Whom can we trust to protect our legacy?
South Africa has had the good fortune of having four presidents in smooth succession in the short span of 15 years. This is a remarkable feat, given that most countries on our continent are saddled with leaders for decades on end.
We have had this leadership succession because our founding leader, Nelson Mandela, believed in the power of historical example. Mandela knew that, if he did the right thing, it would reverberate throughout his organisation and lead others to behave likewise.
Though Thabo Mbeki sought to extend his stay in power, our political culture would not brook that kind of political behaviour and he was out of the door before he realised it. His departure led to the presidencies of Kgalema Motlanthe and then Jacob Zuma.
No sooner was the transition from Mbeki to Zuma concluded than the succession debate reared its head again.
I almost said "its ugly head", but succession is not a bad thing. Even if we look askance at individuals who try to extend their tenure in office, societies must, if they are to continue to exist, always imagine themselves in the future. People will always ask the questions: Whom can we trust to protect our legacy? Whom can we trust to speak on our behalf? In other words, there are historical reasons why such questions must be asked and why they must be answered.
Whether those who provide the answers are driven by power, greed and avarice, or are good men and women, will depend on the circumstances of each country.
In his book On Populist Reason, Ernesto Laclau identifies three moments that characterise populist movements.
First, disparate groups, each with their own grievances, emerge in protest against the establishment. At this point, the regime can afford to ignore them.
Second, the groups enter into a coalition or constitute what Laclau calls "a populist frontier". Their specific group interests temporarily recede into the background, making collaboration with others possible.
Third, no sooner have they attained power than each member of the coalition will return to its original group position.
I shared this insight in a Harold Wolpe lecture some years ago and concluded as follows: "Once the populist movement attains power, the frontier begins to dissolve. This is precisely because the populist frontier - from BEE wannabes to ethnic entrepreneurs, to fugitives from the law and the ever-dodgy lumpen - is not an ideologically coherent movement. Wait until Zuma has won and see the infighting that will emerge."
It is in the nature of political movements in democratic societies to reproduce the outsider-insider dynamic that they themselves protested against. The former outsiders become insiders, and a new set of outsiders is established.
This is how the dynamic of democracy is continually created and reproduced. Suddenly, Jacob Zuma the anti-establishment hero becomes Zuma the establishment figure. As Chantal Mouffe puts it, "a political regime . cannot exist without a constitutive outside".
It is to this "constitutive outside" that we must now look to try to understand what the future might have in store for us with regard to leaders. Quite clearly, the SA Communist Party and Cosatu are seeking to exert greater influence and control over the direction of the ANC.
In an early indication of the battles to come, Cosatu and the SACP successfully put their weight behind the election of the high-ranking communist leader Phumulo Masualle as chairman of the ANC in Eastern Cape, arguably the most influential province in the ANC.
Recently, Cosatu's general secretary, Zwelinzima Vavi, announced that he would be available for a senior position in the ANC in 2012, and he has assured the present secretary-general of the ANC, Gwede Mantashe, that he is not after his job.
Vavi cannot contest the presidency because he has repeatedly said that Cosatu would back Jacob Zuma for another term. This leaves open three positions in the ANC: deputy president, chairman, and treasurer.
But why would the leader of the biggest trade union federation in the land try to be merely treasurer of the ANC? This leaves Vavi with two options: stand for chairman or for deputy president.
Taken to its logical conclusion, a "Left" capture of the ANC could lead to a ticket headed by Blade Nzimande as president, Zwelinzima Vavi as deputy president, and Gwede Mantashe as secretary-general.
Just as many never imagined Jacob Zuma as leader of the ANC or of the country, so we do not know which leaders will be propelled by historical circumstances to lead the battle for the leadership of the country.
The businessman Tokyo Sexwale might still emerge as a challenger to the communist-labour takeover of the ANC. In this he could be joined by the likes of the former ANC Youth League leader Fikile Mbalula and other non-communists in the ANC leadership.
Interestingly, Vavi and Sexwale agree that Zuma should serve a second term, which would delay the inevitable duel until 2017.
The only person who might have an interest in Zuma serving only one term is Kgalema Motlanthe. After all, he is now the deputy president and, just as Zuma expected to be elevated to the presidency after Mbeki, so might Motlanthe.
Moreover, Motlanthe has an influential group of backers in the ANC, particularly in the powerful Gauteng party. But once again he would find himself in the position of caretaker leader, trying to manage the inevitable historical contradictions that lie at the very basis of democracy.
This impossible task is inevitable in a democracy the fate of which is tied too closely to the fortunes of one dominant political party.
By their very nature, political parties want to manage and contain social contradictions - but democracy thrives on contradiction.
Loading...
VinceRSA