How Liberal Is the Current ANC?

Former President Nelson Mandela on Socialism and Land Nationalism in South Africa: He said:

The ANC does not believe in socialism. It is a broad national movement which combines the various strands of political thought ranging from the far right to the extreme left. Embracing liberal and conservative views, and if you study ANC basic policy document the freedom charter.

You will find that it is based on free enterprise and the land for example, there is no nationalization of the land in the freedom charter, the land is subject to individual ownership. And in actual fact, when the freedom charter is applied, when the provisions of the freedom charter are applied capitalism amongst Africans will flourish as never before.

Former President Nelson Mandela, wrote an article in 1956 to this effect, and to say private enterprise when a democratic system is introduced will flourish in this country as never before. And the only exception is a clause which calls for the nationalization of the mines, the financial institutions, and monopolies that is done because of the conditions in the country, it is a clause which was actually adopted in the constitution of the present ruling National Party in the 1940s.

So, there is nothing unique in that, there is no element of socialism in the policy of the ANC. Whatever may happen in the future. Close quote.

To tackle the first question first: for many ANC members “liberals” are still regarded as the enemy. One of the main reasons for this is that the Democratic Alliance with a support of 6, 961, 361 votes (21,81%) is no longer the official opposition party, it believes that it is growing stronger and beginning to become a threat to ANC dominance with a support of 12,698,759 Voters (40,18%), DA describes itself as liberal.

It does this with justification, as it is firmly committed to “liberal constitutional democracy.” Unfortunately, and inevitably, however, the DA is also the party which represents the interests of the more affluent whites – whether it likes it or not, it is South Africa’s Tory party – and the result of this, is that the term “liberal” still implies in the minds of many ANC members, the notions of conservatism and a reluctance to seek ways of redistributing the country’s wealth.

The views of ANC members:

One needs to begin with a few fairly obvious points. Any political party in any country is likely to harbour a variety of viewpoints; this is particularly true of the ANC which has a large following and is, as is so often said, a “broad church.

DA believes that” This “church” shows signs of getting even broader, now that its newly affluent adherents are starting to savour, the advantages of the current status quo, and its poorer members are feeling disgruntled and beginning to look for radical left-wing solutions. Unless they are not aware of the fact, that they share the same ideology with the DA.

Another clear point is that, in any political party anywhere, a fair number of its members will not be particularly thoughtful or well-informed and will rely to a large extent on the views of leading members.

The views of ANC leaders:

In the 1990s, especially the earlier years of the decade, the leadership of the ANC seemed to be firmly supportive of the liberal constitutional democratic ideas that later became inscribed in the Constitution of 1996. Hence it is regarded the best Constitution in the world.

The leadership was strong and respected by members, and there was an overall coherence in the positions that were advanced.

My view is that, after the struggle years in which so many people had died or suffered, the ANC, which for all its imperfections was now committed to democratic procedures, occupied the moral high ground.

The current situation:

DA believed that a great deal depends on the views of the leaders of the ANC. Things could go either way. If the leadership recognizes the importance of maintaining a liberal constitutional democracy, and if it is prepared to insist on adherence to this model.

Most of its members and voters would be likely to follow it back on to that path. But if it stumbles on as at present, it seems fairly likely that the liberal constitutional paradigm will slip away.

Despite the Constitution enabling the state to expropriate land for land reform purposes, and despite the calculation of compensation remaining flexible, the state has rarely used its powers of expropriation for land reform purposes. This is largely on advice from the Worldbank in the 1990s, which resulted in the ANC adopting a “willing buyer willing seller” policy that determined the state would acquire land in the open market instead of through expropriation.

Former President Jacob Zuma and the President of EFF Julius Malema's instincts did not seem to be notably liberal. Liberals' narrative stand against them because they realize that this two, want to reverse the draconian Bill dated April 1913.

That's where you have to begin, you begin with the recognition that the stance of the West towards Africa is entrenched and unchanging.

That the status quo of subordination and exploitation will always be a policy priority for the West, which they will pursue by any and every means, and that means they will employ, and they will be determined by the viability in any given circumstances.

They will do it by violence when that is viable and by other means when violence is not viable. By means of manipulation and economic coercion through debt, financial aid or the promise of financial aid or by tempering in domestic politics and elections and so on. And of course, as colonization and imperialism have always done.

They will utilize local agents and collaborators to act on their behalf, well that brings us to the Democratic Alliance, which is a radically neoliberal, western aligned elitist political party of colonizer collaborators.

The DA has received funding from among others the National Endowment for democracy which is regarded correctly as a wing of the CIA. They receive funding from the Conrad Adenau Foundation, the Friedrich No Man Foundation, the Open Society Foundation of George Soros which has long history of involvement in backing the so called Colour Revolutions.

And they have received Funding from the Atlantic Council now, all of these institutions are advocates of neoliberalism and they all serve the interest of Western Private Sector Power.

The DA has a close relationship with the Israeli and the British governments and extremely close relationship with the Americans they frequently consult at the American Embassy in South Africa, they have meetings there on a regular basis, they get funding from the NED and from U.S.A as well as training and capacity building support from the U.S government.

Including through programs such as the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute both of which are subsidiaries of the National Endowment for democracy.

It is transparently a Western Instrument for neoliberal colonial control, and many don't think that there is any reason to not view the DA as a hostile actor in South Africa.

Because to be advocating for neoliberal policies in South Africa today, you have to be either insane or Insidious, you have to either not understand the devastating impact that these policies have had on the society and on the economy for the last 30 years, or you have to want that devastation.

Which means that you are either too incompetent to lead the society or you are too contemptuous of the society to be given leadership. But here we are, the ANC either because of naivety or because of coercion or because of corruption or some combination of all three.

The ANC aligned itself with neoliberal thinking to one degree or another for decades and the tremendous suffering, the inequality, the poverty, the strife that this has caused to inevitably led to both a decline in the ANC's popularity, but also to a rise in anti-neoliberal opposition parties.

The West knew, America knew that the ANC was losing its grip on Power, and if they lost their grip on Power, then that meant that there was a danger that South Africa itself might slip from the grasp of neoliberal control because this is what politicians are for in the West.

The western approach to politics is that a politician job is to implement unpopular policies that are dictated to them by the private sector, and so that then they can take the blame for the disaster that are caused by those policies.

And then they can take the fall, then they can be removed from power, only to be replaced by a new set of automated mannequins, who will continue the same policies because under the neoliberal model, power actually rest in the private sector, not in the government.

Politicians are just decoyed, to divert attention away from the unelected owners and controllers of the global financialized capital. Who remains unaccountable, but who remain in charge even as politician come and go.

But the problem in South Africa is that there are parties vying for power who actually genuinely oppose neoliberalism. And who approach politics and governments from a principle. So, the West needed to ensure that their interest would prevail, and they threw their support therefore behind the Democratic Alliance (DA) to infiltrate the government, ironically to prevent regime change in South Africa.

Which is the opposite of what they normally do and now you have the DA, which is so radically neoliberal, that they make ANC's neoliberalism look moderate. You see, this is how you shift centre of gravity of political discourse to the right, that way any seeming concession by the coalition government, will still end up being in your favour.

And in the favour of the neoliberal, as I say, they had to do this because you have in South Africa like for example, the EFF and MK party, which are championing for the nationalization of the land and key sectors, so as to offset that and to ensure that any conciliatory gesture in that direction will still be acceptable to neoliberal goal.

Well, you have to have a rabidly capitalist part party that's calling for the privatization of everything, this is similar to what Ariel Shiron did in Israel, when he created the Kadema party. He first drove the Lud party even further to the right than it already was.

Then he created Kadema as a fake moderate party, because it is not enough actually to fix the two ends of the spectrum of the discourse. He has to also fix the middle, he had to define what the middle is, what the moderate position is, so in my opinion the ANC/DA government can never truly represent any sort of middle ground in South Africa.

The Government of National Unit (GNU) is actually not a government of national Unit, but a Government of Neoliberal Unity. It is a government united against the Natives' people of South Africa and in support of the draconian Bill dated April 1913, which was rushed through parliament by J W Sauer, the New Minister of Native Affairs, and this time no representation could stop it. In less than two months the Natives' Land Act was law. And it was signed by the Governor-General on 16 June 1913. And finally, the Bill was gazetted on the 20 June 1913. In my opinion their solidarity is the GNU solidarity, with a parasitic predatory colonizing Western Private Sector Power.

Not solidarity with their own citizens, with regards to what the GNU means in terms of socio-economic Justice in South Africa. The GNU poses a grave and imminent threat to socio-economic Justice in the Country in my opinion, and that is coming at a time when South Africa is already grappling with catastrophic socio-economic injustice already.

So, we are talking about an already critical situation, the people of South Africa are like a boxer who's been getting pummeled for half the fight already, and now his opponent is in the corner getting a shot of adrenaline and PCP.

Whatever advances might have been made in post-apartheid South Africa; they are going to be reversed. This is not a case of one step forward and two step back, this is a case of one step forward on a conveyor belt that is going backwards.

You should view this government, this GNU, as essentially a colonial regime. That is not to say, that people should approach it with hostility. But they should know that the government itself is approaching them with hostility. That being the case, approaching the government itself in a hostile manner would only predictably result in repression.

Which is something that neoliberalism thrives on. Neoliberalism thrives on social chaos and crisis. So, I think that you probably facing a situation in South Africa. In which the government will actively and aggressively antagonize you.

And they will try to provoke conditions in the society, that will allow them to justify cracking down on activists, cracking down on civil society and cracking down on journalists and so on.

I think it would be imperative for people to maintain discipline, to maintain nonviolence, dignity and patience, even while you are being baited to lash out. In South Africa we have this concept of the movers and shakers in society, the influential people, their idea being that no matter what sort of a political system you have, at the end of the day, policies will always be decided by them. It is imperative to involve them in negotiations, but impartial decision should be the order of the day, in the best interest of all parties in the country.

So, in terms of activism, in terms of trying to confront or challenge or change the regime. In my opinion the strategic approach is to pursue the change, either by trying to change the composition of the movers and shakers. Because when the decision is taken by the country, they are the first to be consulted. In most cases their word is final. They have the power to influence policy of their interest. Supported and given power by Liberalism.

Generally speaking, the most influential people in society, especially in a society that is dominated by neoliberalism, dominated by capitalism and so on. They are in the private sector, businesspeople, owners of companies, investors and so on.

Now, this people tend to have very narrow superficial interest i.e. revenues and profits, depending upon where they make their money, that might give you option for influencing them, by means of impacting their revenues and their profits that may be in your hands.

But I would genuinely, generally advocate for the strategy of engagement that is directed towards the more influential people in the society, with the view to having them amplify your grievances, amplify your preferences, amplify your concerns and the policies that you want to see implemented and so on. The issue is that if they don't believe in your ideology, they will try by all cost to suppress you.

They are generally safe from repression. Not to mention their voices. Frankly, matter more than the voice of an average or ordinary citizen.

The people are in continuous negotiation with power, and power is in negotiation with the people, these are actually two powers that are negotiating with each other. Except that one of those powers, regard itself as a power, and is regarded as a power, while the other one is not.

The people ultimately, actually are more powerful than the government. The people are actually more powerful than the private sector, private sector elites, which is why the ultimate bargaining tactic or negotiating tactic used by the government and used by the private sector, is to make the people think that they are powerless, to make you think, that the government is the one, who has the power and the private sector.

I am in favour of approaching these things with a negotiating mindset, and you know sometimes you do have to negotiate with a hostile actor, you don't just negotiate with friends in fact, if it was with friends, you would not even have to negotiate.

keeping this mindset focused on negotiation, you can hopefully keep your wits about you, you can keep your emotions in check, and you can try to understand the other side, understand them well enough to know, how to navigate towards a positive outcome without causing unnecessary conflict, or unnecessary instability so for example personally, I think it would be immensely beneficial for South Africa:

To reverse the proposed legislation that included limits on African landownership and on the number of Africans allowed to squat on white-owned land as sharecroppers by a parliamentary select committee in 1910. And to also reverse the draconian Bill in April 1913 that was rushed through parliament by J W Sauer, the Minister of Native Affairs.

The 'Squatters Bill" which was bitterly opposed by Africans as well as a few influential whites. A paper on the Bill had been read at the Bloemfontein conference, in which it was stated that, if passed, its effect could only be to turn the native population of South Africa into wanderers and pariahs in the land of their birth'.

In March 1912, at a protest meeting called by the Cape Peninsula Natives Association, speaker after speaker concluded that the Bill would benefit only the whites mine owners and farmers, because it forces Africans off the land into whites' hands on terms that would be the equivalent of slavery.

It would be opposed to the last, said the president of the association. Thomas Zini, because it was a gigantic invasion of African liberties. It would adversely affect hundreds of thousands of African families who, until then, had lived on landed estates and farms, paid rents to the owners, and tilted the soil for a subsistence, happy and contended in their life.

Zini said that if the mischievous proposition became the law, thousands of families would be driven into locations with the sole object of forcing them to work in the mines or in the farms.

In the same month, congress secretary Plaatjie, who had excellent contacts among government ministers, arranged for a delegation to meet Minister of Native Affairs Henry Burton and his secretary, Edward Dower, to discuss the issue of Passes for women and the squatters Bill.

Henry Burton said that while the last thing the government wanted was injustice to Africans. It had to be realized that those who battle for their rights must exercise patience. He promised, however, to adopt a most reasonable attitude when these matters were discussed in parliament.

In the end the Bill was dropped, mainly because of pressure from certain whites' interest, particularly the influential large absentee landlords, who stood to lose most from it. But Plaatjie and Dube believed their own representations had counted so well, and being to establish the congress among the people, told them so.

But in April 1913 a far more draconian Bill was rushed through parliament by J W Sauer, the new Minister of Native Affairs and this time no representative could stop it.

In less than two months the Natives' Land Act was law. It was signed by the Governor-General on 16 June 1913 and its provision laid some of the foundations of the bitterness that still bedevils South Africa's future prospects.

J W Sauer expropriated the land from blacks without compensation. Through a draconian Bill in APRIL 1913 and Natives' Land Act was law, signed by Governor-General on the 16 June 1913. Protest by Natives were ignored, and the Bill was gazetted on 20 June 1913.

Therefore, Section 25 of the Constitution must be amended, and the land must be expropriated without compensation, through parliament the same way J W Sauer, and Governor-General expropriated the land. DA and ANC must consider the reversal of the draconian Bill if they believe in the interest of Blacks and Whites in South Africa.

EFF and MK Party their ideology in simple terms is to reverse the draconian Bill, that turned the Native population of South Africa into wanderers and pariahs in the land of their birth.

ANC is a liberal party it does not believe in expropriation of land without compensation. And it is clear that it supports the draconian Bill of April 1913. Hence it is in bed with the DA, while DA and their cohorts understand that the land was expropriated through a draconian Bill and without compensation. DA and their cohorts are hostile to EFF and MK Party because they do not want the reversal of draconian Bill.

Essentially, the Land Act established the principle of territorial segregation under which Africans and whites were to acquire and occupy land in separate, designated areas.

The law restricted African landownership to the so-called scheduled area, about 10,5 million morgen or 7,5 percent of the total land area of South Africa of 142 million morgen.

Africans were to be barred from buying land except from other Africans or in existing tribal reserves.

And although provision was made for more land to be added after a commission under the chairmanship of Judge William Beaumont had reported, nothing was done until Barry Hertzog's Native Trust and Land Act of 1936 increased the maximum African areas to just over 13 percent.

The census of 1911 had shown the total population of the Union was 5 973 394 people, of which 4 019 006 were Africans, 1 276 242 whites, 525 943 coloureds and 152 203 Indians. The Act therefore apportioned 7,5 percent of the land to 67,3 percent of the population.

Most of the area set aside for Africans was in overcrowded 'Reserves'. Africans were excluded from the areas demarcated as whites and could stay there only as labourers even though nearly a million people lived on white-owned land as tenants, sharecroppers and labour tenants.

The act had its most drastic consequences in the Orange Free State, where the system of sowing on the halves the practice of African sharecroppers giving half their produce to the farmer in return for land was made illegal.

It left the tenant with an unpalatable choice of either changing his status from that of reasonably self-sufficient peasant to labourer, or taking his family and his stock and leave. The government's determination to deprive Africans of any status other than that of labourer in white areas was made clear by the Act's definition of labourer:

It excluded everyone, such as the squatters, who did not give at least 90 days' service a year. People who paid rent or any other valuable consideration for the land were also excluded from the definition.

Dube in accepting the presidency, said there was a pressing need or political vigilance in pursuit of emancipation and African rights. But naively, he also came out in favour of a policy of hopeful reliance on the sense of common justice and love of freedom so innate in the British character.

He added that perseverance, patience, reasonableness, the gentlemanly tendencies of Africans, and the justice of their demands would eventually breakdown colour prejudice and even force our enemies to be our admirers and our friends.

The South African Native National Congress: reacted to the passage of the Bill with shock. It struck at the heart of its belief in both a common society and the inner decency of the legislators.

Said a deeply upset Plaatje: If anyone had told us that at the beginning of 1913 that a majority of members of the Union parliament was capable of passing a law like the Natives' Land Act, whose objects is to prevent natives from ever rising above the position of servants to whites, we would have regarded that person as a fit subject for the lunatic asylum.

However, congress leaders also realized that it was an issue that affected almost every section of the African population and therefore could be used to attract support for their organization.

In May 1913, shortly before the Bill became law, a delegation went to Cape Town and had four interviews with Sauer who, ironically, until the passing of the Act, had been regarded by both whites and Africans as a friend of the African. But the protest was ignored, and the Bill was gazetted on the 20 June 1913.

The Freedom Charter:

Describing the Freedom Charter. Chief Albert Luthuli wrote: The Charter produced at Kliptown is, line by line, the direct outcome of conditions which obtain harsh, oppressive and unjust conditions. It is thus a practical and relevant document.

It attempts to give a flesh and blood meaning, in the South African setting, to such words as democracy, freedom, liberty. The charter is regarded by liberal and Marxist political analysis as essentially a moderate document emphasizing a non-racial society.

Liberty and individual rights, while its inclusion of socialist element such as nationalization is said not necessarily to imply the abolition of private ownership.

It comprises 10 clauses, headed by a preamble which commits its adherents to strive for the achievement of a government based on the will of all people, black and white:

Clause 1, The People Shall Govern, affirms the right of all, regardless of race, colour or sex to vote;

Clause 2, All National Groups Shall Have Equal Rights, affords equality before the law, in the instruments of government, and in schools, and forbids racial insults;

Clause 3, The People Shall Share in the Country's Wealth, calls for the nationalization of the mines, banks and industrial monopolies, for trade and industry to be controlled for the benefit of the people, and for all people to have equal economic and job rights;

Clause 4, The Land Shall Be Shared among Those Who Work It, demands a redistribution of the land and state assistance for peasantry, as well as the abolition of any restrictions on movements of people, access to land, and stock holdings;

Clause 5, All Shall Be Equal before the law, promises the abolition of detentions or banning's without trial, as well as all discriminatory laws;

Clause 6, All Shall Enjoy Human Rights, guarantee freedom of speech, worship and association, and unfettered freedom of movement;

Clause 7, There Shall Be Work and Security, recognizes the right of all to work and to equal pay for equal work, lays down minimum working conditions, and promises the abolition of child labour, and the tot system;

Clause 8, The Doors of Learning and Culture Shall Be Opened, sets out principles of free, universal, compulsory and equal education, promises to wipe out illiteracy, and undertakes to remove all cultural, sporting and educational colour bars;

Clause 9, There Shall Be Houses, Security and Comfort, promises decent housing for all and the rationalization of accommodation, the demolition of slums and fenced townships, the provision of proper suburban amenities, proper medical care for all as well as care of the aged, the disabled and orphans;

Clause 10, There Shall Be Peace and Friendship, says South Africa will respect the rights of other states and will strive for world peace;

The freedom Charter concludes: Let all who love their people, and their country now say, as we say here; these freedoms we will fight for, side by side, throughout our lives until we have won our liberty.

At about 3:30 pm on the 26 June 1955, with two sections of the charter remaining to be discussed, the police who up to then had been content to watch the proceedings arrived in force.

Armed with Sten guns, they formed a cordon around the field as 15 security policemen mounted the platform and announced to the crowd that they suspected that treason was being committed. After announcing that the names and addresses of all the delegates would be recorded, they began confiscating documents, posters even the catering signs and film.

Everybody was under arrest and as tension mounted congress officials had their work cut out to placate the angry crowd.

Democratic Alliances does not believe in the freedom charter, it will never apologize to what the draconian Bill coursed to blacks, it turned the native population of South Africa into wanderers and pariahs in the land of their birth.

ANC fail to reverse the Natives' Land Act in 30 years of their Ruling as a Party. But we understand that their liberal ideology cannot permit them, because they will upset the West.

ANC could not join forces with EFF and MK party because it is clear that their ideology is not the same. It is clear, that indeed the ANC and DA are birds of the same feathers, they flock together.

Native population of South Africa must forget, ANC will never ever reverse the draconian Bill. Following the fact that Former President Mandela clearly stated that ANC embrace liberal and conservative views.

In the 1990s, especially the earlier years of the decade, the leadership of the ANC seemed to be firmly supportive of the liberal constitutional democratic ideas that later became inscribed in the Constitution of 1996. Hence it is regarded the best Constitution in the world.

DA reached its roof top, that is why, their private partnership with influencers is renting black parties with millions of rands to support their ideology. Native people of South Africa, those who are in support of DA, they are in support of the draconian Bill. You are the oppressors of your ancestors.

So, keeping this mindset focused on negotiation you can hopefully keep your wits about you, you can keep your emotions in check, and you can try to understand the other side, understand them well enough to know, how to navigate towards a positive outcome without causing unnecessary conflict, or unnecessary instability so for example personally, I think it would be immensely beneficial for South Africa:

To reverse the draconian Bill and the Native Land Act which was signed into law by Governor-General on 16 June 1913.

To nationalize the mining sector this is a no-brainer in my opinion.

If the mining sector had been nationalized 30 years ago, South Africa would have a sovereign wealth fund today, that would rival the UAE or Saudi Arabia or Qatar.

So, in the mindset of negotiating you start by calling other measures, that would at least maximize domestic revenue and benefit from mining, ban the export of minerals and require refining and processing to be done inside South Africa, that would be a major boost for the economy, and which would be appealing to local companies, so that you can recruit their support politically.

The point is to be realistic and to be pragmatic, to be practical and to negotiate in a way that is not overly confrontational and draconian if you can help it. I don't think that you should ever see your government as an enemy, even if they see you as an enemy and even if they treat you as enemy.

The truth of matter is that they are trapped by their own unfairness, by their own unreasonable greed and their estrangement from the people. It is a miserable state to be in. You know when you are in that kind of a state, when you are in that kind of a mindset, when you want something that is unfair, you want something that is unjust, then you will naturally feel threatened, you will feel paranoid, you will feel defensive, and you will be reflexively ruthless.

You will do things in that state of mind, that if your conscience ever wakes up, you will regret, and we always have to give people a way out, that will allow them to do the right thing without being disgraced for not having done the right thing before.

Reiterate and revive the public Declaration of values and principles of morals. The ANC for instance used to stand for something, they proclaimed Noble values at one time, and what you say publicly that you believe in, you can be held to account for.

And you have to justify your policy positions according to the values, that you are on record supporting, and appeals can be made to you on the basis of the values that you have articulated publicly.

So, for instance rather than taking a posture towards the government of saying they are terrible people, you take a position of saying that we know you are better than this, we know that you are better than this.

So, lets reaffirm our shared commitment to equality, to justice, to fairness, and to the upliftment of our people, and let's course correct together, let's keep each other in check in a sense of Brotherhood, out of spirit of Brotherhood, not reprisal, and Punishment is just a stubborn insistent unwavering accountability to publicly stated values.