What exactly is at the root of PAC 's deterioration over the years, particularly since 1994? Is it the party 's ineptitude to provide a programme of action or is it the weakness of the leadership, or for that matter both and more? These questions have seized the party and all of its organic membership for sometime now.
I want to deal with both the leadership issue and how I think it gets distorted by the day, and then the program of action. For the party to assume its rightful place in society, the leadership thereof is integral and a key enabler. We must define what we need in a leadership collective and individual persons thereof. For qualification into leadership one must fully and completely comprehend the party s pan africanist position on all facets of life. I suggest that this understanding cannot be derived solely through academic read. It grows out of practical engagement with the challenges of the party and thus its ideological stand. The inadequacy of ideological orientation may at first look or thought make for an insignificant area of concern. This is a red light signaling going concern challenges for any organisation. The want to drive party programs outside of party ideology is enemy number one to the survival of the PAC. Persons who harbour this view are either grossly ill intended or dangerously naïve. The naïve pursue this line of thought because political leadership is mere administrative governance. This is the type of mentality that must be assaulted in every way possible. In their view the party 's challenges stem from poor admin, and that if we had a strong administration our fortunes will change. In fact this group hold the same view about the governance of the country. They take a view that what the country needs is a strong administrative arm. There is absolutely no intention to change the direction and remodel a new society and trajectory. This sect also takes a view that therefore people that have no prestigious academic qualifications are ill qualified to lead the party because 'their admin capacity is weak.' And as can be seen, this group would have no reason not to join other parties including the ruling, because in their view the problem is admin and not foundational orientational ideological issues. I make no suggestion that admin is not important, I am only seeking to highlight a possible danger on the exaggeration of admin over the political line. Another sect of the "admin over politics" group is those with ill intentions. These ones only look at leadership as an opportunity for prestige in society and they actually don't stand for anything. Some of them articulate the party line fairly well but in their hearts of hearts mean the opposite or nothing. This cancerous infection needs to be dealt with decisively before it spreads accross the body. We all know that the standards in the party have been severely lowered so much so that every jack and tom can lay claim to the leadership of the party. There is a few things we must do to combat this. We must look at two things, history and personality. We must take a closer look at everyone laying claim to the leadership of the party. We must ask the question, who are you and where do you come from. All parties the world over do this ! And it is important to look at a person s involvement in the party. This is not whether or not they have made mistakes but more on whether they have engaged in party work so much so that we can safely say this chap is PAC even by his manners and outlook. It also must not be enough that a person has served in one structure or the other. There are a lot of circumstantial accidents where totally unfit persons have held "leadership" positions and want to use this to perpetuate themselves. We must curtain these accidents and not feed them. The other aspect we must look at is personality. The PAC cannot be led by gentlemen whose complete orientation is peace and maintence of the status quo. This has been the party s challenge. What is required is the leadership that will confront the system and its handlers. We must add that this confrontation cannot be waged through a suit and tie in a boardroom. It involves a lot of sacrifices and the courage of character. To think that one who has not even had the gut to tell an ant to get away can lead the PAC must be a joke par excellence. For the party to rise, it can't be on the back of some textbook gentlemanish leadership philosophy. So let us look at the personality of the person before we even think too far off their competence and liver capacity. The second challenge is that of the programme of action. First it must be noted that for a programme to exist there must be leadership because the program does not develop itself. The PAC has all the foundational base for a program. In conclusion, it is important that when we discuss leadership we should not do so from a "swapping" mentality, I.e changing this face for the next one. It must be a program, that which the person professes and is able to execute that must inform the move. We have been this route before and I insist that this time we shall do it right. Leadership review must be informed by a program and not a person s qualification or face differentiation to the incumbents. This is my contribution to the ensuing debate regarding the future of the organisation, analysis and recommendations. Izwe Lethu !! IAfrika ! Matome Mashao Sent from my BlackBerry® -- Sending your posting to [email protected] Unsubscribe by sending an email to [email protected] You can also visit http://groups.google.com/group/payco Visit our website at www.mayihlome.wordpress.com
