- The ANC leadership has until now appreciated that abiding by Constitutional Court decisions has instilled public confidence in the democratic system. Its respect as the strongest political force is essential for stable democratic order [...]
WHEN Gwede Mantashe, who holds the key African National Congress (ANC) position of secretary-general, attacked the Constitutional Court and associated it with counterrevolutionary forces aiming to destroy ANC president Jacob Zuma, he gave us a glimpse of what many already feared.
Mantashe has been one of the less-strident voices in the new leadership, and his decades of experience have shown in his attempts to understand the public and the ANC base that goes beyond, and in many cases has deep misgivings about, a Zuma presidency.
I spent a great deal of my life as an academic writing attacks on the judiciary operating within the apartheid constitution. When the ANC achieved the 1994 democratic breakthrough, it set in place not only a new constitution, but also a Constitutional Court.
There are obviously problems with any notion of neutrality, especially those that lawyers and courts tend to ascribe to themselves. But there is also a need for something to stand above the ruling organisation and, in SA’s case, we have a very advanced constitution and a Constitutional Court whose rulings are sometimes not what the ANC would want.
This may be because of the preponderance of judges with one or another background or political inclination, which affects their legal insights. But these are factors that are built into any judiciary, and the question is whether the advantages of having a judiciary — which, as with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, sometimes makes findings the ruling organisation does not like — is outweighed by considerations that are deemed to be necessary by the ruling organisation.
A Constitutional Court, like the constitution itself and unlike the apartheid judiciary, reinforces values above any organisational consideration and creates broad democratic confidence.
When the ANC decided to establish the truth commission and the court, it understood that some decisions or findings would be contrary to what the ANC knew (in the case of the commission) or believed should be decided (in the case of the court). But it considered these bodies necessary for healing (the commission), and for legitimacy (the court).
The ANC leadership has until now appreciated that abiding by Constitutional Court decisions has instilled public confidence in the democratic system. Its respect as the strongest political force is essential for stable democratic order. This does not preclude criticism of decisions or individual judges or judgments, which are not the same as impugning the integrity of the institution. Surely someone as experienced as Mantashe ought to know that? Surely he realises that few outside of the Zuma inner circle will buy his idea that the judges are part of the plot against their leader?
Personally, I sought and gained nothing from the Mbeki presidency — or should I say the MbekiZuma presidency for, until his dismissal, the Mbeki vision was simultaneously a Zuma project. One never heard a word in support of the poor emanating from Zuma, nor attempts to make the ANC government more people-driven, nor similar sentiments that might give credence to claims by South African Communist Party (SACP) and Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) leaders that Zuma’s victory was a victory for the left, or a democratic gain.
In truth no programme, linked to any plot, was defeated at Polokwane. It was a battle for loot, between those who sought to benefit from continued Mbeki rule and those who had been ditched by Mbeki or sought to benefit from a Zuma presidency. There was no programmatic difference; or what left inflection the Zuma election platform may have had was deflected by pictures of the Cosatu and SACP leaders dogging his heels to share the applause that greeted Zuma the “deliverer”.
What Mantashe and other members of the Zuma leadership have had to confront is that the man they protect and fall under stands more disgraced than any other ANC president in history. We can recall how JS Moroka betrayed his comrades after the Defiance Campaign and other moments of shame. But no ANC leader has been charged with rape and escaped conviction on such sexist grounds. No leader has previously stood trial for such a range of corrupt practices, and had to engage in such protracted efforts to prevent evidence being heard.
Despite not supporting the desirability of a Zuma’s presidency, I, like many others, believe the ANC is bigger than any individual and that we owe it our support and assistance to try to reverse some of the setbacks and recover some of its legacy.
Now that task is made inordinately difficult, with ANC and Communist Youth League figures and adult leaders throwing around the word “revolution”. In reality, some of these people were nowhere near the battlefield when danger was present. The only battlefield they know is that for loot, and they believe they can gain this through devaluing the words revolution and counter-revolution.
Where do we go from here? Are the views of Mantashe, Julius Malema , Blade Nzimande, Zwelinzima Vavi and Zuma himself those of the whole of the ANC, SACP and Cosatu and, if not, where are the other people in this leadership? Do they approve of the SACP displacing the police in investigating a fraud allegation against their general secretary and purging those who made the claim? What has happened to analysis and political understanding? There are some who claim to bear this mantle. Where are they and where do they stand?
It is all very well to say that one must be inside to prevent the worst excesses, but what has been prevented and what is there that is still to come?
This article was originally published in Business Day on 8 July 2008.
See also, Gwede Mantashe, who needs nurturing? by Omar Badsha
Read more articles by Raymond Suttner in SA History Online’s library.
July 11, 2008
Democracy, Featured