2005-12-03,+Dangers+and+opportunities,+Nzimande+interview,+M+and+G

= **Dangers and opportunities** =

//Mail and Guardian, 02 December 2005 08:05//


 * Rapule Tabane**


 * The SACP and Cosatu have been outspoken in support of Zuma. How has this affected the alliance?**

The alliance at sub-national level is hardly functional, except in a few provinces and regions. It’s a concern; we don’t want a boardroom alliance which is non-existent at grassroots level. But the ANC’s National General Council (NGC) was very historic for all of us. We firmly believe the expressions around Zuma reflected the underlying concerns of ANC cadres, including the fact that the ANC has stopped being a campaigning organisation and is not taking up people’s daily issues. The NGC represented a reclaiming of our organisation.


 * From whom?**

From a situation where the state was becoming the major terrain of its operations, back to the grassroots branches. For example, delegates rejected the organisational redesign proposals, which would have turned the ANC into an electoral party, very technocratic, with more powers for the National Working Committee.


 * Did the Zuma issue aggravate matters?**

The JZ issue presents both dangers and opportunities. The danger is of fragmenting our organisations and further demoralising cadreship across the alliance. Also that the situation may be exploited by elements with their own sinister grievances. We must watch that. But it also provides opportunities for the ANC to reflect on itself and acknowledge that there are deeper problems within. It has to deal with the feeling that the style of ANC management has marginalised its partners on key issues since 1996 and this became worse after 1999. This presents an opportunity for the movement to say “this leadership style has not been well received”, and to act in a more unifying manner. Failure to grasp this will lead to more problems.


 * Why 1999? Do you mean things got worse after Thabo Mbeki took power?**

No, we don’t want to individualise matters. Remember 1996 was when Gear was adopted without the remotest consultation with alliance partners. Gear was a major departure from the Reconstruction and Development Programme, jointly developed by the alliance. That set off a chain of events, which ultimately resulted in capital being the biggest beneficiaries of the first decade of freedom, while the working class paid a heavy price.


 * And after 1999?**

We went to those elections on a platform of accelerating change, but the main thing that happened was an attempt to launch full-scale privatisation. The dominant political project became a technocratic way of managing things and lack of consultation on key policy issues. But, through working-class struggles, we rolled back privatisation; investment in infrastructure is now led by state-owned enterprises. The fundamental problem has been the economic trajectory of restoring capital’s profitability. If our democracy fails to address this, it will fail dismally. Cosatu and the SACP this year committed themselves to intensify the struggle, to make the second decade one for the poor.


 * Did Zuma represent, as is often speculated, an alternative, more unifying type of leadership?**

We don’t want to compare leaders; but yes, part of the groundswell around Zuma could arise from his insistence that we must find one another on major policy matters. Our support for him has been a principled one that arose from the way he was treated by state organs. The pronouncement by the former prosecutions head, Bulelani Ngcuka, that there was a prima facie case against him, without charging him, violated his rights. Ngcuka’s secret briefing of editors was outrageous. Such behaviour represents the most serious threat to the rule of law. The public protector underlined all this.


 * But you went beyond that. You supported him as the next ANC president …**

No, we’ve never said that. We can’t decide for the ANC who their leader should be.


 * But he is your preferred candidate?**

No, this idea of us as Zuma supporters is a media creation. SACP members have preferences about the future ANC leader, but it is not for us to say.


 * Which ANC leader do you see as best placed to advance working-class interests?**

It should not be about individuals, but about the ANC as a collective leadership. Part of the problem has been too much power in the president’s office.


 * Senior SACP member Mazibuko Jara has questioned your support for Zuma. Your reaction?**

Those are his individual views; they have no standing in the SACP.


 * But surely he makes valid points which you should interrogate?**

Jara is debating with a straw person because the party has never said it supports Zuma for president. We’ve never debated that.


 * Is your “principled” support for Zuma unaffected by rape allegations against him?**

Our support for him has not changed. Rape is a totally different matter; we’ll comment on it if he’s charged in court.


 * Isn’t Jara’s discussion document an indication that the party is divided?**

We’re not worried about divisions; our members understand our stance. The issue on which there are differences is one where we don’t have to pronounce ourselves -- the ANC presidential choice. That is beyond our structures.