The agenda of the Conference of the Left remains ideologically murky, even contested and it may be forced to navigate choppy waters in its attempt to resolve intractable hurdles created by the country’s political realities.
The conference was convened at the Birchwood Conference Centre in Boksburg, east of Johannesburg, at the weekend.
The reason for the convergence of politically disparate parties is to “unite progressive forces to fight deepening inequality, mass unemployment and capitalist dominance”.
At the end of three days of meetings, the conference committed itself to forming a Council of the Left, whose focus is to facilitate joint campaigns, including the sharing of resources and agitation against the government of national unity (GNU).
Crucially, accountability among political entities is an essential ingredient of the newly created body.
But if the Conference of the Left is to meet its objective of creating a common agenda, what could be the biggest challenge?
Is it possible to create consensus among disparate organisations drawn from different political and ideological backgrounds?
The creation of a cohesive socialist state appears crucial, among other objectives, yet it requires ideological flexibility rather than rigidity, as well as tolerance that allows diversity and dissenting voices to find an outlet.
The general secretary of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa), Irvin Jim, was candid in claiming that he did not view the MK Party as a socialist-oriented party. He argued that a true understanding of socialism required a strict Marxist-Leninist framework, something he wished all participants would understand.
What this assertion means and how it may be interpreted by the MK Party, may be difficult to fathom. Yet the organisation’s deputy president, Tony Yengeni, did not mince his words, declaring that his party sought “political and state power” and that he wished left-wing forces could coalesce to achieve this objective.
Might it be that he wishes this “political power” for himself and his political party? Or does he wish it for the Conference of the Left?
Navigating this ship will not be easy and may require the wisdom of Solomon, effective communication and the ability to understand the perspectives of participants.
What do we discern from this exchange? We see that the MK Party, even if it claims to be socialist-oriented, must still be persuaded to adhere to constitutional prescripts and be willing to defend the agenda of constitutionalism.
Yet the MK Party and its leadership appear to hold the view that, should they ascend to power, they would create a new constitution. This would replace the current constitutional supremacy with parliamentary supremacy.
But would the outcome of such a decision be desirable and consistent with the wishes of the Conference of the Left and the Constitution?
In the view of some, such an act would take the country back to the dark apartheid years, when parliamentary sovereignty was used to oppress black people by granting parliament unfettered legal power to enact whatever laws it desired, including discriminatory legislation and the possible retention of the death penalty.
The current legal framework is based on the supremacy of the Constitution, embedded in a Bill of Rights.
By definition, the Bill of Rights is described in these terms:
“The Bill of Rights in Chapter 2 of the 1996 South African Constitution is the cornerstone of the country’s democracy. It enshrines fundamental human rights for all people in South Africa, holding the state and private entities accountable to the core values of human dignity, equality and freedom.”
Socialism, by its nature, embraces constitutionalism, which promotes democratic principles.
How the conference deals with these contradictions may depend on the MK Party’s willingness to be persuaded of the importance of observing the imperatives of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
And what about the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF)? The Red Berets identify as a radical, left-wing, Marxist-Leninist and socialist party. Yet in some political circles, the party is regarded as populist, with presidential powers centralised in the hands of its leader.
This, by definition, is anti-socialist and may take the form of authoritarianism, a position inconsistent with democratic ideals and the country’s Constitution.
ANC secretary general Fikile Mbalula has described the project as “a thinly veiled project meant to gang up against the ANC” and committed to “displacing the ANC”. He added that his organisation was neither socialist nor capitalist but was committed to advancing the ideals of a mixed economy.
And so, over the past weekend, South Africans — at least those who follow political trends — were burdened with the task of digesting, dissecting and making sense of what the conference sought to achieve.
Among the conference’s conclusions was a commitment to rebuilding working-class power and establishing a permanent Council of the Left. This council would serve as a vehicle for facilitating an anti-GNU campaign, as well as monitoring the Phala Phala scandal and using all available means, including legal intervention, to ensure the matter does not disappear from the political and societal radar.
What challenges face this effort?
If the new conference is seen as an effort to “displace the ANC”, while the South African Federation of Trade Unions (Saftu), through its general secretary, Zwelinzima Vavi, has stated that the inclusion of Jacob Zuma’s party, which harbours “ethno-nationalism and right-wing tendencies”, would be counterproductive to the ideals that the newly established Conference of the Left seeks to achieve.
Vavi stated that “allowing a patriarchal and right-wing populist formation to sit at the socialist table undermines progressive working-class politics”.
In the final analysis, the conference appears beset by factionalism, with ideological contradictions and historical divisions muddying the political waters.
In the end, the convener of the conference, the South African Communist Party (SACP), may not escape the harsh judgment that it has created a structure that accentuates divisions rather than builds bridges of unity.
Jo-Mangaliso Mdhlela is a freelance journalist, former trade unionist and Anglican priest.
The general secretary of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa), Irvin Jim, was candid in claiming that he did not view the MK Party as a socialist-oriented party. He argued that a true understanding of socialism required a strict Marxist-Leninist framework, something he wished all participants would understand
