Several months back, Mark Shinners made reference to the nub of a discussion
held by the PAC leadership in prison in the mid-eighties, to make a point with
me on who really owns the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania. I recall that I
had participated in the debate in writing but had lost the tail end and
conclusions after I and my co-accused were hurriedly transferred away from the
Johannesburg Prison. Bra Mark has a keen sense of the core debate since he was
then coordinating the contributions by various Africanists, and I guess he
would have summed up the consensus outcomes. We all had a stake in the trials
and tribulations of the PAC and we were all - from various corners of the
country - working to advance the objectives of the Party. Therefore no single
individual, entity or thought grouping could justly claim sole ownership. More
than that, the PAC was not founded to become a limited company owned by some
obscure shareholders.
At the time a coup had taken place in the then Transkei, and the PAC had played
a leading role in it. We commended the developments. We learned from them
theoretically that the failures of a linear and top-down structured
relationship were its inability to understand the context of an objective
condition. Ordinarily in this case the internal workings and dynamics of
bantustan politics would be dismissed. However the paradigm was constantly
changing and unpredictable, which allowed us to understand the development of a
spontaneous and self-organizing local Party leadership that inter-acts and
adapts to the environment around it. The leadership structures in Dar es
Salaam or on Robben Island could not fully appreciate the need for
self-directed autonomy if they hung on centralised control of the structures.
The PAC was much more flexible and devolved authority to the operatives in
decision-making and self-directed behaviour. Also, at no stage did the PAC
want to micro-manage or manipulate Azanyu, and the developments which
ultimately led to the formation of Nactu. The prison discussion we held was
primarily concerned with the need, in these scenarios, to have a recognisable
and identifiable pattern of political behaviour with a commonality of purpose.
The diverse contributions were appreciated and encouraged. We were on for a
healthy climate of criticism and self-criticism in the Party.
What subsequently happened in the years from 1990 onwards was a series of
internal political mistakes and flawed decision-making processes. We were
probably wet behind the ears and inexperienced, or we undermined the
sophistication and power of our adversaries. Political power is a contested
terrain and the weak will most certainly be decapitated. A few examples of
our own errors:The Shareworld gathering excluded the inputs of those who
opposed the economic policy proposal that bordered on Thatcherism and allowed a
single dimension to the Codesa negotiations. Uncle Zeph Mothopeng had
deliberately taken the letter of invitation to the talks to the Party
membership for open deliberation and inputs. The democratic consultation
process should have been taken to its maximum conclusion. We must learn to
allow every opinion to be vented in our forums - and after all views have been
heard let us together reach a consensus.The PAC has never really interacted
with the masses on its policies and views despite the proximity with masses.
It is either because we are in disagreement or a cabal is in charge and does
not know what to do. In fact almost every election manifesto was drafted by
some smart individual without the inputs of the broad Party membership. In
1994 Jon Qwelane worked all night on his own to produce a printed election
manifesto, which was not even read by the National Executive Committee. In
1999 Bishop Stanley Mogoba resorted to the impromptu announcement to cut off
the limbs of criminals instead of articulating the PAC election policies. In
2004 Dan Mdluli insisted on the catchphrase "Siyodlasonke", which literally
meant the PAC and its followers would also be part of the gravy train and
corruption. In 2009 the election manifesto was drafted singularly by Peter
Mayende without even the elementary understanding of what it meant. The point
of all this is that without ventilating political issues out in the open among
ourselves first, the membership will always be disgruntled with the treatment
they are getting from the PAC leadership and even distance themselves from the
Party come crunch time. In the last local government elections Letlapa
Mphahlele boldly made the predictions that the Party will win 400 seats
countrywide. An accomplished politician would know how to deal with
predictions in a campaign because these matters are determined in a scientific
manner, not wishful thinking. There is a vast difference between the actual 40
and his hoped for 400. In 2009 the IEC accepted political proposals from the
ANC to accommodate three poorly performing parties with less than the cut-off
50 000 votes in a mathematical formula that ordinarily allowed the leading
parties to share the three seats. The public impression was that the ruling
party needed Themba Godi on the Scopa seat instead of a hostile opposition, and
the PAC was slightly higher than the APC and Azapo. Any right thinking analyst
could not believe Mphahlele's prediction because he had called for a second
rule by decree. That is why the Muslim Brotherhood's Morsi in Egypt has
withdrawn his usurpation of power by presidential decree - watch him closely,
he is bordering on self destruction.
Let's go back to the good things we did in the past and learn from our mistakes
in order to go forward victoriously.
Ideologically, the sum total of the Bureau of African Nationalism ideas were
that the African people must be consulted at all times to determine their
future. The Africanist journal expressed heavy theory in biblical simplicity
into what the core objectives of the national liberation struggle were. Their
emphasis was on content and subject matter rather than form. These teachings
are from the pioneers of the PAC and we must study them and bring fresh ideas
to make them accessible to the masses. We must debate modern ideas and
challenges, and lead. Spontaneity of the masses will ultimately be guided by
strategic objectives articulated by the Africanists. This approach has been
heavily criticized by those who belief in a linear paradigm where things are
orderly and stable, and leadership issues out instructions from some elitist
tower. The struggle for change and transformation is often unpredictable,
unstable and the rules of linearity do not apply. I believe the ideas of
Pokela, Sobukwe and others were visionary and scientific, even though they were
misunderstood by some of our own membership.
I'm raising the same debate today spurred by the comments of Mark Shinners to
say we all own and belong to the PAC, our diverse backgrounds notwithstanding.
Jaki
--
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
