To+him+the+struggle+ends+with+bourgeois+democracy+-+Selepe+on+Jara

Email, 20-Feb-2007 12:40
=To him the struggle ends with bourgeois democracy=


 * Cheche Selepe**

Thanks for that input from and about that Mazibuko Jara.

This input reminds one of a letter in bourgeoisie newspaper on Sunday January 14 written by a certain Veli Maphutha of an ANC branch in Limpopo. This Mphutha makes some backward, wild and ahistorical accusations against the youth wings of the ANC and the SACP.

He says "judging from everything they say or do, they are misguided and ill-disciplined bordering on anarchy."

He does not come out clear why he makes such wild accusations against the youth wings. Nonetheless, reading carefully, it seems his problem is with the youth wings' support for Cde Jacob Zuma, the disbandment of the ill-disciplined Eastern Cape region and the expulsions of the then deputies; secretary Mazibuko Jara by communists as well as president Reuben Mohlaloga by the nationalists.

Since there is never enough space and time to deal with his problems and due to such limitations, lets round-up everything to be the youth wings' views on the so-called succession-debate.

To begin with, Mohlaloga like Mazibuko deserved to be expelled because they consciously disrespected organisational communications channels and sort to communicate via the media.

And it is ironic that the very Jara who disrespected organisational channels comes out lamenting that: 'It is extremely problematic that you consistently raise fairly sensitive information and internal SACP information in your very public and widely circulated list.'

Well, one bourgeoisie newspaper published an article by Mohlaloga contesting his own organisational position on the "two centres of power". In fairness, the youth league was simply asking why should the president of the ruling party not become the country's president?

Why now should we have such an arrangement? Maybe lets take the matter to our congress to decide. But then came opportunistic Mohlaloga, bypassing all the organisational channels at his disposal as deputy president, going to the public saying the matter has not been discussed and so his organisation is wrong. He was ill-disciplined to the extreme, he deserved expulsion.

Then there is this Mazibuko case. This one was a write-off even before writing that outmoded concoction about the communists support for Cde Jacob Zuma.

His write-up about the party support for JZ was nothing but an opportunistic attempt at resuscitating himself from oblivion.

Full of spelling errors, his write-up was nothing but bad manners. It is disrespectful for a deputy general secretary of the YOUTH of the party, to publicly comment on matters relating to the husband-wife relationship of an ADULT deputy president, not of the youth league, but of the mother-body of the alliance leader, the ANC. This is very disturbing.

It is true that in the struggle we all young, there is no room for age discrimination. We do not discriminate on the basis of natural features such as race, age, gender and so on. Above all, some of us are still grappling with non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it’s fairly new to many. But it is disrespectful, opportunistic, chauvinistic, irresponsible, anarchic, treacherous and counter-revolutionary for a deputy general secretary of the YOUTH wing of the party, to negatively and publicly comment, in a badly written article, on matters relating to the husband-wife relationship of a deputy president, not of the youth league, but of the mother-body of the alliance leader, the ANC. This is very disturbing.

Comrades, Mazibuko Jara has bridged the protocol. If one was to borrow from the not so entirely reactionary African and even world traditions, Jara has shown total disrespect for adults as a youth. He has also set a worst example as a youth leader by commenting so negatively about the family life of the adult comrade. He has shown not only disrespect to the comrade deputy president of the movement, but much pain has been inflicted to his wives.

Undeniably, the comrade JZ saga has created what one could correctly refer to as a festival of the reactionaries. It brings to the fore some forces that one thought they have seized to exist. Where is Jara from? The last time one heard of him was through the grapevine that he could not stomach the appointment of a woman to be administratively (not politically) senior to him at the party head-office in Braamfontein, Johannesburg. In fact he applied for the job and lost it.

It is believed on losing an administrative post to a woman and an African working class woman, Jara seized to be red but became what he misconstrues the red-flag have become – pink. In fact he was never red. He left for a better life in Cape Town. The positions he resigned from includes being spokesperson for the party, his questionable position as "head-in-the-office of the general secretary" (where have you ever heard of such a position in the world), and naturally his position as deputy GS of the young communist league was on the line.

In other words, this comrade, if ever he should still be regarded as such, could not tolerate women leadership, particularly African women leadership. One wonders what could have been his reaction should the woman being white, "coloured" or "Indian". He could not practice, at an administrative level at-least, the unwritten principle of affirming the extremely oppressed sections of the oppressed working class in the country – African women.

But now, here is the Jara who could not abide by the wisdom of the leadership on gender, raising his voice on feminism -- gender equality.

Says Jara in his badly written piece by far: 'As a public figure, JZ has taken what can be described as controversial and conservative standpoints on gender equality (polygamy, virginity testing and sexuality).'

It is on the matter relating to the "standpoints" on gender starting with polygamy which makes it clear that Jara has no manners. He is citing polygamy as one example of "controversial" and "conservative" gender standpoints exhibited by comrade JZ.

Frankly speaking, no man can ever pose to be a champion of women-rights, but chauvinistic Jara tried to become one. He hopes to speak on behalf of women in "oppressive" polygamous relationships. This is where Jara shows not just disrespect, but also proves that he is a chauvinist hoping to become a champion of women's rights. The most dignified thing he could have done was to at least consult with one of comrade JZ's wives, before publishing his concoction. Jara could have respectfully canvassed her position on whether being in a polygamous affair with comrade JZ is "conservative" and "controversial". Jara wants to tell us that she and others are trapped in "controversial" and "conservative" gender roles that are espoused by comrade JZ.

Against such disrespectful utterances, Jara says there are no comrades of stature in our struggle. Jara wants to tell us that there was never and there is no young communist who performed to the best of his/her abilities in the very deputy secretary position he hanged on to with shame. He wants to tell us that there were no party spokespersons that performed with much discipline until they left their position with dignity and respect. Jara wants to tell the young lions that there are no lions in this struggle. Jara wants to tell us that our struggle has no heroes and heroines. Jara wants to tell us that our struggle has no leaders who must be defended with all means at our disposal. Jara is lost, he thinks all comrades are like him. We have outstanding and not just comrades of stature in our struggle. We have izithwalandwe and Jara will never be one and has never been one.

And progressive gender equality activism is premised on the assumption that women and only women shall champion their struggle against male domination by the likes of Jara. No man shall ever become a champion of the women struggles, but the women themselves. No bourgeoisie shall ever be champion of the working class struggle but the working class itself.

It is even shocking that this chauvinistic Jara wanted his badly written and full of spelling error document to be discussed at YCL level. He took not only the YCL for granted, but also the general youth in the country. With due respect, Jara's paper needed no discussion at YCL level.

What has made Jara be so deafeningly silent about such "controversial" and "conservative" gender standpoints only to raise them at the darkest hour for comrade JZ and the liberation movement in general. If they are really "controversial" and "conservative", why raise them so negatively now.

Why now at the time the deputy president needs the support of all communists the most? And why raise such things when the alliance's ten-a-side meeting resolved to give the comrade all the support he needs and deserved. Has Jara not bridged the protocol? Are his utterances in line with the alliance position or the party position for that matter?

Has he got the right to negatively and publicly criticise the young communist league for taking-up the campaign on comrade JZ. Is he not part of the young league himself? Where was he when such important decisions were taken and why he did not raise his objections within the league meetings? Why such a sudden outburst? The answer to these and other questions lies in one fact: Jara is an ideologically bankrupt opportunist.

He could have long been long fired from the party because he was and still is undermining the decision of the alliance to support comrade JZ at this darkest hour.

Okay lets criticise Jara while quoting him so that we do not sound personal. He says: 'the Party has shown some lukewarm defense of bourgeois democratic rights and institutions whilst also attacking them as part of the political defense of JZ.'

Back to this later, what is worth criticising as for now is his views on the base-superstructure perspective of the communists around the globe.

Jara says the base-superstructure perspective is irrelevant under certain conditions, yet he does not outline the kind of conditions under which the perspective does not hold. Neither does he give a definition of this perspective or at least his own understanding of it. To show his bankruptcy, Jara uses the word "irrelevant" in dismissing such a basic principle of communist analysis.

Well the popular understanding of this principle in relation to the cde JZ matter goes thus: A class with control over the economic means – be it working class or bourgeoisie – is in control of the law and all its repression apparatus such as the courts, the police, prisons and intelligence. This control over the repression apparatus also extends to further control over the ideological state apparatus such the education system, the church and the media that quotes him too much lately.

He has a very limited understanding of the base-superstructure perspective.

He should be told that whether under a working class or bourgeoisie dictatorships, the perspective holds. In fact the "rule-of-law" dictum that he espouses is inherently an acute representation of the base-superstructure perspective. It is in law, the microcosm of any society, that we see the power-play between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The laws in any society reflect the power relations of that very society. The right to property, for instance, is meant to protect the interests of the ruling propertied capitalist in a capitalist society, such as South Africa.

Like his contemporaries in the liberal circles, Jara blunders that all SA communists including himself, if ever he is still one, must defend liberal democracy in principle. A "fair trial" which the communists party was calling for comrade JZ to receive is regarded as 'one of the key features of bourgeois liberal democracy which we, as communists, must defend as a matter of principle' says poor Jara.

Surely communists shall defend a "fair-trial" but not as a matter of principle as Jara alleges. He is turning tactics into strategies and principles. He reflects the clear characteristics of what cde Jeremy in his much earlier paper described as elements without a way-forward. Elements that turn tactics into principles. The bourgeois democracy and its institutions are now elevated to the level of being principles that communists must defend and die for. Nowhere in his full of spelling errors write-up does he talk of socialism, at best is his lament on defending workers in a bourgeois democracy. To him the struggle ends with bourgeois democracy and its institutions, which must be protected even at the expense of our own comrades and socialism. Even if it means sending our own comrades to prison again, as long as that is in defense of bourgeois liberal democracy then it is fine.

Jara cannot distinguish between a principled and tactical decision. And no communist party in the world has a principled decision to support bourgeoisie democracy. He says bourgeoisie democracy is better than fascism, and therefore communists shall have to defend it even when there is no threat of fascism. Of course communists fought side-by-side with the bourgeoisie against fascism, but that does not mean if Zuma does or does not become president then there shall be fascism. And our alliance with the bourgeoisie against their twin-sisters in fascism is not principled but tactical. It is tactical since it removes one obstacle (racism) in the struggle for socialism.

And a fair trial is a myth. Nowhere in the world is there such a thing as a fair trial. Nowhere in the capitalist world is there such a thing as freedom of expression and the press. Nowhere in the world is any of the bourgeoisie democratic principles ever got realised. There is no fair trial under bourgeoisie democracy, in fact none of the bourgeoisie principles is practiced anywhere in the world. Freedom of expression is for those who have the means to express themselves and can afford to do so. All can have a fair trial provided they can afford to pay for it. All have a right to associate but the poor mineworker cannot associate with a rich mining magnate. In practice and under bourgeoisie democratic conditions none of their (bourgeoisie) rights are ever enjoyed by anybody.

And in as far as the party position, particularly comrade Blade's earlier position on a "fair trial", it was a tactical call prior to the illegal raids by the state repression apparatus at cde JZ's house. Soon afterwards, there was no more chance that he shall receive a mythical "fair trial".

From a tactical point of view, it was creative to call for a fair trial, but since tactics are not principles, always changing with conditions, the party together with organised labour said the chances of a fair trial were slim if non-existent.

In conclusion, lets quote cde JZ on the succession debate when he says:

‘When Doctor Xuma, ANC former president, could not provide the best leadership, the youth league successfully lobbied for James Moroka to be president.

‘When Dr Moroka distanced himself from the collective action and decisions of the 1952 defiance campaign, the youth league looked for a suitable replacement and found chief Albert Luthuli.

‘Recently the youth league played a role in deciding who will lead the ANC after Nelson Mandela, at that time youth league president Peter Mokaba said Mbeki will be president.

‘No one questioned the youth league or said the it was out of line or jumping the gun.’

And for the record, Mervin Gumede in his book on Mbeki says Dr Moroka, who was not even the member of the ANC, was picked by youth leaders such as Mandela to become president of the ANC and he became one.

Well, there is not enough space and time to deliberate on this.

Cheche Selepe**
 * Love

2619 words