Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

Op-eds

Op-eds

A contextual examination of the ANC’s new political education programme (Part Two)

A contextual examination of the ANC’s new political education programme (Part Two)
Raymond Suttner
By Raymond Suttner
27 Nov 2024
Facebook
1
In a healthy organisation, all ideas must be up for discussion and debate, including the value and validity of the Freedom Charter, National Democratic Revolution and other ‘sacred’ concepts or documents. It is necessary to ask whether these serve as guides today and if not, alternatives must be up for debate. Part Two in a two-part series.

Read Part One here.


In the current moment, with a crisis in the ANC (as indicated in its claimed commitment to “renewal”), the launch of its new courses can only serve as political education if these are recast in order to encourage debate, without any no-go areas.

If it is very different from what has been described as political education previously, it is good in principle. This will be so if it entails training people in how and what to think, about the ideas and principles and values of the organisation. Ways of reasoning have to be taught.

Crucial are the strategies and tactics of the organisation and how to confront political problems. That cannot be static, given that conditions change. The very principles may be displaced, as with the problems that may be confronted. Problems of today are very different from 10 or even three years ago.

How to think and what to think is a very important distinction, and the values of the organisation are not static. Treating these as static is a feature of Cyril Ramaphosa’s launch of the political education courses, and some of the package to be used.  

In a healthy organisation, all ideas must be up for discussion and debate, including the value and validity of the Freedom Charter, National Democratic Revolution and other “sacred” concepts or documents. It is necessary to ask whether these serve as guides today and if not, that must be said, and alternatives must be up for debate. Can these ideas be augmented or can they or some of them be dispensed with?

It is not simply a case of learning and remembering a series of facts about the ANC and other forces. The meaning of these events in the organisation’s history and present character are not understood in only one way. Their meanings need to be open for discussion and debate, so that individuals can be part of making these meanings.

Older people who may have been present at key events, who used to become intellectuals through organisational processes, may play a key role (see Raymond Suttner, “The character and formation of intellectuals within the ANC-led liberation movement”, in Thandika Mkandawire, (ed) African Intellectuals, CODESRIA, ZED Books, Unisa Press, 2004, pp 117–154).

At the same time existing conditions may be read afresh or new situations arise. The possibilities are countless. This scares some people, but excites members of an organisation if it is vibrant.

Even or especially the most sacred principles must fall within the realm of debate. Let us say that non-racialism is one of the sacred principles of the ANC, but that does not mean everyone agrees or should agree on what it means and how it must be practised.

Many people remain uncomfortable with using language incorporating “race”. Does it mean that the word “race” has no salience because it is not a scientific concept – as scholars hold? How do we distinguish between deploying “race” as divisive and recognising it in specific conditions of oppression? Is it not necessary to recognise “racial groups” if it is a basis for understanding current spatial and other continuing apartheid/oppression?

These are issues that have to be considered afresh at every period, because no time is the same. This was true of the two periods that I headed political education. In the 1980s it was in the Transvaal (most of the time I was “on the run” or in detention or under house arrest). That period was a time of massive repression and the response of ANC and UDF supporters was “ungovernability”, “popular power” and “insurrection”.

The second period of my involvement in political education was after the unbanning of the ANC and other organisations – in short, a completely new situation without guidelines from prior to the bannings in 1960 nor from the period of illegality. We had to build political education and induction afresh for conditions we ourselves had never experienced.

We are now in the third decade of post-apartheid South Africa, with a democratic Constitution, but facing many problems which need to be understood and addressed, with an understanding of the specific character of each such issue.

Looking at the literature and videos on the new courses, there is extensive use of the internet – which of course raises questions of accessibility. But it also raises the need for personal interactions in a situation where understanding and debating politics has been devalued.

I do not think that the ANC will be retrieved or rescued from its current plight by a political education course, even if it is tailor-made to the very specific condition of organisational decline on a range of fronts.

My impression is that, from what Cyril Ramaphosa and others said, when people pass through this course, they will be possessed of specifically ANC ethics and values that will prepare them to fulfil the requirements of membership.

In other words, there was a moral imperative behind this. It was not clearly articulated what that moral imperative was, but it was suggested that out of those attending these courses, people will imbibe an awareness of “ANC ethics”. They will acquire “values”, concepts whose meanings are conveyed to those attending the courses as not requiring interrogation or debate? Such emotive words are loaded and require considerable debate and not as having a given, timeless meaning.

And there was no attempt to break down what it means to have ethics or values, and how it is that a course can transform what may well be a dishonest person into one who will work for the good of all and will not put his or her hand into the till or any other dishonest behaviour which we have come to associate with the ANC of recent times, whether in what is called its “renewal” or any other inapplicable word. (Steven Friedman provides a careful critique of the assumptions behind remedying problems by members and leaders attending courses. See “Back to School”, Against the Tide, 31 October 2024 (on subscription).

A time when values and commitment reigned


What I believe is relevant is the question of the subjective – in inculcating values – as they call it, is not so much that people will automatically imbibe values and moralities that deter them from taking dishonest action through attending these courses.

What is important is how we frame this. Personally, I do believe that people should have certain political values, but I am not sure that the way I see it is the way it is conceived in this course.

My belief is that one has to break down what one means by having a commitment to a cause – in this case, to the liberation of all the inhabitants of South Africa. Once we understand moral commitment and moral consciousness and how one acquires these, we can also understand how betrayal can be characterised.

My suggestion is that the way of acquiring the type of consciousness that many of us had to acquire in order to carry out illegal activities and resist betraying the liberation cause if arrested, is that in order to do this, one should look at examples from other organisations, but even from earlier periods of illegal activities – for example, of people like Julius Fučík, the famous Czech communist martyr, and others who had to prepare themselves for death. (See Julius Fučík, Notes from the Gallows, also published as Report from the Gallows).

And that preparation is something that many of us took very seriously when we got involved in the early and late 1960s when there was a good chance of being arrested, tortured and aggressively questioned, beaten into betraying one’s comrades and the cause of liberation, and/or dying in resisting the torturers.

When we committed ourselves to serving the oppressed and all who live in South Africa, we formed a bond where our lives were linked with the wellbeing of all people, but especially the oppressed. That state of mind made it impossible to steal or be complicit in stealing from that which belonged to the people. To steal, as in Nkandla, was not simply theft, it broke the bond with the oppressed. The people were betrayed.

But even today, in the face of Israeli genocidal bombings, shootings, obliteration of everything Palestinian, the Palestinians continue to resist and to live or die with a sense that there is no more sacred purpose than a “free Palestine” from the river to the sea. We know a similar commitment – on our side – and we all have to work out how to live it, not simply by repeating stereotypical words. DM

This article first appeared on Creamer Media’s website: polity.org.za

Raymond Suttner is an emeritus professor at Unisa. He served in the leadership of the ANC, SACP and UDF. He headed Political Education at the inception of the unbanned ANC until he was elected to parliament in 1994.

Categories:

Tags: