to join its ranks voluntarily? Manuel says it is wrong. He suggests that to be a vanguard, the SACP must be limited to a few individuals. The SACP rejects this misleading rhetoric. Manuel distorts our programmes by ignoring our mass supported campaigns in communities against evictions, campaigns for universal quality healthcare and social services. These may truly not matter to him, pretentious as he might be. To the majority of our people they matter.
Must the SACP liquidate itself into a small sect in the name of a vanguard party?
For the SACP, the precondition to engage in an alliance is a strong and independent Party organisation. Such is an SACP that is capable of implementing its political programme of the struggle for socialism. This over and above a shared minimum programme that brings the Party together with its allies. And, for the record, engaging in an alliance does not mean that the Party’s allies are a faction in the Party. Neither does it mean that the Party is a faction or exists in its allies. No SACP National Congress, no SACP Central Committee or Politburo meeting has ever decided leadership for the ANC. But this does not mean that communists in their own right as ANC members independently have no interest on who should lead the ANC. The right for ANC members to develop interest on who should lead the ANC is not limited to capitalists either.
Very importantly, the ANC is not a capitalist Party, whose ranks are reserved to individuals who advocate capitalist policies. The ANC is a multiclass formation. Its ranks are open to communists and non-communists alike, united in the struggle for liberation. This through the pursuit of our shared minimum programme, the National Democratic Revolution, which is what brings the alliance together.
Manuel has apparently forgotten that when the tragedy in Marikana occurred he was Minister in the presidency responsible for one of the most important functions – planning.
Further, he says the SACP did not issue a statement on that tragedy. For the record, we were amongst the first alliance organisations to go to Marikana, more than three time post the tragedy, and recently in June 2015. This over and above issuing multiple statements condemning violence and the killing of workers before, on and after 16 August 2012 as well as rape and displacement.
What about the transformation of the financial sector?
Manuel says that the SACP has not issued a statement on the Western Cape High Court judgement in favour of the most exploited farm workers who have illegal deductions from their wages. In sharp contrast, the SACP is the leading political Party in South Africa that has been driving the financial sector transformation campaign. The Party has issued many statements and articles on issues such as unscrupulous garnishee orders. FACT: there is no political party in this country that can match SACP’s record of struggle on this strategic imperative. The City Press is not an ignorant paper. There must be something the paper sought to achieve by publishing Manuel’s opinion piece that is infested with glaring inaccuracies.
Visit the SACP website and read the statement released on 9 July 2015 entitled “Unscrupulous garnishee orders must be uprooted! Connivance between corrupt financial predators and some in the administration of the court systems must be uprooted!” In particular, the statement is about the Western Cape High Court judgement which Manuel alleges that the SACP has said nothing about.
Concerning the National Development Plan?
Manuel says SACP’s First deputy General Secretary, Comrade Jeremy Cronin, last week at the Party’s Special National Congress “spoke about a commitment by the party to implement part of the NDP and then to hold out to radicalise the rest”. He further states that: “As deputy minister of public works, he was present when the Cabinet agreed to implement the NDP”. Firstly, Mr Manuel forgets that as SACP First Deputy General Secretary, Cronin does not use that position to replace the Party’s perspectives by those of the government, and that he does not represent his own personal views but the perspectives of the Party.
Secondly, Manuel forgets that Cronin, as with many Cabinet ministers and President Jacob Zuma, was present when the alliance summit convened from 30 August to 1 September 2013 resolved that: “The Summit agreed that there are significant areas of agreement across the Alliance in our approach to the National Development Plan… The Alliance agrees the planning work of the National Planning Commission needs now to be more effectively institutionalised and taken forward within the state… The NDP is a living document, not cast in stone, and needs to be adapted, where appropriate. Where there is agreement on the positive elements, such as the need for a capable developmental state, we shall push ahead with implementation… The SACP and COSATU have raised a number of concerns with certain aspects of the NDP, including the economic chapter. The Alliance recognises that these concerns are legitimate and will be addressed by the Alliance Task Team.”
Factionalism is a very dangerous thing. Once it takes root of a person, it corrodes quality and replaces it with waffling. It degenerates how that person listens and sees things. A person infested by factionalism is selective, and listens and sees things factionally, rather than objectively. Factionalism makes a person turn a blind eye on collective organisational positions and personalise issues.
Sorry Trevor, try somewhere else. It is wrong to spread untruths just because you differ with us. We respect your right to express your views about us. Please remember that our right to differ with you is not less important. Unlike you, we have laid bare the truth for all to see.
Solly Mapaila is SACP 2nd Deputy General Secretary