ANC discontent palpable as Zuma sounds off against veterans
LONG before Jacob Zuma delivered the opening lines of his speech to launch the 5th policy conference of the ANC, the signs of the agony enveloping Africa’s oldest liberation movement was there for all who still don’t know, to see.
It was conveyed from the stage of the Nasrec Expo Centre’s 5 000-seater auditorium, in the actions and the body language of its top officials.
The picture that was painted was that of an organisation at odds with itself…
There was an intriguing mix of actions and gestures to consider.
Some top officials danced enthusiastically when delegates from North West, Free State, ANC Youth League, the Women’s League and the MK Veterans marched past the front of the stage, singing “Lead us Zuma, lead us.”
But what then were observers to make of the scowling, presence of Human Settlements Minister and NEC member Lindiwe Sisulu? With her hands firmly clasped, she watched with ill-disguised indifference as others danced or gave the uniquely South African “substitution” (seemingly aimed at Zuma) sign.
And then there was Mama Winnie Madikizela-Mandela.
Her response to the arrival of Deputy-President Cyril Ramaphosa was one of genuine pleasure. With her arms and hands interlinked around his neck, she engaged in animated conversation with him for more than three minutes.
Surely, based on this display of political affection, there can be little doubt over who she would choose to be the ANC’s next president.
In the centre of the stage, the much-talked-about Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown sat silently, possibly with other matters occupying her mind, while to the left of her the even-more-talked-about former finance minister Pravin Gordhan and Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga sat equally quietly.
Parliamentary Speaker Baleka Mbete, meanwhile, made two appeals to delegates to “sing songs that unite, rather than divide”. Seasoned political observers would no doubt have been wondering whether she would be more successful with these appeals than with her calls to order in Parliament.
Zuma was as relaxed as he always seems to be, except, perhaps, during the opening prayers, when he bowed his head and clasped his hands together like old-style evangelists.
His speech was largely uncontroversial, and anyone suggesting it could have been prepared by one of Luthuli House’s communicators may well have been correct.
But Zuma going off-script is another story. He can either be much more effective – or disastrously controversial.
This time, he was disastrously controversial.
Only he will know what possessed him to attack the ANC veterans and stalwarts.
Was he trying to evoke an outcry when he told his audience that the stalwarts believed they were more important than the delegates?
If this was his intention, it didn’t work.
His attempt at taunting delegates into an outraged response was met largely with silence.
What he did succeed in doing was to prompt respected ANC elder and Rivonia trialist Andrew Mlangeni to leave.
Zuma’s attack also drew an angry response from another elder, Sydney Mufamadi, who accused him of distortion and stopped just short of calling him a liar.
“South Africa is in a crisis,” Mufamadi said, “and it is only the president who doesn’t seem to realise this.
“We will not allow President Zuma to fob us off by creating a crisis.
“That man – Oliver Tambo – whom he quoted at length in his speech, was trusted by our people, because they never doubted his honesty.”
Matters escalated there.
Sisulu entered the fray on the side of the stalwarts. “In our policy documents we have always recognised the role of our veterans,” she said. “I did not think he (Zuma) would launch an attack like this on the veterans. He is bigger than that.
“I wasn’t happy – and I couldn’t hide it,” she said.
There was much more to ponder later when secretary-general Gwede Mantashe released his report, which was filled with so many hometruths that some observers felt that delegates might vote for it to be held back. from
The fact that it was not was regarded as a triumph for those in the organisation who want Zuma to step down or be recalled.
Mantashe threw more light on the issue of the stalwarts: “Their proposal was for them to take responsibility for running the national policy conference. In this regard, the thrust to such a consultative conference would be their document, ‘For the Sake Of Our Future’,” he wrote.
“Another area of disagreement was about the involvement of the branches. In their view, the branches were of such poor quality that they should not be part of the national consultative conference.”
This, no doubt, was the area in which Zuma thought he could make political capital.
But in his report, Mantashe touched on the very issue of the branches. In outlining which areas needed urgent focus to address the decline of the ANC, he specifically mentioned the “poor quality of the branches and membership in general”.
Overall, a new mood emerged in the ANC. Gone was the previous attitude, encapsulated by Zuma, in particular, that the “ANC will rule until Jesus comes”.
Now there is a frankness in which a new message is being conveyed to members and to all South Africans who carry the ANC close to their hearts.
It is a message that says: “We are in trouble, so deep that we could lose the next elections in 2019.”
It is a message that says something drastic has to be done and quickly, to win back lost support. If the majority of delegates agree with these sentiments, it could spell deep trouble for Zuma and some of his closest supporters.