For the good of the ANC, Gwede Mantashe must go
Listening to Gwede Mantashe announce his intention to challenge the Zondo commission’s latest report, one can’t resist feeling a sense of irony. For the chair of an organisation whose raison d’être is progress, Mantashe’s reaction is reminiscent of the pre-1940 ANC leaders — the kind of behaviour that made the pre-1940 ANC “national” in name only.
Back then, individuals adored the title “national leaders”, but there were hardly any organisational links or common protocols that bound the various parts of the organisation together. The ANC was simply an amalgam of individuals driven by egos in pursuit of personal gratification.
Elected president of the ANC in 1940, AB Xuma was shocked at the extent of the party’s disjointedness. Writing his autobiography in the early 1950s (unfortunately never published), Xuma reflected on what he found: “I soon discovered I had inherited a name, but nothing in the way of an organisation. There were no duly elected delegates, from branches to congress. Individuals could pay half-a-crown and become delegates representing themselves ... There were seven congresses or persons who claimed leadership in the Transvaal ... In the Cape Province there was the African National Congress Thaele’s Group, Western Province and the Cape Province under Reverend Calata. In Natal there was the Natal Native Congress under Dr
Dube; Mr JT Gumede of Pietermaritzburg and Mr AWG Champion belonged to another camp ... There was no membership to boast about, no records, and the treasury was empty.”
Isaac Bangani Tabata, one of the leading leftist intellectuals of the time, was astounded that Xuma could be so foolish as to take up the presidency of the ANC. He scolded his friend: “I have always thought you had some sense, but I cannot see the sense of your assuming the leadership of a moribund organisation like Congress.”
Tabata offered his friend the presidency of a newly formed organisation instead, the Non-European Unity Movement. Xuma declined and gave Tabata what turned out to be prescient advice for the ANC itself: “Changing the name of our organisation whenever new issues arise does not mean any advance in our endeavours. We must learn to pitch our tent and fight in our present organisation and under the old flags.”
One of the key reforms Xuma pursued was eliminating provincial fiefdoms to integrate the organisation into a coherent whole. This was pivotal for the ANC to be taken seriously. Inevitably, the route to a united ANC also meant removing egotistical leaders who were ANC in name only.
Xuma did exactly that. In his February 28 1944 correspondence with his secretary-general, the Rev James Calata, Xuma shares his thoughts on who he wants in his executive and why: “Who should I take into the National Executive from the Cape besides Mathews and Godlo? I had been thinking about the names of Drs Bokwe and Molema and Mr Sesedi; but I do not want to appear to pack up Congress with professions. Would Sesedi feel hurt if not appointed, and would Molema be any better substitution? I wonder who is likely to retain their people’s interest and to use them as a wedge when we are organising Griqualand West and Bechuanaland.”
Individual titles mattered, but only to a point. Personal standing conferred some credibility to the organisation. Most important, however, was that individual leaders utilised their personal stature for the benefit of the organisation. If not used for the collective gain of the organisation, personal stature was likely to be counterproductive, repelling potential supporters.
Loyalty to the organisation was sacred, Xuma reminded Calata in the same correspondence. That’s the quality Xuma loved most in Calata: “As you will remember in our conversation ... you made a remark that is pregnant with meaning in that you said you did not know whether our African people fully realised the meaning of that little word — loyalty. That is why we are not very keen to make any drastic changes in your position. If and when we can get certain men tried and proved available, we shall then consider the change with reluctance.”
Even more noteworthy about Calata was that he was loyal not only to the individual leader, but to the principles he embodied. Calata had identified Xuma as the transformative leader the ANC needed to gain life. Using his position as secretary-general, Calata mobilised to get him elected. By the end of the 1940s, Xuma had turned a moribund party into vibrant structure with enough members to vindicate its claim to being a national representative of the African masses. It had a national office, with full-time officials. That is how the ANC was able to emerge in the 1950s as a massbased party: individual leaders subsumed their egos to the collective good of the organisation.
How does Mantashe’s legal challenge of the Zondo report possibly aid the ANC’s renewal efforts? The antic is manifestly counterproductive, especially because Mantashe does not dispute getting the benefit from Bosasa as set out in the report — that is, installation of security equipment at his three properties. And even though Mantashe says he never did Bosasa any favours in return, he acted guilty. He denied, for instance, knowing Gavin Watson intimately. As an indication of this, he said he had no clue what clan name friends used to refer to the Bosasa boss. Commission investigators mentioned a few clan names to try to jog his memory. Ultimately, possibly out of exasperation they were getting the names woefully wrong, Mantashe corrected them: “It’s Radebe.”
Mantashe denied knowing Watson because he knew that there was something untoward about the “gift”. The Zondo commission may not be able to prove precisely what Mantashe did in return, but that is an inconsequential legal detail. What matters is what the ANC looks like. Knowing what we know now about Bosasa, no-one believes Mantashe’s version that he got all that expensive equipment for doing nothing. That is the problem for the ANC: convincing the public that it is moving away from its old corrupt ways.
Ultimately, it is not about Mantashe protecting his personal reputation. What really counts is what value, or harm, his actions bring to the organisation. For a party that faces an existential crisis, obsession with personal appearances should have no place. Only when organisational conduct and image are prioritised over those of the individual will the ANC truly renew itself. That’s the lesson to the party’s renewal commission: pay attention to Xuma!
It is not about
Mantashe protecting his personal reputation. What really counts is what value, or harm, his actions bring to the organisation