The Government of National Unity in South Africa must address the interests of poor South Africans to remain relevant

The Government of National Unity in South Africa must address the interests of poor South Africans to remain relevant

In Marxist literature, this is a familiar proclamation and aptly fits the transition South Africa experienced from 1994 to now. One may argue that 30 years is too long for a transition, there are no known specifics and limits of how long transitions last. Undoubtedly, the Government of National Unity (GNU) seems to be energising this process in ways not seen before.

The concept of the GNU is not new and was undeniably an expression that enthused hope whenever it was pronounced after the elections of 1994. Its recurrence has had positive and negative feelings, dividing the ANC and the Tripartite Alliance members. The exchange of accusations against one another has been extraordinary, thus leading to a resurgence of old dogma contained in an article penned by Joel Netshitenzhe entitled “THE SACP AND ELECTIONS: IS THE TRIPARTITE ALLIANCE WHOLE GREATER AND BETTER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS?” released on Xmas eve, 2024. While one is familiar with most arguments about the NDR and the tripartite alliance, some new nuances and schemes emerged.

Simultaneously, a great effort is made to distort why the ANC lost elections in 2024 and why many people in KZN voted for the MKP. The same is done to justify the false theory of phases of the revolution accompanying the NDR and its continuation after 1994. Moreover, there is an upgrade of this theory in the following manner: “Important in the conceptualisation is that, when the National Democratic Society has been attained and when the national question recedes ‘as a driving force for continuing change and class issues … assume greater prominence’, the historical mission of the ANC would have been realised. While it may, for a period, play the role of sustaining, refining and improving that socio-economic system, the ANC would perforce recede as the leader of continuing change.”

This supports the argument for continuing the tripartite alliance beyond its lifespan – into and perhaps beyond the GNU (nobody knows how long). Netshitenzhe postulates a theory that entails a handover of power from the ANC to the South African Communist Party (SACP) – an old delusion at the core of justifying the alliance during exile when the socialist system looked like a realistic alternative. This is a twaddle in both theory and practice, as no outcome of a people’s history has ever been scripted this way.

Netshitenzhe borrows from the ‘Gestalt theory’ (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts) and construes that if the SACP were to go it alone, “the ANC and the SACP may both be losers in this new arrangement”. The problem with this hypothesis is that the SACP has never contested elections and no one knows the aggregate contribution it could make. So how can they be classified as potential losers? Unless by ‘losing’ he means members of the SACP not being incorporated into an ANC government as has been the case since 1994.

The desire “to enter the electoral terrain independently at this stage” stems not from an objective assessment of their strength nor faith in themselves but from the anger of being given only one seat in the GNU for the first time since the 1994 elections. As contended by Moeletsi Mbeki, the SACP has been opportunistic for the last 25 years. Now that the voters have dumped the ANC, the SACP is using the pretext of the ANC not accepting the SACP formulation of how the alliance should be reconfigured to abandon a “sinking ship”.

The Tripartite Alliance
The historic causes that gave birth to the Tripartite Alliance during the liberation struggle and the relationship between the ANC and the SACP are well documented. Their founding documents, programs, formulated strategies and resolutions adopted over the many decades, such as the Freedom Charter (ANC 1955), the Road to South African Freedom (SACP 1962) and the Strategy and Tactics document (ANC 1969) remain the high points of loads of complexities, sometimes marking disappointments, disillusionments and also successes involving political work inside the country, the armed struggle or lack of it, and international mobilisation on the course of liberation. While this is part of our history it is nonetheless open to various forms of interrogation and interpretation, especially by future generations.

At the 60th anniversary of the SACP (1981) OR Tambo remarked that there were a lot of shared experiences based on the common struggle, and underlined that through resistance to the vicious onslaught, through the blood of the countless unnamed and unsung heroes, reinforced by a common determination of both organisations, our victory was certain. He added that while agreeing on fundamental strategies and tactical positions the two retained their separate identities.
“For though we are united in struggle … we are not the same … Within our revolutionary alliance each organisation has a distinct and vital role to play. A correct understanding of these roles, and respect for their boundaries, has ensured the survival and consolidation of our cooperation and unity…”
Thirteen years later, at the 49th National Conference (1994) Nelson Mandela addressed this question. After frankly criticizing the ANC for not being properly prepared for government he asked whether the Tripartite Alliance was an appropriate structure for the future of South Africa. He pleaded with delegates to apply their collective wisdom and to guide the organisation.
“It’s the way in which he posed the question that makes it clear that he had his own view on the matter. He didn’t mince his words. He was forthright but, as he was a true democrat, he was careful not to impose his view on the conference. From his statement it can be deduced that he was definitely aware of the serious challenge of moving into the future with an unrepresentative structure like the Tripartite Alliance that practically excluded democratic national and regional organisations, structures, sectors and formations (including individuals) that had contributed so much to our liberation. Let’s not forget that the process of liberation involved the mass democratic movement, community and issue-based organisations, bus and taxi associations, cultural associations and groups, churches and many other religious bodies that looked to the ANC for leadership and had put their trust in it. The Tripartite Alliance was definitely an effective and formidable structure, created in exile. But it was unbefitting and inappropriate for the re-building of a nation and country that had been torn apart by colonialism and racial discrimination.”

Mandela said:
“A number of broader questions are on the agenda of Conference: the character of the ANC now that it is also in government; whether we have in our ranks the cross-section of the working people and other sectors of society; and how we build an expanding pool of cadres grounded in the policies and traditions of the ANC.
We do face a danger that many ruling parties have experienced: that the organisation could turn into a mere conveyer-belt of government decisions or, on the other hand, a force steeped in a resistance mode. Similarly, without a clear organisational strategy and cadre policy, we could end up attracting to our ranks merely those who seek careers in government…
Having defined our character and role as the ANC, we will also have to express ourselves clearly on what our strategic allies should be; what broad formations we should initiate or strengthen; and how we continually keep in touch with the people and their sectoral organisations.”
Then he carefully and wisely chose his words and said:
“Broadly-speaking, the basic motivation behind the Tripartite Alliance with the South African Communist Party and COSATU remains, in that we still have to realise the objectives of thorough-going democracy and social transformation. This Alliance, the cutting edge in the struggle against apartheid, should be strengthened as we embark on reconstruction and development.
But what forms it takes; whether it should be expanded to include, for instance, the civics movement, and many other questions are issues that Conference should decide…
It will therefore be crucial that delegates apply their minds seriously to all the organisational questions, conscious of the fact that the decisions we take will impact on the future of the organisation for decades to come.”

It was an astute and vintage Mandela that could pronounce that the ANC should never become ‘a mere conveyer-belt of government decisions’ or remain ‘a force steeped in a resistance mode’ and attract to its ranks ‘merely those who seek careers in government’. I argued then that Mandela was shrewd in not pronouncing that the Alliance should be terminated, as this would have raised eyebrows. But the point was made: the Tripartite Alliance had to give way to the broader church that had made freedom and democracy possible. What was a real disappointment, then, was that none of the resolutions adopted or decisions taken at that conference came closer to addressing this matter. What came out were the old formulations and approaches. The Strategy and Tactics document remained intact – as if nothing had happened or changed.

It is on record that Mandela was not the only leader of the alliance to raise the danger of the Tripartite existence beyond 1994. It was none other than Joe Slovo to do so. In his 1989 pamphlet, ‘Has socialism failed?’ he criticised how the communist parties in Eastern Europe had abused their power.
“Our new programme asserts that a communist party does not earn the title of vanguard merely by proclaiming it. Nor does its claim to be the upholder of Marxism give it a monopoly of political wisdom or a natural right to exclusive control of the struggle …
In order to prevent such a distortion in a post-apartheid South Africa we have, for example, set out in our draft Workers’ Charter that: Trade unions and their federation shall be completely independent and answerable only to the decisions of their members or affiliates, democratically arrived at. No political party, state organ or enterprise, whether public, private or mixed, shall directly or indirectly interfere with such independence…
We do not regard the trade unions or the national movement as mere conduits for our policies. Nor do we attempt to advance our policy positions through intrigue or manipulation [my emphasis].
Our relationship with these organisations is based on complete respect for their independence, integrity and inner-democracy. Old habits die hard and among the most pernicious of these is the purist concept that all those who do not agree with the party are necessarily enemies of socialism. This leads to a substitution of name-calling and jargon for healthy debate with non-party activists. As already mentioned, our 7th Congress noted some isolated reversions along these lines and resolved to combat such tendencies.
Both for these historical reasons and because experience has shown that an institutionalised one-party state has a strong propensity for authoritarianism, we remain protagonists of multi-party post-apartheid democracy.
We believe that post-apartheid state power must clearly vest in the elected representatives of the people and not, directly or indirectly, in the administrative command of a party. The relationship which evolves between political parties and state structures must not, in any way, undermine the sovereignty of elected bodies [my emphasis].

Slovo’s conclusion was unambiguous:
It follows that, in truly democratic conditions, it is perfectly legitimate and desirable for a party claiming to be the political instrument of the working class to attempt to lead its constituency in democratic contest for political power against other parties and groups representing other social forces [my emphasis]. And if it wins, it must be constitutionally required, from time to time, to go back to the people for a renewed mandate. The alternative to this is self-perpetuating power with all its implications for corruption and dictatorship.
This is Slovo pleading that the party should contest elections to represent its constituency. I have argued that when you take what Slovo said then, and the reality of today, you would be forgiven for thinking he could not have spoken on behalf of those who claim to be at one with the ideals that inspired leaders such as Moses Kotane, JB Marks and Moses Mabhida. Such forewarnings also came from many people and leaders outside the alliance. I refer to them in my book, ‘Unmasked’.

In the past 30 years, we have not heard of any instructive debate relating to these issues; they have not been encouraged in the Alliance. All the public gets to know or hear from SACP conferences and adopted resolutions are slogans of ‘Forward with socialism today!’ that reverberate as they did in Russia before the October Revolution. These ideas are more than a century old. The SACP conferences offer very little theoretical or high-level analysis of the world we live in today.

The Tripartite Alliance (ANC, SACP and SACTU – later COSATU), crystalized in conditions of exile, played a significant role in waging the struggle against white minority rule. But then again, what would be liberation without the UDF, the mass, civil and community based organisations and formations, the religious bodies and so on? It is simply unthinkable. South Africans revere the sacrifices that members of the ANC and other political parties and organisations made. Still, they know that without the international community, and specifically the ordinary men and women who made the country ungovernable through numerous sacrifices, freedom and democracy would not have become a reality.

Truth be told, no one expected the alliance to become an electoral alliance after 1994. Politics is about power. The question of dual membership post-1994 would always be a problem if one party did not contest elections but expected to co-govern. This marriage had no contractual obligations and was bound to create problems. Indeed, the GNU was established without the SACP and COSATU. Perhaps there was no need for such approval.

For now, let me deal with some of the contentious issues raised by Netshitenzhe which are also mentioned in the January 8th Statement of 2025 of the ANC.

ANC loss of elections
While Netshitenzhe and the ANC emphasise the MK Party's malign attributes, the ANC itself blamed its weak internal structures, weak provinces, factionalism within the organisation, poor communications, the breakdown of service delivery, little voter education done, and factors such as the role of counterrevolutionary forces working with external enemies, the role played by uMkhonto we Sizwe Party (MKP), and the formation of the Multi-Party Charter and groupings hostile to the ANC. The inventory included the effects of COVID-19, load-shedding and water scarcity.

One cannot deny the combination of several factors that led to the loss of its majority in parliament. But a major contributor to this was the current leadership, which visibly failed to accept full responsibility for its part. Just as there was silence about the failures of leadership, the party did not acknowledge that many voters expressed their disappointment about its performance in government by simply staying at home instead of voting.

On this one, the General Secretary of the SACP, Solly Mapaila, was honest in stating:
“The electoral setback suffered by the ANC-led liberation forces in the May 2024 elections is shocking and a wake-up call. However, let us be clear. This was not entirely new. Nor was it unexpected. It is a reality that has been developing over the years in both local and provincial and national elections. Our Party Programme, adopted by the 15th National Congress in July 2022, pointed out to the possibility that has now occurred in the May 2024 elections.

In our party programme, the South African Struggle for Socialism, adopted in July 2022, we conclude that:
‘The prospects for ANC unity and renewal are uncertain and the class character of any such renewal (were it to occur) is equally a matter of struggle. The ANC remains seriously factionalised and moral and political decay has been far-reaching. Its future electoral prospects have also become uncertain, with a strong possibility of experiencing a further decline if it does not achieve a turnaround. If it continues, the electoral decline of the ANC could reach a point where it will be unable to form governments in affected levels without seeking coalition partners, and without which it could be dislodged. This reality has already struck in at least one province and a number of municipalities, including metropolitan municipalities.’”

On the MK Party
Netshitenzhe and the ANC should differentiate between MKP and those who voted for it for argument's sake. Calling them names like ‘traitors’ or ‘sleeper cells within the ANC’ like it has been intimated, hides the true nature of the problem. All these voters are former ANC voters and many remain rooted in the politics of the ANC. They haven't changed at all, they only changed how they voted because the ANC itself, as a representative of the people, has over the years changed. This is what the ANC as an organisation is afraid of confronting. With a new generation that has no experience of apartheid and racist rule under a white president, no experience of forced removals and life in exile, it is becoming more difficult to blame others for the wrongs of the ANC. South Africa needs committed and decisive leadership by example, not leadership that preaches one thing and does the opposite.

On the NDR
Netshitenzhe writes: “This task of pursuing socialism in the South African context, the SACP has all along argued, entails efforts on its part to ensure as radical a process of current social transformation as possible by, among others, impacting on the thinking, the planning, the operations and the conduct of the ANC as the leader of the NDR – by dint of the quality of the Party’s theory, praxis and cadres. Herein lies the fundamental question about the Party’s strategy and tactics: should it throw up its hands in despair, put a spanner in the electoral works at this deeply sensitive period and abandon the ANC and thus leave it open largely to other influences?” An articulation that also expresses Netshitenzhe’s faithful belief and he concludes, “This seems to be an admission of defeat and an eschewal of a historical responsibility.”

In ‘Unmasked’, I examined the ideologies that influenced the ANC. I counterposed freedom and democracy with the concept of the national democratic revolution (NDR) and found that the two not only stand in opposite positions but find themselves in a recurring conflict. I also analysed the theoretical and ideological roots of this NDR and the confusion it has brought in South Africa, especially among the academia, the trade union movement and the political and social organisations at a time when we needed the most cooperation among all of South Africa’s people.
“The alliance partners are supposedly independent entities. The relationship between the ANC and SACP developed out of a common struggle. In the course of this struggle and out of shared objectives this relationship became one of the pillars that sustained both organisations during and after they were banned. This alliance was further strengthened by the organisations of workers into trade unions. It is not by mistake that members and leaders of the SACP and SACTU (later COSATU) played a significant role in their own organisations and also in the ANC.
It is well understood that in exile the ANC led the Tripartite Alliance. Times have changed, though. The obligations to fulfil one of the objectives of the ANC – that of building one nation – is more important than the alliance.
If the NDR is not taken for what it is – a hurdle on the way towards building a united nation – the future looks miserable. The single most divisive matter of our time is the NDR. If every time the ANC gears itself towards fulfilling its mandate as the governing party its efforts are swept away by the NDR, nation building and finding harmony in society will bear no fruits.
No one can deny that there are phases in any struggle or in any development. But to pride ourselves in naming and designing phases with no real meaning to people’s daily lives is to live aloof.”

Once more we are faced with an intransigent attitude trying very hard to impose an old and refashioned position that lacks a grasp of the changes that have taken place in the country and the forces (economic, social and otherwise) at play. The people have paid a high price and wasted a lot of time believing in these contentious theories instead of addressing simple challenges related to economic development and the social upliftment of the living standards of black South Africans.

On the GNU
Disputes within the GNU were to be expected. Firstly, the seed for the current disaster is that the two protagonists, the ANC and the DA publicly professed opposing views on why the GNU was established in the first place. In other words, this was a self-inflicted crisis. The statement of intent was wearisome as it did not guarantee that the parties were completely committed to common objectives. Reckoning where we come from, upholding the results of the elections, reminding South Africans of the mission to build a constitutional democracy, and concluding that “The people of South Africa expect us to work together as political parties to achieve these objectives, and to usher in a new era of peace, justice and prosperity for all” and that “the GNU is constituted in the interest of all South Africans” was simply inadequate. Apart from the commitment to a list of foundational principles and the basic minimum program of priorities, this could have been done without necessarily establishing a GNU.

Secondly, the two parties have failed to act in the public interest by developing mechanisms to deal with contentious policies. The GNU is a multiparty government, not an ANC- or DA-dominant government and for this reason, no party can push through its policies without consulting with the others. All agreements concluded after consultations make those policies belong to the multiparty government.

As I have indicated, the GNU is full of dynamic forces that sharpen contradictions within this structure. This was to be expected considering the nature of opposing views, ideologies and the material forces at play. After taking power in 1994 the ANC failed to adapt to the new conditions of leading a free nation with all its diverse components and faces a multidimensional reality when it has lost its majority in parliament.

While the idea of a GNU is insightful, it has had opposing impacts on the psyche of a nation with its people coming from diverse historical experiences, beliefs, values, and attitudes and not enjoying the fruits of freedom the same way. Millions of people, especially the black younger generations, have had a tidal shift in their consciousness. Even though the legacy of the ANC as a liberation movement remains, they have moved on. At the same time, the ANC wants to stay a liberation movement forever (as it portrays itself) and this has led to its isolation from the people, especially the black middle classes. The relevance of any party is how it is connected to the people it is supposed to represent.

Over the past three decades, the ANC has gradually lost a robust structure, strong leadership, and a strategic plan with a vision to face some glaring challenges. It has taken these same weaknesses into the GNU and wanes its role in this structure. Several of its leaders and spokespersons at national and provincial levels interpret the GNU in many divergent and sometimes conflicting ways leaving observers asking questions of how long the GNU will last. The ANC is not the only party exhibiting these inherent weaknesses. The Democratic Alliance (DA), the strongest opposition party whose origins are linked to the Democratic Party (and the NP and NNP) of the apartheid era, is seen as a party loaded with inconsistencies and representing the interests of whites. It has failed to win the minds of a sizeable number of blacks.

Then there is the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the United Democratic Movement (UDM), which are splinter groups from the ANC. Together with the Freedom Front Plus (FF+), Good Party (Good), Patriotic Alliance (PA), Al Jama-ah and Rise Mzansi, they are still too young to have a persuasive and sound influence in the GNU. Hence one can say the old is dying and the new is not yet ripe to lead this nation to a prosperous future.

The life of this GNU depends on the maturity needed to deal with current challenges. As many have said South Africa needs a fit-for-purpose party or parties to deal with contemporary questions of democracy and development. Unlike in the past when the ‘poor white problem’ was addressed at the expense of the black majority, the GNU must make sure that there is no repeat to resolve the historical national question at the cost of the poor black majority by serving only the interests of the black and white elites and the middle classes. Otherwise, a far worse conflict awaits the nation.

 

Joel Netshitenzhe: THE SACP AND ELECTIONS: IS THE TRIPARTITE ALLIANCE WHOLE GREATER AND BETTER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS? December 2024

Joel Netshitenzhe: THE SACP AND ELECTIONS: IS THE TRIPARTITE ALLIANCE WHOLE GREATER AND BETTER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS? December 2024

Speech by Oliver Tambo at meeting to observe the 60th Anniversary of the South African Communist Party, London, 30 July 1981

Political Report of the National Executive Committee to the 49th National Conference, 17 December 1994
Unmasked: Why the ANC Failed to Govern, Khulu Mbatha, 2017 page 176

Political Report of the National Executive Committee to the 49th National Conference, 17 December 1994
Unmasked: Why the ANC Failed to Govern, Khulu Mbatha, 2017 page 176

Joe Slovo (1989) Has Socialism Failed?
Joe Slovo (1989) Has Socialism Failed?

Central Committee Political Report to the Fifth Special National Congress 11–14 December 2024

Joel Netshitenzhe: THE SACP AND ELECTIONS: IS THE TRIPARTITE ALLIANCE WHOLE GREATER AND BETTER THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS? December 2024

Unmasked: Why the ANC Failed to Govern, Khulu Mbatha, 2017 page 116-117

Statement of Intent of the 2024 Government of National Unity, 14 June 29024