The irrelevance of the SACP
Is this the same party for which Chris Hani shed his blood? This is a party that has failed to fight for moral leadership
AFEW week ago, the SACP met in Ekurhuleni to deliberate on the future of the ANC. The party would have us believe that this is an unprecedented development that will shape history. Last week, the party concluded its national congress on a highly repetitive note – repeating many of its old resolutions and returning its old leadership to power.
In many ways it consolidated its ongoing irrelevance in the South African political landscape. Quite frankly, repeating slogans of the NDR (National Democratic Revolution) such as “most direct route to socialism”, as well as tired interventions, such as a threat to convene yet another jobs summit, left many leftists disappointed.
Very few comrades within the movement have pointed an accusing finger at the SACP for failing in its mission of being a vanguard of the working class. Many of us are sentimental about what the SACP ought to be and what it used to be, but now all dialectical discussion seems to have been replaced with a frank assessment of the actual, and not the perceived, revolutionary role of the party.
During our student days, shouting the name of the SACP drew a great deal of applause as we naively believed that the party was the leader in thought generation in the alliance. The use of the names Moses Kotane, JB Marks and even Joe Slovo and Chris Hani had us all excited. But none of the revolutionary adages, supposed to designate what the party was meant to be or do, actually materialised much in our post-1994 existence. The SACP has been a monumental disappointment and certainly not a vanguard of our people in the slightest of ways. I wish I were exaggerating the party’s non-role, but in fact I’m putting things very mildly.
Let’s take a look at just a few of its cardinal failures.
Failure to initiate radical policy. There is no evidence that the SACP, as a party, has initiated any legislation despite sitting in Parliament in alliance with the ruling party since 1994. As a vanguard party, its members or leadership could have picked a range of policies and laws affecting workers to ensure the party’s role in the vanguard. To this day, leadership and members can point to no such legislation.
Failure to fight against neoliberalism within the alliance. The Gear (Growth, Employment and Redistribution) phase remains the prime example of how the SACP was a toothless ally, happy to go along with neoliberalism. Since 1996, the SACP has done nothing to reverse the devastating consequences of anti-socialist economic policies. In fact, they joined the government, surrendered their general secretary and participated in policy paralysis for more than a decade, removing any remaining hope that the party might steer the ANC away from neoliberalism.
Failure to deliver on a programme to engender confidence in whatever is remaining of any kind of socialist programme. There is no tangible socialist programme of intervention to speak of in the programmes of the SACP that are significant in the economic policy framework. Programmes, such as the Red October project, demonstrate the SACP is a minor pressure group whose campaigns never shift policies.
Failure to educate the public about its mission. Very few people who are not members can tell you why there is a need for the SACP to exist. Internally there is no clear education programme, not even one about what socialism really means. President Jacob Zuma made an observation that after an entire week of meeting there was no “seminal declaration about how the SACP intends building socialism”. Sadly, he is right. While the party took a correct stance in not allowing Zuma to address them, even in his absence, it is still a total failure as a vanguard. Members have generally not had the courage of their convictions and they cannot bring the administration down, largely because they themselves are trapped in its patronage. They threatened to resign en masse not so long ago but changed their minds as soon as they saw the wind blowing otherwise. Patronage politics got the better of them. A detailed analysis of their shifty factional politics is not even necessary at this stage to reach the conclusion of the party’s irrelevance.
Failure to unite workers. This must be the SACP’s cardinal sin. To call yourself a vanguard of the workers and then spend time dividing workers, as the SACP has done in the break-up of Cosatu, is simply sinful. We are all clear about the fact that when Cosatu started straying under Zwelinzima Vavi, the relationship between SACP and Cosatu deteriorated so much that it was clear that the SACP could have no possible positive influence in the life of Cosatu. The subsequent breakup of Cosatu and the birth of Safta is a direct result of the failure of the SACP and Cosatu as alliance partners to intervene decisively to keep workers united. Only a dishonest analysis could arrive at a different conclusion.
Now, with all these failures that go to the heart of why anyone would need a communist party, why should anyone care if the SACP stands for elections on its own? The question is, what did being part of the ANC stop the party doing that it will now be able to do if it stands for elections independently? This, by the way, is not even a new resolution – it’s a 10-year-old resolution that the SACP clearly had no stamina to implement because members know in their hearts of hearts that they don’t really mean it.
Is this the same party for which Chris Hani shed his blood? This is a party that has failed to fight for the moral leadership and uprightness of the ANC, a party that has failed to intervene to uplift young people in any way. This is a party placed in charge of crucial portfolios such as higher education, but to no socialist end. I wish I had more time to unpack the ideological failures but stressing the more simplified ones was necessary to underline the irrelevance that the party has become. South Africa needs a new vanguard for workers – who is it going to be?