The end of cash-for-votes a long shot
Electoral committee threatens an old culture of rigging nominations and using mercenary members to elect unfit leaders — and access to the spoils of office
The ANC is increasingly getting it. A regulatory framework, coupled with institutional configuration, determines whether an organisation realises its objectives. Platitudes alone are not adequate. Forming an electoral committee, with all its attendant powers and duties, increases the organisation’s prospects of fashioning the leadership contest in the way it wishes, making it likely to elect deserving leaders.
Whether the committee fulfils this purpose, however, ultimately rests on the readiness of party members to embrace the innovations. This is the worrisome part. The party’s record on getting its own institutional mechanisms and regulations to achieve their purpose, is sketchy.
Constituted early last year, with former president Kgalema Motlanthe at the helm, the electoral committee promises to drastically change how ANC contests have been conducted thus far. Nominations are just about to commence for the December national conference.
The committee, which will be “the rule-maker and referee”, appears geared to address one of the major ills that have disfigured the party — cunning politicians who rig the nomination process, using mercenary members to elect unworthy leaders.
Sly ANC politicians have always understood being elected depends on recruiting individuals who lack any care for or understanding of ANC policies, but who are simply interested in payments for being members.
In return for regular payments, these rented members would always vote for their leader or his or her allies. These are what the ANC refers to as “members of leaders”, not of the organisation. It’s a patron-client relationship.
Renting members, however, did not always guarantee victory. There would be other patron leaders with their own group of client members. Branch meetings for nominations would essentially become a gathering of factions of rented crowds. Who controlled organisational processes became key in guaranteeing the desired outcome.
Patron-leaders employed all manner of trickery. The opposing rented crowd would be sent to the wrong address for the meeting. Sometimes they’d be directed to the right address, but given the wrong time, and would arrive at the venue long after the meeting had ended.
In instances where they got to the right place, at the right time, they’d simply be told that their membership had expired.
If the exclusion of the opposing rented crowd reduced attendance numbers to a point where the meeting did not quorate, the wily politicians would simply add names to
the register and fake signatures. The deceit has been brazen.
Having ensured that branches nominated their preferred candidates, and elected conference delegates who shared their choice, each faction would jealously guard its client members. They’d be kept separately at a hotel of their own, to avoid being influenced by the opposition.
Separate accommodation did not always provide complete insulation. Occasionally, the opposing delegates mixed, and the patrons, always with bags of money, would offer cash in exchange for votes. Solicitations became common to the point where a slogan was coined: “Take the money, but vote the right way.”
The ANC’S electoral processes simply lacked integrity. And this was not because there was no code of conduct or threat of disciplinary measures. The party’s constitution stipulates all kinds of misconduct that warrants punishment. Divisive behaviour, fraudulent and disruptive activities, and staining the image of the party through unethical conduct are among the many offences that attract a penalty.
To buttress the constitutional provisions, the party’s national executive committee (NEC) even introduced policy guidelines for electing leaders, dubbed “Through the Eye of the Needle”, in 2000. This was a followup to Nelson Mandela’s warning, issued earlier at the Mahikeng conference in 1997, that the party was being marred by corruption.
The guidelines placed emphasis on “revolutionary morality” as the primary criterion for election to leadership. One’s reputation had to be impeccable and one had to lead an exemplary life that prioritised the public good.
The constitutional stipulations and criteria for leadership, however, were ignored. When faced with allegations of impropriety from the early 2000s,
the accused faked victimhood, protesting that they were targets of a witch-hunt.
Members hardly insisted on disciplinary measures either, for they were clients of the accused leaders.
Instead, the client members became even more determined that their patron-leader should win by any means necessary. Victory meant their payments (or patronage) were likely to increase and continue for even longer. And, securing victory did not only entail persuading others to vote for their patron-leader but also eliminating the prospects of the opponent winning.
Leadership contests, therefore, became ignominious affairs. They were marred by insults, burning of T-shirts bearing the opponent’s face and the creation of no-go areas. By the time members convened at the party’s national conference in 2007 in Polokwane, they no longer related to each other as comrades. The atmosphere was as hostile as if it was a gathering of enemies.
It felt like violence could break out at any time. And, there were concerns that some had smuggled weapons into the conference premises in preparation for such violent clashes. Fortunately, violence never erupted, but the “Polokwane victors” would go on to deliver punishment to those they had come to consider enemies. They were purged from the government and ousted from party leadership through fraudulent means.
Even after the “enemies” had been purged, or left to form their own party, the Congress of the People, the
ANC remained conflict-ridden. The Polokwane victors turned on each other, each wanting to appropriate as much of the spoils as possible for themselves. Spurred by greed, they could no longer restrain themselves.
The violence that had been feared at Polokwane finally erupted. Some delegates threw chairs at each other, while others threatened their comrades with guns.
The chickens had come home to roost. These unflattering antics were triggered by flagrant abuse of conference processes and the realisation that defeat was imminent. Rather than allow the other side to win, the probable losers opted to collapse conferences altogether.
Having seen what happened to those who lost at Polokwane, they could not countenance losing. Defeat was likely to be followed by a purge and, consequently, loss of access to patronage.
Motlanthe’s electoral committee, therefore, seeks to undo a perverse culture that has flourished over a period of 20 years. A whole generation of ANC members, who now occupy leadership positions, were nurtured in that culture. They don’t know any different. The electoral rules go against their way of being.
For instance, the new rules disqualify individuals accused of corruption from standing for elections, expressly prohibit payment of delegates and allow candidates to use money only for legitimate party gatherings where they canvass support.
Nominees must submit their CVS and present themselves at public meetings to explain why they are worthy of leading the ANC. Negative campaigning is punishable. The aim is to have a clean, fair and transparent race.
What the electoral committee seeks to achieve is a tall order. It will not only go against a long-established culture but also threatens access to the spoils of office. That is why its introduction had been resisted. The formation of such a committee was first mooted more than 15 years ago.
Measures aimed at instilling decorum have always been resisted in the ANC. Implementation of Through the Eye of the Needle faced similar opposition and so did the formation of the integrity commission. And, when it was finally set up, the commission’s recommendations were not binding. This meant they could simply be ignored — if they ever made it to the party’s NEC for adoption.
It was common for the general secretary’s office not to present the commission’s reports at NEC meetings. And, the commission suffers from a lack of adequate resources to do proper investigations. The denial of sufficient resources is deliberate, to blunt its effectiveness, while keeping up the facade of acting against impropriety.
The ANC is adept at creating smokescreens. For the electoral committee to realise its goals it needs to be a fully functional machine. This requires resources and support from the general secretary’s office.
This office is not only operating below par currently but its occupants have also never been known for nonpartisan conduct during electoral contests. They’ve always had a stake in the outcome, which influences their conduct.
It may well be that the gloomy electoral prospects the party faces in 2024 will lessen the inclination for mischief. Merit might finally become entrenched in the party. Knowing the ANC, however, it’s too early to pop the champagne just yet.
If the meeting did not quorate, the wily politicians would add names to the register and fake signatures. The deceit has been brazen
Mcebisi Ndletyana is professor of political science at the University of Johannesburg.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the