The future of the alliance: an end to an error

Andiswa Makanda reflects on the future of the tripartite alliance between the ANC, SACP and COSATU.

The two-week strike and the events surrounding the strike pose concerns for the relations within the tripartite alliance. The leftist alliance is now at loggerheads with each other on economic policies. The two-week strike was by no means a reflection of the complex, complicated relationship between the African National Congress (ANC), South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Coalition of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). With the next conference coming up in 2012, one wonders if Zuma will still enjoy the support he had from COSATU in the 2007 Polokwane conference which saw former President Mbeki being ousted from leadership.

There is growing speculation in the media that the relationship in the alliance has been strained and ‘wounded’ and that there are fractions within the alliance. There is also growing speculation within the media from unknown sources from within the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) that in the next party conference Zuma will not be elected to serve a second term. One must note that there have been speculations that the ANCYL will no longer support Zuma, probably because of the actions he took against the ANCYL’s President, Julius Malema.

In this piece, I will analyse some of the reasons that have caused this strained relationship and discuss whether the alliance should be seen as the ‘end of an error’. One must note that the alliance was formed during apartheid to consolidate and mobilize revolutionary actions to oust the apartheid government. The coalition was a consolidation of the struggle against the apartheid system. I argue that with the introduction of neo-liberal policies adopted by the ANC post-apartheid, a tripartite alliance with a leftist orientation is nothing but doom.

The adoption of neo-liberalism: ‘beginning of an error’

To understand the tensions within the alliance, one must look at the moment that this strain began. It did not begin with the two-week strike. The possible root cause of the strain dates back to the 1990s when globalization was a buzz word and the order of the day. It has been argued that former President Mandela took a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank on the condition that neo-liberal economic policies would be adopted, which were then spear-headed by former President Mbeki when he took office. We all know that international organizations such as IMF and World Bank set up conditionalities for granting loans, which meant a lot of African states adopting systems of governance such as liberal democracy that did not fit with African realities (Nyamnjoh 2002; Occiti 1997) since they were still recovering from colonialism and apartheid in the case of South Africa. [1] This then saw the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), with its socialist orientation, being dumped for the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) policy when Mbeki was in office. It must be noted that COSATU and SACP were not consulted. This marked the ‘beginning of an error’[2].

One must also be aware that capitalism and socialism cannot function properly and uniformly without any clashes. Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) was introduced which meant the introduction of black capitalists and a capitalist ideology which is not in the interest of the working class. In capitalist societies, we are bound to see class struggles. The paradox in South Africa is that during apartheid it was a race struggle, and now in the liberal-democratic state we live in – a capitalist society with little government intervention – we see class struggles. Neo-liberalism also had its effects on state institutions. Based on media reports, one can observe that the state hospitals and education systems are under-funded and malfunctioning. The consequence has also manifested itself in civic servants being underpaid, which has led to the two-week strike and other strikes preceding the strike. There have also been poor service delivery which has led to violent protests.

The alliance: an end of error?

During the 2007 Polokwane conference, President Zuma had a huge unconditional support of COSATU, SACP and the ANCYL, with its President stating they would ‘kill for Zuma’. The reason for this leftist support is probably because Zuma was seen as a leftist and a man who was inclined to the working class and the grassroots, given that he was not as educated as Mbeki. He was hailed as a people’s person and it was heralded that the ANC has gone back to the people. Another possible reason was that Zuma would probably advance socialist policies. Conversely, this was not the case because Zuma has not changed any of the economic policies that were set out during the Mbeki era.[3] Another possible reason that should not be ruled out is the fact that Zuma was deemed as a people’s person and very accessible. The media have speculated that he was an easy man who was easily manipulated and could be influenced. The reason for the support was that he would probably advance some of the selfish interests of politicians. According to Martin Legassick, he is a man who likes to please everybody. The public civic strikes are a manifestation of the conflicts between the alliance members – with COSATU at loggerheads with the ANC over wage disputes.

What was interesting for me during the strikes is how the ANC condemned the strikes, including Zuma. Gwede Mantashe was reported in the online version of The Times criticizing COSATU and how it handled the strike. The Mail & Guardian also reported that some COSATU leaders (Frans Baleni to be exact) said that the ANC failed on its promises once the elections were over. There are also growing concerns about the policies supported by the factions, with COSATU arguing that a two-tier market is a recipe for disaster. Though Zuma tried to handle the strike and appease the civil servants, there are claims that it was just for his reputation and to gain popularity. However, what was interesting in the strike were the attacks between COSATU and the ANC, with the SACP somehow caught up in the middle. COSATU even stated that it regrets having supported some ‘individuals’ during the Polokwane conference.

That being said, it is impossible to have right-wingers operating with left-wingers. It is clear that COSATU and the ANC will never agree on anything and reach a consensus unless the ANC takes a more socialist stance. On the one hand we have an organization that is pro-capitalist and on the other hand, an organization that fights for workers rights. It has been speculated by some political analysts that even if people may not want to vote for the ANC, there is no alternative. I personally think that it would be imperative that Zuma and the ANC appeases the poor working class because it is them that are the majority in society and it is in them that their victory lies.

I am also jittered by the statement made by Vavi that the strike is political. I can sense a conspiracy spiralling, where a working class movement – maybe under the leadership of Vavi – would be the alternative to the ANC. With all the bold statements made by Vavi, condemning corruption in government, exposing corrupt governments, publicly disclosing his income and how he spends it. It is no doubt that he has filled a niche in public concerns of corruption in government and mismanagement of funds. If we wake up one day and find Vavi standing for elections, he would be an alternative and maybe the best alternative if he has the support of the poor working class and those who are dissatisfied with the ANC. There have been arguments that socialist movements are always underfunded and could never succeed, but this time we would have to wait and see. What does Vavi mean when he says the strike is political? Could he be referring to an alternative? Will he have the courage to break away? Or does he simply mean that he would put other ANC officials in power. If that’s the case, then I do not want to know the details because the ANC is yet to prove itself to me. Also, let COPE be a lesson to all politicians.