January 8 statement’s contents at odds with Zuma’s behaviour
AS I watched President Jacob Zuma delivering the infamous January 8 statement of the ANC, something triggered the term, “cognitive dissonance”, a theory I had learnt in organisational behaviour study many years ago.
Cognitive dissonance is described as “the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change”.
In the past, the January 8 statement was one of those messages that would not only provide a line of march in the ANC camps, but would be a message of hope and encouragement to all the members of the liberation movement and the international anti-apartheid movement.
Traditionally, the president of the ANC delivers the January 8 statement, although it is drafted by the national executive committee (NEC).
I want to argue that the messenger of the ANC, who delivered the January 8 statement this year, was probably suffering from “cognitive dissonance”.
I don’t think anyone who follows South African politics would trust that the messenger believed in what was contained in that statement.
There are four themes that were paramount in the January 8 statement, namely:
ý The exemplary and selfless leadership of O R Tambo, who would have turned 100 this year;
ý Unity of the ANC, which was critical for the stability of our country;
ý Listening to and addressing the needs of the people;
ý A corruption-free society/revolutionary morality.
All of the four themes highlighted are not in congruence with the behaviour and attitude of the messenger towards the ANC and the Republic of South Africa.
Unlike Tambo, the messenger can never be described as “exemplary and selfless”.
In fact he would rather have the ANC and the country collapse and perish under his own leadership than admitting to his grievous mistakes.
The statement referred to Tambo’s ability to unify the ANC under difficult situations.
The statement praised him for his ability to put the interests and unity of the ANC paramount in the struggle against oppression.
It is unfortunate that the same cannot be said about the messenger.
The January 8 statement this year appeals to the ANC supporters who either stayed away or did not vote in the recent local government elections, assuring them that the leadership had listened to their concerns and is working towards addressing their concerns.
The statement argues, “The election results prove that where the people do not agree with the actions or direction of their movement, they will use democratic means to express their dissatisfaction.
“The task of ANC members and, especially, all ANC public representatives is to serve the people selflessly and diligently.
“Our policies, behaviour and conduct must illustrate that ANC continues to be the best choice for achieving a better life for all.”
However, a few days before January 8, the messenger argued that if he had listened to the calls for him to resign he would have succumbed to “white monopoly capital”.
I am not certain whether “white monopoly capital” is a euphemism for more than 60% of the regions of the ANC and those supporters who did not vote during the local government elections.
If this is not a case of cognitive dissonance, probably it is a serious case of dementia or Alzheimer’s, whose symptoms are memory loss, and impaired reasoning and judgment.
As Zuma was talking about the ANC’s resolve to combat corruption, one is not certain whether he was aware of what the statement meant.
What implications or bearing would this “corruption-free” ANC have on his own conduct?
Is it the case of a memory loss, inability to pay attention to detail or has the ANC NEC seriously reduced Zuma’s status to that of a messenger?
Surely, someone who has treated the violation of the most sacrosanct document, the constitution of the Republic of South Africa, as inconsequential, cannot propagate a “corruption-free society” and expect to be taken seriously, unless he is unable to connect the dots between corruption and violating the constitution. This is therefore a classical case of cognitive dissonance that is dominating the political landscape in South Africa.
It is my firm belief that any leader whose statements are not consistent with his actions is not only a reputational risk to his organisation, but also a danger to the society, particularly the youth of our country.
Such a behaviour is sending a wrong message to the young leaders who aspire to be politicians some day, that violating the constitution of the country, abusing power and resources of the state, and stealing from the poor is what makes a powerful leader.
If the ANC allows such leaders to be at the helm of this continental institution, it is not only killing the principle of revolutionary morality, but also the hope of millions of South Africans who have sacrificed their lives to bring about a democratic society.