Mbeki's return to fray is welcome
By: Dumisani Hlophe
The ANC could benefit by engaging its former leadership in the public discourse, writes Dumisani Hlophe.
Johannesburg - Former president Thabo Mbeki is back in the domestic public discourse. He is not alone. There is a whole number of ANC leaders actively participating in the current public discourse.
This is a positive development. The ANC, the government and society stand to benefit from the plethora of experienced leaders.
There are indications that some in the current ANC leadership are irritated by the voices of former leaders.
ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe claimed this week that the current leadership was fixing the mess Mbeki “left”. This was in response to Mbeki’s call that ANC leadership should not “lie” to itself and the people.
ANC treasurer-general Zweli Mkhize wrote an article contradicting Mbeki’s stance on HIV/Aids. Last year, President Jacob Zuma inferred that former president Kgalema Motlanthe was “bored”, and that it was “cold outside the ANC”. This was in reaction to Motlanthe’s criticism of the alliance as substantively non-existent.
Part of criticism by the Rev Frank Chikane was met by suggestions that he must stick to the pulpit.
Mbeki’s return to the domestic public discourse should not be seen in isolation.
It raises the question of the role of former ANC leaders within the organisation and state affairs.
Individuals do not cease to be leaders when they leave official leadership positions. They enjoy experience, institutional memory, and wisdom acquired over time. They are, therefore, an asset that needs to be engaged.
There is wisdom and value in the likes of Professor Ben Turok, Joel Netshitenzhe, Mavuso Msimang and many others keeping a low profile outside official positions in the ANC.
The relationship between the current leadership and some leaders who are no longer in formal positions is relatively hostile.
There are a few possibilities in this regard:
First and foremost, the ANC has not institutionalised leadership and succession management. Rather it operates on internal regime change than leadership and succession management.
This is not merely a post-Mbeki phenomenon; it was the case in the run-up to Polokwane where Mbeki lost to Zuma.
The ANC’s five-year practice of internal regime change has sadly led those who lose at elective conferences into banishment.
In the absence of a long-term leadership plan and management, succession associated with elective conferences becomes vicious. It is hostile.
Rather than a sustainable matter of principle, the ANC’s approach to leadership is reduced to a five-year event, which limits the possibility of the outgoing leadership to work with any incoming leadership.
This is compounded by the ANC’s lack of internal mechanism to engage with leaders who are no longer in formal leadership positions.
It is unwise to say they must go back to their branches. While they do that, it is equally important to acknowledge the fact they acquired institutional knowledge and experience in the time they spent in formal leadership positions. Hence, it would be wiser to determine a mechanism where they can fruitfully be engaged.
The assertion that former leaders should not speak on current organisational challenges because some of these problems existed during their tenure is flawed. At all times, organisations have challenges. The difference is the degree or extent of the challenge. At no time, no matter how successful an organisation may be, is it perfect. Former leaders should be engaged.
The combination of hostility against election losers, lack of long-term leadership and succession management, and the lack of institutional engagement for former leaders, results in former leaders expressing their criticism through media platforms.
Mbeki was removed unceremoniously. Consequently, his utility on organisational and state matters were, and still are, lost to the ANC. Even after his presidency, he continues to work substantively on matters of Africa’s development.
But this is not seen as an ANC agenda, but a personal one, self-inspired by the quest to realise the dream of an African Renaissance.
This is an anomaly for a government that positions itself as a major development player in Africa’s affairs. In Singapore, there is a position of mentor minister, created in 2004 to ensure smooth political transition. While it’s currently dormant, the position was first held by the former prime minister after his retirement.
Without “ruling from the grave”, he mentored the then new prime minister on various aspects of government. There are three essential issues here: Firstly, Singapore had committed to a long-term plan, as the National Development Plan in South Africa seeks to do.
Secondly, the Singaporean political establishment recognised the role played by an outgoing leadership and sought to preserve its institutional knowledge and experience.
Thirdly, Singaporean leadership pursued development sustainability and continuity. Therefore, they have effectively worked on leadership development and succession management across political and administrative senior management.
It prioritised national development rather than internal regime change.
The ANC is battling to determine leadership and succession order. At the most, it seeks to control succession, and not to determine a leadership development programme. As a result, internal cohesion becomes weak. It is this internal weakness that is more dangerous to the ANC than a possible externally motivated “regime change”.
It is the ANC’s inability to create a leadership and succession programme that focuses on organisational development, growth, sustainability, and continuity that poses the biggest threat to the movement.
This leadership management partly entails the institutionalisation of the role of former leaders. In such an open society as South Africa, it is unwise to marginalise former leaders.
If the movement closes internal mechanisms of engagement, individuals will find alternative avenues. In the vastness of media platforms, such individuals will first be pursued by the media for their comments.
They will use social media platforms to voice their criticism against the current leadership. Unlike the opposition, their criticism carries more credibility.
Moreover, they are able to create their own institutions, and launch programmes from there.
So it is welcoming to see the Thabo Mbeki Foundation increasingly in the public domain and its patron getting immersed in domestic debates and reflections. This should be encouraged, and Mbeki should be engaged.
* The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
The Sunday Independent
