Too late for self-correction

SELF-CORRECTION. It’s the buzzword of the moment in our political discourse. A dictionary definition I came across says it is to “automatically adjust to or correct one’s mistakes”.

This is a process through which the ANC hopes to undergo to restore itself to its once glorious ways.

Self-correction is also the lie that the ANC’s rank and file is sold by a leadership that is either deeply embedded in today’s politics of patronage or one that simply does not have the will or the ability to deal with the chaotic state that the movement now finds itself in.

Those who believe that the ANC can in fact self-correct base this on its past ability to rise to the occasion when moments in history called for it to do so.

Make no mistake, over the last century the ANC has shown over and over again that it has incredible resilience. Time and again it has displayed an extraordinary ability, particularly in crisis, to regroup and to re-establish itself as a formidable political force.

From that fateful meeting of its formation in 1912 and throughout the years, the ANC’s history is littered with episodes of fierce wrangling, leadership tussles, ideological clashes and downright factionalism. It has seen breakaway splinter groups. Some endured, most failed. But by and large, the ANC has demonstrated an ability unmatched on African soil to survive internal turmoil.

However, it must be noted that a common theme defined those iconic moments in its history. That is the value the ANC placed on ethical leadership.

Those chapters were indeed shaped by imperfect leaders who were driven by a common belief that the ANC is not a shrine in itself, but a vehicle through which to attain the emancipation – political and economic – of all South African people.

I believe this is no longer the case. At least not for those who currently hold real power in the ANC.

An insatiable appetite for money and power to make more money has come to define its current leadership.

And this why there shall be no Damascus moment for the ANC and therefore why the narrative about self-correction is a farce.

Don’t get me wrong, within ANC ranks are many patriotic men and women whose actions have in one way or the other demonstrated strong moral conviction. And perhaps under an ordinary set of circumstances, the task of driving a legitimate process of self-correction would rest on their shoulders.

But the reality is that so far they have been outplayed and their voices drowned out by the well-coordinated pack which reigns over the systematic rot that has weakened our government and undermined our democracy. So what now? Well, it is no secret that more and more South Africans are beginning to define themselves and their political standing outside of the current ANC quagmire.

By the way, if you believe President Jacob Zuma’s gobbledygook that the party remains strong, then be my guest.

But those of us who can actually read numbers can see that the ANC’s electoral support – where it matters most – is withering away. This is apparent, to a degree, in those who have left the ANC to join other parties. But even more significant, those who still identify with the founding principles of the ANC, but cannot support or serve under a leadership which clearly no longer does.

Consequently, we have seen a rise of civil society and other formations calling for leadership change. What will come out of these calls is yet to be seen.

But I believe regardless of what happens, this moment is crucial.

It is a chance for South Africans to have meaningful conversations that will redefine the kind of leadership that will take this country forward. It is a chance to re-establish boundaries and non-negotiables for those who hold public office.

Ethical leadership, I believe, should be one of them.

For far too long, South Africans have come to believe that it is naive to expect leaders to be held ethically accountable and to higher standard than the average Sipho.

We have allowed leaders to believe that they can do as they please and get away with meaningless apologies, or worse, mocking giggles.

For far too long we became a nation that expresses brief outrage when confronted with sins of incumbency, only to cower in silence when the time comes actively to hold leaders to account.

If we are to strengthen this democracy we should understand the importance of setting new norms for the kind of leadership we want. A leadership that is able to comprehend the extent of our national crisis.

A leadership that is beholden first and foremost to the constitution of the republic, rather than the balance of forces in party political circles.

We must entrench a culture of accountability and transparency, and choose, from the ground up, people with the moral clout to build responsive public institutions.

We have seen a rise of civil society and other formations calling for leadership change

Our nation is at a crossroads.

We can choose to moan passively on the sidelines. Or we can begin the painful process of charting a new course that will ultimately redefine the kind of nation we want to become.