Jewison,+An+independent+electoral+path+for+the+SACP

Paper below to appear in 1st quarter AC.

=An independent electoral path for the SACP?=


 * By Richard Jewison

March 2005**

This paper is an attempt to shape the debate on electoral strategy. Standing candidates in elections independent of the ANC is a very serious decision to take that will have long term consequences. It is arguable that if a decision is to be made it should be made now whilst the party is in the strong position it now occupies. How do we balance the seriousness of such a decision with the impatience of those who see this as an ideal time to make the move? The paper does not attempt to argue from a particular position, but rather to look at how the debate might be managed. A number of themes are explored. One important starting point is the basic question that we are asking. Is the question:" Is it a good thing for the SACP?" or is the question "Is it a good thing for the working class?" The latter is suggested as the question. It is suggested that the question needs to be explored within a Gramscian analysis usually summarised as the "war of position". There is an ongoing struggle between capital and labour in South Africa and internationally, which is taking certain forms, and which needs to be seen as the background or context for the debate. The paper then suggests that the approach of scenario planning be adopted. This involves examining the various possible scenarios, and seeking to describe the possible and probable outcomes for the party, the country and the working class.

There is probably no need to justify the argument that the paramount question is what will benefit the working class. It is probably an old fashioned communist that will make no distinction between the interests of the party and the interests of the working class. Communist parties were generally formed to further the interests of the working class in a situation where these interests were clearly not being served by social democratic or utopian socialist parties. In fact, some communist parties were called workers' parties rather than communist parties to emphasise that they were formed by and for the workers. Whilst social democratic and labour parties were able to bring about certain reforms and place worker-friendly laws on the statute book, the overall power relations between workers and capitalists remained and the class struggle was deliberately downplayed and discouraged. Being part of a pro-capitalist party deprived the working class of the possibility of achieving changes in power relations. So the critical issue in forming communist parties was how the interests of the working class could best be served. The issue of transforming the SACP into a party that stands independently in elections needs to be debated from that same perspective.

The SACP needs to debate the issue in the context of current realities. We need to be quite blunt in our analysis of the conditions within which the working class is struggling. The US has dominance economically and militarily. There is no countervailing (soviet) power; the dominant ideology is neo-liberalism; gains by the working class made in liberation struggles and major conflicts with capital throughout the century are being reversed as capital accumulation becomes the dominant force in economic and social development. At the same time changes in production methods and the globalization of labour as a commodity have meant a serious reduction in the size of the proletariat and in the ability of organised labour to control the "means of production, distribution and exchange". Within this changing environment many unions and worker parties have changed their goals from ones that saw the "seizure of power" and "taking of control" as crucial, to ones where "exerting influence" and "securing a stake" in decision making are seen as more realistic. Mobilising the working class and its allies to maintain influence and protect hard won gains has become the focus of many on the left, whilst at the same time maintaining a critique of capitalism and keeping alive the long term ideal of a socialist future.

In South Africa the SACP has managed this reality by adopting a quite sophisticated strategy. It has started campaigning on day-to-day issues that are related to strategic but achievable goals. The slogan: Socialism is the Future, Build it now! Is a powerful one that enables workers to debate socialism as a goal and at the same time fight on bread and butter issues that are ingredients of any future socialist dispensation. The mass campaigns of the party have been very successful on both counts. In South Africa socialism is still discussed and is still a concept around which people can be mobilised. In many countries this is no longer the case, so this is a major achievement in itself. Also significant gains have been made in labour laws, protections of basic rights, enabling legislation such as co-operative and financial sector laws, and a large degree of "state sponsorship" (funding, contracts, individual management commitments, etc.) for projects that are of benefit to the working class. There has also been some ideological advance in relation to macro-economic strategy and the language used in discussing poverty and development. Concepts such as sustainable livelihoods, sustainable development, poverty eradication, etc. are ones that reflect advances made by the working class in the ideological terrain of struggle. The struggles of Cosatu and the SACP are not simply resulting in immediate gains such as the establishment of a co-op or a delay in privatisation in the transport sector. There are advances on the philosophical and ideological front as well. It would be no exaggeration to suggest that the SACP is at the cutting edge of strategic socialist thinking, and is having a considerable impact.

It is proposed that the debate should be within a framework of Gramscian thinking on the class struggle, as interpreted over recent years by many communist parties. For many decades the Leninist concept of revolution was used to promote a model that saw the seizure of state and productive power as the means by which the lives of workers would be transformed. Taking power at the centre was seen as the route to working class power and socialism. Whilst many on the left, including SACP comrades, still talk in these terms, the majority of communists work within a different model of power struggle. Whilst state power is regarded as critical it is not "working class power". Working class power can only be said to have been achieved when the working class controls the economy, and in fact it can only achieve this by contesting in every sphere of social activity. Whether by design or accident, communists are living Gramscian theory.

Gramsci's view was that the struggle went beyond the state itself and took place in all areas of society. From the pages of the printed media to the sports field, from the workplace to the college classroom, from the parents group or governing body in a school to the municipal chamber, struggles would unfold on a daily basis. Decisions would be taken that were forged in such struggles and such decisions would either advance or set back the interests of the workers. The struggle for socialism is a continuous struggle, and one that will not cease when and if a revolutionary event occurs that can be equated to the seizure of power. The contestation for hegemony is the nature of class struggle today.

The "war of position" as Gramsci called it is the framework within which we we need to understand the current debates on electoral strategy. Clearly elections are a critical forum and opportunity to press forward the working class agenda. As such they are an important aspect of the struggle. However, the electoral processes are but one aspect of a much greater struggle. Getting communists into the corridors of power **is** important. However the electoral work must not be seen as more or less important than the wider struggles of workers and the organisations representing workers. One forum for struggle must not be elevated to such an important status that the actual interests of workers are no longer the central concern. Nor should we allow a "common sense" to develop that without a majority of communists being elected to the National Assembly and municipalities advances to socialism are not possible. A broad perspective is needed.

The question then becomes how do we conduct the debate? The debate is clearly one that must take place, and in the eyes of some it is a matter of great urgency. Communist parties have not always addressed complex and sensitive issues thoroughly and in an inclusive and rounded way. Sometimes debates in communist parties can take on a polemical or adversarial character, and sometimes this is necessary. However this approach can also be very problematic. Using this traditional framework, arguments for one approach (the SACP to stand independently of the ANC) are presented and used to mobilise; the arguments for the other approach (SACP candidates to continue as ANC candidates) are presented and used to mobilise; eventually the vote is taken and a policy is arrived at.

Democratic centralism then means that the majority vote stands and everyone is bound by that decision. This approach may be formally democratic, but is likely to produce a result that satisfies few and which leaves a lot of problems in its wake. The challenge for the party is to create a framework for the debate that is inclusive, thorough, visionary and capable of addressing all the complexities and subtleties of the decisions that are needed. This paper proposes the use of scenario planning as a way forward. This is a process that should be structured into, rather than be an alternative to, the constitutional structures of the SACP. In the same way that the September Commission went to the Cosatu Congress in 1998, so too any strategic papers will go to the central committee and congress of the party. In fact for scenario planning to be successful in the party a commission will need to be established with authority and guidance from the CC. A more detailed paper will be needed for the CC if there is agreement in principle.

This paper does not attempt to start the scenario planning process, so the following is used for illustrative purposes only. The actual scenarios, and the structure of input to the various scenarios needs to be developed by the participants, not by an individual or a committee. Scenarios need to be determined during debate and discussion. So the following is illustrative only. For the purpose of illustration three scenarios are suggested (there may be more or less and they may be different). The scenarios are:


 * //Scenario 1: The SACP is a major force in parliament, provinces and municipalities as well as within the organised working class and in communities. It is helping to shape an increasingly worker-friendly national and African agenda and many building blocks of socialism are being laid;//
 * //Scenario 2: The SACP is an organisation with dwindling influence in parliament, provinces and municipalities, but is powerful in organised labour and is able to mobilise protest action to defend workers and communities; within the country the neo-liberal agenda is hegemonic, but the SACP continues to keep socialist perspectives in the public eye;//
 * //Scenario 3: The SACP is an effective organisation within the ANC-led alliance and helps shape the national agenda. However it is increasingly seen as a ginger group within the ANC rather than having an independent socialist vision. Other left groups are filling the vacuum that the SACP has left as the masses respond to the need for an independent working class party.//

Whilst there are three possible outcomes, there will be a preferred one, and maybe a second one that would be acceptable. The debate then becomes a) what actions and decisions will stand in the way of the preferred scenario? b) what should be done to maximize the possibility of the preferred scenario? c) whether or not we achieve the scenario we want in the long term, what can we do now to make it more of a probability?

For those scenarios we want to avoid we must look at actions that would lead us down that road and actions that would avoid it, or make it less likely to happen.

There may be things that we do to achieve one scenario that bring the prospects of one of the other scenarios closer. These contradictions need to be analysed and explained. Also international experience that is relevant should be documented.

It is possible for comrades to come at the scenario planning process from different perspectives. Communists whose main field of work is the ANC can join in and be open. Communists whose main area of work is the trade union movement can join in. Communists who work in communities and see communist councilors and MPs in a particular light can come to the debate. Scenarios can be written up and a booklet produced that goes deeply into the implications and informs the eventual debate and decision. There will also the opportunity to test out the scenarios with comrades in the ANC and Cosatu and for their views to be part of the final report. Finally there would be a debate in structures and a decision made.

In order to illustrate how the scenario planning process would differ from the polemical approach let us take the question of the impact on the ANC and the Alliance of standing SACP candidates. A draft resolution in circulation supporting the standing of candidates that states "//The Alliance would still remain **intact** and operate **even more effectively** in the context of the Party standing for Elections// independently //as the Party//". Within a scenario planning process this view would be expanded and developed alongside other possible outcomes. For example another outcome might be a different reaction in the ANC. The ANC might exclude communists from membership (as happened with the UK Labour Party in 1924); with no communists motivating for socialist policies in the ANC a more pro-capitalist ANC might emerge. In that situation other alliances may emerge. All possible outcomes need to be considered and a careful assessment made.

In summary this paper argues for a structured approach to a complex debate. The interests of the working class must be at the centre of the debate. There should be an acknowledgement that fighting for the interests of the working class is not easy in today's world. The outcome of the debate must strengthen the working class struggle.

It is difficult to effectively analyse the options within a traditional approach to debate. By adopting a scenario planning approach, the SACP would be facilitating a more nuanced and objective analysis and a more sensitive and inclusive decision-making process.