Article by Dr. Zamani Saul, ANC Northern Cape Provincial Chairperson – The step-aside policy was one of the most centrifugal policy issues leading up to, and during, the 6th National Policy Conference.
It goes without saying that step-aside is a political risk because the political action that emanates from it could significantly affect the organisation. Consequently, in whatever the African National Congress (ANC) does with regard to step-aside, it should not be blind to the political risk that this poses.
On the policy front the ANC is naturally more accepting of risks. Its risk appetite is demonstrated in many other policy decisions that the organisation took that carry enormous political risks, such as the expropriation of land without compensation and the nationalisation of the Reserve Bank, amongst others.
Political actions that are derived from policies that carry high political risk profiles tend to be epoch-changing and generate interesting mega-trends. Political parties that want a competitive edge need to have the capacity to manage the risks generated by risk-inclined policies. This is done by examining the political risks, how they are changing and how best to navigate them to mitigate their potential adverse impact.
In this regard, the controversy that accompanies the step-aside policy should have been expected because the political action that derives from the policy could be epoch-changing. Amongst the first victims of the policy was the suspension of the Secretary General with immense consequences for the well-being of the organisation. Such a serious matter cannot be considered a non-event. It has never happened in the recent history of the ANC that preparations for its National Conference are done without its “Chief Administrative Officer”, which is the Secretary General.
Intensive contestation of ideas or policies towards and during conferences is not a new phenomenon, but is rather a hallmark of the ANC, this is historal and current reality. As an example, with the 1917 National Conference the ANC response to the land question was put into sharp focus and was a dominant contradiction. There were events that had occurred since 1913 that sharpened the focus on the ANC response to the land question at that time.
On 19 June 1913, the Native Land Act was passed. This Act restricted the ownership of the black majority to just seven percent of the country and “scheduled certain areas for exclusive black settlement”. On 27 August 1913, the government appointed the Native Land Commission, headed by William Beaumont, to solve the “native problem”. The aim of the Commission was to designate areas to be reserved exclusively for European ownership and areas to be reserved exclusively for African ownership. Based on the recommendations made by the Beaumont Commission, the Natives Administration Bill was published, which considered additional land to be allocated to reserved “Native” areas.
This Bill led to a split between two groups in the SANNC (now ANC) Executive Committee, where one group led by the founding President John Dube accepted the theory of territorial segregation, while the other group, led by Sefako Makgatho, completely rejected it.
These differences defined the conduct and attitude of delegates towards and during the 1917 National Conference. The 1917 Conference rejected the theory of territorial segregation and Sefako Makgatho was elected as President. There is thus nothing unusual in the ANC having a conference punctuated by fierce policy discussions that most likely impact directly on leadership elections.
With the 1930 National Conference, the issue of the ideological outlook of the ANC and its relations to communism was central to the political discussions. The most prominent issue was that of the breakdown of the relationship between Xuma and the then leadership of the newly formed ANC Youth League (YL) when Xuma rejected the 1949 ANC YL sponsored Programme of Action. The programme was meant to radicalise the ANC by turning it into a fighting mass-based movement with capacity to mobilise the oppressed masses into defiance action against the apartheid regime. Another watershed moment was the 1969 Morogoro Consultative Conference which was punctuated by heated debates on the state of the ANC in exile and the role of uMkhonto weSizwe.
In the more recent past, there were debates at the 2012 National Policy Conference on the nationalisation of mines. The 2017 National Policy Conference saw fierce debates on the powers of the Integrity Commission, expropriation of land without compensation, and the nationalisation of the Reserve Bank.
Proper management of energies associated with policy discussions and leadership preferences has an innate potential to shape the conference into a watershed moment. For example, in the 1949 National Conference, Xuma was not re-elected and the adoption of the Programme of Action triggered ANC-led mass based and grassroots mobilisation in the early 1950s, which resulted in a defiance campaign that gave birth to the Congress of the People in 1955. In 1969 Consultative Conference the theory of struggle was better organised into what is commonly known as Strategy and Tactics and a Revolutionary Council was established to ensure the proper integration of the four pillars of struggle.
Thus, dealing with policy matters that generate heated debates which sometimes stretch the ideological boundaries is a common occurrence in the ANC and is old as the ANC itself. This same trend defines the existence of all political parties in modern times. For example, the Democratic Alliance is now confronted with the challenge of the implosion of its “multi-racial” character. The EFF posture on illegal foreign nationals contributes to ideological strains within the party. In Europe the political storm caused by Brexit within the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom catapulted Boris Johnson into becoming the leader of the party.
The resolution that ANC members who are implicated in wrongdoing must step aside was taken by the 2017 National Conference. It is important to mention that the journey of this resolution started at the 2015 National General Council. What emboldened delegates to take such a resolution with far-reaching implications was the Diagnostic Report on the State of the Organisation presented by the then Secretary General, Gwede Mantashe. It painted a bleak and horrifying picture of an organisation on a self-destructive trajectory, characterised by factions, ill-discipline, money politics and toxic contestation for leadership positions. Central to all of this is the ongoing struggle for access to state resources, with the cumulative impact being poor service delivery and a widening trust deficit.
The Diagnostic Report was the foreground and set the scene for the 2016 Local Government elections outcome, elections that were then characterised by the worst ever electoral performance of the ANC. A post-election opinion survey conducted by the ANC from amongst its own strong supporters highlighted three factors as reasons for that electoral decline: namely, corruption, internal divisions, and political arrogance.
The main reason cited was corruption, as about 83% of ANC supporters felt that the organisation was soft-peddling and prevaricating when dealing with corruption, particularly when perpetrated by ANC deployees. Hence, the 2017 National Conference called for “decisive action” against corruption and observed that the perceived lack of integrity of the ANC could lead to the party losing credibility in society and power in government.
During the plenary of the 2017 Conference, the step-aside resolution was adopted without much ado. By then not a single delegate could have imagined the possible impact that this simple resolution could have on the internal cohesion of the party. Its potential implications were appreciated only when the NEC started discussing the modalities for its implementation almost two years after the 54th National Conference. The discussions in the NEC were triggered by the ongoing negative narrative and general perception that the ANC is riddled with corruption, as well as the appreciation of an urgent need to respond to the call of the National Conference for “decisive action” to eradicate the scourge of corruption.
The step-aside resolution has very broad and limitless boundaries and to address this the NEC appointed a task team led by the Treasurer General Paul Mashatile to draft Terms of Reference and Guidelines on the Implementation of Step-aside (Step-aside Guidelines). It took the NEC almost a year to finally adopt these guidelines, whilst at the same time there were members who voluntarily stepped aside, and where in a political limbo due to the absence of a policy framework.
For example, in Limpopo Province, members were forced to step-aside without being criminally charged, merely on the basis of the VBS allegations. In KwaZulu-Natal, on the basis of criminal charges, members were directed to step-aside. The inconsistency in the application of the step-aside policy is understandably one of the reasons for a spirited rejection of step-aside in these two provinces.
Nonetheless, the inconsistencies and many other issues were brought to the attention of the NEC which tried to address them in the Step-aside Guidelines. This resulted in the three-pronged approach in the Step-aside Guidelines. Firstly, if there are serious allegations levelled against a member, that member must approach the Integrity Commission. Secondly, if criminal charges are laid against a member, that member must immediately step-aside. Lastly, if a member is convicted for serious offences by a court of law that member must immediately step-down. The detailed Guidelines define what step-aside is and what a member can or cannot do when on step-aside. It is important to note that, as with any other policy document, these guidelines are not without possible flaws or loopholes.
One of the controversies and a potential backlash in the Step-aside Guidelines is the restrictive interpretation and application of the step-aside resolution. The conference resolution is very broad and requires anyone who is involved with “disciplinary, investigative or prosecutorial procedures” to step-aside.
In the process to finalise the Step-aside Guidelines in November 2020, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) served the Secretary General with criminal charges of fraud, corruption, and money laundering relating to his tenure as former Premier. This criminal indictment of the Secretary General confounded the process of developing and finalising the Step-aside Guideline as the different factional sentiments in the NEC were thereby triggered into full-blown action.
Extensive discussions took place before the NEC finally adopted the draft Step-aside Guidelines and the Secretary General, including other NEC members who were affected by the Guidelines, had to step-aside.
Because of the scale of controversy on the step-aside policy and the nullifying views that accompanied the discussions, the NEC resolved to adopt the Step-aside Guidelines as a working document which will be improved with each lesson learnt. The attitude of the NEC was to “cross the river by touching the stones”, which means taking one step at a time and looking around before taking another.
The implementation of the step-aside policy has not been without controversy and pain. An extremely difficult situation ensued when in the following NEC meeting the Secretary General was informed that he could not participate in the meeting as a consequence of being charged and was expected to step-aside, and where his access to the meeting was prevented. What saved the occasion to some extent was the fact that the meeting was on a virtual platform, which served to mitigate the tensions that would inevitably have emerged from a normal in-person meeting.
The reason for sharing such detailed information is to make South Africans aware of the extent of the ANC’s commitment to renew itself and enhance its integrity, even where this comes with the very real risk of compromising its own internal cohesion. What Indira Ghandi said about renewal in 1978 after the Indian Congress lost elections for the first time after 30 years in power is striking:
“Renewal is not free, there is a price attached to it, as those who are used to old wrong habits will oppose it. The price to pay is courage to endure the pain and utter chaos that come with renewal”.
Following the NEC meeting, the Secretary General took his suspension to the South Gauteng High Court to challenge the constitutionality of the step-aside policy and Rule 25.70 of the ANC Constitution. His contention was that his suspension as the Secretary General in terms of Rule 25.70 was unlawful and unconstitutional in terms of both the ANC Constitution and the Constitution of South Africa. The Secretary General argued that step-aside and Rule 25.70 are not in accord with the principles of natural justice and that the ANC constitution enshrines the principles of natural justice. His argument in court laid bare the controversies on the step-aside policy. This same argument was advanced by the delegates agitating for the ‘’scrapping” of step-aside policy during the last National Policy Conference.
The step-aside policy derives its controversial character from the fact that at face value it appears unconstitutional as it requires a person to step-aside on mere allegations that still have to be tested. This gives rise to the spirited argument that step-aside violates the principle of presumption of innocence. The many legal questions on step-aside have been succinctly and adequately responded to by the South Gauteng High Court and most recently by the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court. Both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court upheld the ruling of the South Gauteng High Court that step-aside is not unconstitutional. Most profoundly, the courts inferred that the ANC as an organisation has a right to defend its image from the negative conduct of its individual members. By these multiple court rulings the debate on the constitutionality of the step-aside policy has been exhaustively resolved.
A critical question is whether there is any other alternative measure that the ANC can use to demonstrate “decisive action” to fight corruption by party members. Over the years, the party relied on the conscience of its members to protect its image and integrity. The collective political conscience called on members facing damning accusations of wrong-doing to seriously consider the implications of their predicament on the image of the organisation. If there was a slight possibility of there being an adverse impact on the image of the ANC, the member would voluntarily step aside as a way of protecting the organisation.
Before the step-aside policy, there were some instances where members who were alleged to have committed, or been accused of, serious wrong-doing would resign their positions in both the state structures and the organisation. In 2002, for example, John Block resigned as MEC of Roads and Public Works and Deputy Provincial Chairperson of the ANC when he was charged with corruption. Having been found not guilty of the accusations, he staged a come-back and was elected as the Provincial Chairperson in 2004. Enoch Godongwana, on mere allegations of misappropriation of union investments funds, resigned as the Deputy Minister of Finance in order to clear his name and is now serving as the Minister of Finance. There are many such cases of conscience-driven action to protect the image of the ANC. Pallo Jordaan provides a more recent example, where, on being exposed to an embarrassing situation, he immediately resigned all his positions in the ANC, including his membership. All of this was done to mitigate the impact of an embarrassing situation on the ANC.
We are now at a point where there is extensive agreement that the political conscience of members and leaders in the ANC is dissipating and is at an all-time low. The question that inevitably follows is what the ANC will draw on to protect its self-interest which is much bigger than that of any individual member or leader. If the self-interest of the ANC is threatened by the negative conduct of a member and the member fails to do the right thing to protect the ANC’s image, then it is appropriate to expect that the member be forced to step-aside.
There are many valid concerns in relation to the step-aside policy, a key concern being the prolonged delays in the criminal justice system to dispense and conclude criminal matters. In response to this concern, the Step-aside Guidelines provide the option for members who have been criminally charged and have voluntarily stepped aside whereby, after six months of stepping aside, these members may approach the Integrity Commission to review their decision to step-aside. This option has not been tested since the adoption of the Step-aside Guidelines. What this actually means is that, if a member that stepped aside is of the view that there are undue delays in the processing of her or his case by the prosecuting authority, the Integrity Commission may be approached to review the decision to step-aside. This indicates the consideration that the NEC has applied in formulating the Step-aside Guidelines.
In the political space in which the ANC finds itself, I see no alternative to the step-aside policy and conference resolution for “decisive action” to be taken against corruption. There is a strong national mood against corruption and the ANC posture, as leader of society, must be in alignment with that mood. I am therefore of the firm view that many South Africans are in support of such “decisive action” by the ANC, but the poor management of debates on step-aside robs it of its political currency.
The danger here is that if the ANC misaligns itself with the prevailing national mood, its electoral challenges, which are proving to be hard to reverse, will exacerbate. As the Mpumalanga Chairperson, Mandla Ndlovu, brilliantly articulated, scrapping step-aside is tantamount to scrapping the ANC out of power in 2024. Thus, the only option that we are left with towards the 55th National Conference is not to scrap the controversial but necessary step-aside policy but instead to consider possible amendments to the Step-aside Guidelines to address some of the concerns and fears that the policy give rise to.
End
The Views Expressed here are not Those of Central News.
—————————————————————
DO YOU HAVE A NEWS STORY OR AN OPINION FOR CENTRAL NEWS: E-mail us : newsroom@centralnews.co.za or Whatsapp us on 0833989119