Where does ANC draw the line on disrepute?

Malema dispute has its roots in party's values

OF ALL the charges that ANC Youth League president Julius is facing, there is one I particularly find intriguing - that he brought the ruling party into disrepute.

The charge arose as a result of certain unpalatable remarks the outspoken youth leader made, including calling for regime change in Botswana.

I am interested in the concept of "disrepute". For a reputation to be sullied it ought to exist first. No organisation or individual can claim their reputation has been "dissed" when its existence cannot be proved in the first place.

In the case of Malema and his battle with the ANC, the latter, in its wisdom, felt that it had a reputation to protect against the unruly Malema. Malema, in other words, has caused harm to the reputation of the ANC.

What is a reputation? A reputation denotes a value-laden attribute of being honourable, having a good name and sound standing in society.

The ANC has acquired these attributes over the years. Since it was founded in 1912, the party has stood for justice on behalf of the colonised. Its struggle against apartheid cannot be questioned. The historical purpose of the ANC is indeed reputable.

During the reputable anti-colonial and anti-apartheid struggles, the ANC was led by individuals who, by and large, were fit for the purpose.

It does not mean that the organisation was consistently reputable in the manner it pursued the noble struggle. There were many instances where it faltered because of its members and leaders who sullied its reputation.

Horror stories about the organisation's military camps are well known among its elder leaders.

The historical issues aside, what is it that makes the present ANC reputable today?

The reasons should be pretty obvious. It is the party of choice for the majority of South Africans. It is a legitimate ruling party that has not imposed itself.

Its policies are, by and large, progressive - although there are significant reversals in many respects. Many South Africans vote for the ANC because of its historical reputation.

However, the contemporary reputation - or, some might say, lack thereof - of the ANC is in dispute.

The dispute has its roots in the kind of values that have been embraced by its leaders soon after they acquired the taste for power. These contemporary values are in conflict with those historically associated with the liberation movement.

The extent to which the reputation of honour, selflessness and dedication to serve noble ends has been sullied is documented in many speeches of ruling party leaders.

So harmed was the reputation by corrupt and selfish elements in the ANC ranks that in 2000 the party decided that it needed what it called a "new person", a "new cadre".

Presumably, this was the kind of a cadre who would restore the reputation of the ANC to its honorific attributes.

But, it seemed the more ANC leaders spoke against the relentless tarnishing of the party's reputation, the more the assault on its noble character became persistent.

Ironically, the more some leaders of the ruling party spoke against the ills afflicting the party, the more they themselves got engaged in activities that sought to perpetuate the harm.

It is now well-known that some prominent leaders of the party are a moral hazard to it. It is almost as if the pro-reputation rhetoric is irrigating the seeds of disrepute.

The situation got so bad in the run-up to the party's conference in Polokwane that the then ANC secretary-general, Kgalema Motlanthe, borrowed from Vladimir Lenin to describe the party thus: "No profound and popular movement in history has taken place without its share of filth, without adventurers and rogues, without boastful and noisy elements - a ruling party inevitably attracts careerists."

There you have it: the "share of filth" and "adventurous rogues" have become part of the ANC.

Even as then president Thabo Mbeki was departing the leadership stage in Polokwane, he warned that some in the ANC had fought battles in an attempt to fix tenders.

Given what we now know, it is difficult to say he was wrong. We now know that many elements within the ANC have suddenly arisen, commercialising and profiteering through their proximity to certain ANC leaders.

Yet, some could correctly point out that the current goings-on are a result of the failure of the emergence of the "new person" that was supposed to have been born when Mbeki was in office. Mbeki's detractors could also easily point out that he presided over the most corrupt tender, the arms deal, which now ranks among those which have created what authors of a recently published book call a "shadow state".

The allegation that Jacob Zuma was being "persecuted" in a bid to stall his presidential ambition was motivated by the suggestion that "he is not the only allegedly corrupt one".

The subtext: why charge him alone for arms deal corruption?

Although the ANC never charged Zuma for bringing the party into disrepute, the criminal charges against him were obviously having a bearing on the standing of the ANC.

In other words, they were eating into the party's reputation.

The defence employed in the Zuma arms deal - (he is not alone) - case has been invoked in the Malema case.

Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale has come out in defence of Malema, suggesting that other leaders like Zuma had been in trouble before and the ANC forgave them.

Why not forgive Malema for minor transgressions? This seems to be Sexwale's question.

Zuma would probably deny that he had brought the ANC into disrepute with his many problematic decisions and statements. Which brings me to the next point: where does the ANC draw the line between disrepute and repute. If the party were to honestly pursue all those "noisy" elements to which Motlanthe refers, would it not discipline many of its leaders?

If you are the president of the ANC, are you immune from charges of bringing the party into disrepute?

Zuma could argue that many of his controversial actions were matters of personal judgment that could not be linked to the reputation of the ANC.

In so arguing, he would be oblivious to the Strategy and Tactics document adopted in Polokwane, urging all members and leaders to be exemplary "wherever they are" in society.

The document sought to blur the distinction between what is personal and organisational conduct for ANC cadres.

It actually made sense, given the fact that many South Africans are gullible to imitating people who appear on TV on a regular basis.

The point is, until ANC leaders are characters of honourable repute themselves it would be impossible for them to inculcate sound reputation among those they seek to lead.