Dear SASCO member
Below is an edited version of the Politburo statements about the release of the General Secretary to parliament, this first appeared on our April Edition of Umsebenzi. I hope you find it helpful and that it enriches your debate and criticism of the SACP. Your comments below that the General Secretary of the SACP decided to violate the constitution are incorrect and should be clarified. At all instances in the debate the Genera; Secretary of the SACP expressed his preference to remain serving the working class and the poor from 3rd Floor COSATU House. Regards *Draft 2* * * *SACP POLITBURO STATEMENT ON THE SACP GENERAL SECRETARY GOING TO PARLIAMENT* * * */Following its 3 April PB meeting, the SACP decided to issue a statement on the deployment of its General Secretary, cde Blade Nzimande, to parliament. An edited version appears below:/* */ /* 1. *Collective Decision on General Secretary Going to Parliament: *The decision on the SACP General Secretary serving in parliament has been made collectively through SACP structures. It is not an individual decision of Comrade Blade Nzimande’s, as is being projected in some of the public discourse. In different forms, it has been discussed at the November 2008 * *Augmented Central Committee, February Central Committee and Politburo meetings and by the Politburo Deployment and Accountability Committee. Our view is that the General Secretary should serve in parliament and, without any sense of entitlement and with due recognition of the role the ANC President and ANC officials in deciding on cabinet posts, we believe he should also be considered for an appropriate position in the cabinet. To allow the General Secretary to make himself available for parliament and cabinet was not an easy decision to make. Nor was it taken lightly. We are aware of the crucial role the General Secretary plays in our Party and the need for the Party to be strong and effective. We are clear, after considering all the issues, that, on balance, it is the correct decision. We believe it is possible for the General Secretary to be effective in parliament and government, and as the leader of our Party, and we are putting into effect various practical measures to ensure this. The decision that the General Secretary should serve in parliament, and if the ANC leadership agrees, in cabinet, has to be understood in the context briefly set out below. A fuller explanation as part of our overall Deployment and Accountability Policy will follow in the preparation for the Special National Congress in September this year that is proposed below. * * 2. *MTV and the State*: In terms of our Medium Term Vision (MTV), the SACP is committed to building hegemony in 6 sites of power, including the state, economy, workplace, community, ideology and the international sphere. Parliament and the executive are key aspects of the state. The specific strategies, programmes and plans to build hegemony in these different sites will differ according to changing conditions, including the nature of the political landscape, the balance of power, how immediate goals link to long-term goals, and specific organisational challenges, among other aspects. In the current context, which includes the emergence of a phased reconfiguration of the Alliance, as the SACP, we have to also take a measure of co-responsibility for governance and not position ourselves as a narrow “oppositionist” party within the Alliance. In the context therefore it is important that the General Secretary plays a role in parliament and possibly government. 3. *Reconfiguration of the Alliance: *Among the key issues about the nature of the Alliance and our participation in the 2009 elections raised at our 12^th Congress was the need to reconfigure the Alliance. This re-configuration has many aspects. Some we are clear about. Others we are clarifying. Yet others will only emerge through practice. But a key aspect of the reconfiguration is the need to ensure that the SACP (and Cosatu) have a greater say in both ANC and government policies. It is appropriate therefore in the current context that the General Secretary should be forwarded to parliament and possibly government. 4. *General Secretary Elected also as an ANC Leader*: The General Secretary was elected to 9^th place on the National Assembly Election List by the rank and file of the ANC, who obviously want him to go to parliament. He has, of course, been elected not just as the SACP leader but as an ANC leader. This reflects the improved relations in the Alliance, and also encourages us to believe our decision to forward him to parliament is correct. 5. *SACP Needs to Constantly Review Structures and how Best to Deploy Comrades to them*: With changing conditions and balances of forces, the SACP needs to review our structures and how best we deploy comrades to them. Of course, the SACP Constitution requires the General Secretary to serve full-time. But we should not be rigid about this. As we have discovered through practice, this need not always be a necessary condition. We need a measure of flexibility about this. In some conditions we might need a full-time General Secretary, and in others not. It depends on our political tasks, organisational needs and other considerations during a particular phase of the struggle. Clearly, we need to review the SACP Constitution, and we propose that it be amended to allow the General Secretary to be full or part time as decided by the Central Committee according to the specific needs of the Party during specific periods. We propose that we provide in the Constitution for 2 Deputy General Secretaries and that /at least/ 1 of the 3 Secretaries must be full-time. There are other related proposals being considered as well. 6. *Decision on General Secretary Subject to Review: *The General Secretary, like all other SACP members serving as public representatives, will be answerable to the Politburo Deployment and Accountability Committee. If the General Secretary is unable to perform his role in the Party while serving as a public representative, we will have to review our decision and recall him from parliament. If there are fundamental conflicts between policies that the General Secretary is required to implement as a government Minister, should he be appointed to cabinet, and those of the SACP, the General Secretary will be required to withdraw from parliament. The Politburo Deployment and Accountability Committee will draw up appropriate protocols in this regard, and if necessary, do so after consultation with our Alliance partners. 7. *Strengthening the SACP Head Office: *The Politburo Deployment and Accountability Committee is looking into various proposals to strengthen the SACP Head Office and structures of the Party. The Deployment Committee is working on proposals to ensure that the roles that SACP members play as public representatives and in SACP structures are mutually reinforcing. There are various proposals being considered on how public representatives, especially those serving in executive structures and as Committee chairpersons and other officials in legislatures and councils, could be effectively deployed to fulfill SACP responsibilities. For example, every day a certain number of national and provincial Cabinet members could, on a rotation basis, be available to do SACP work in a way that does not undermine their being effective in their government roles. Consideration is also being given to the possibility of deploying more Central Committee members full-time in the SACP. Various other proposals are being considered. * * 8. *Need for SACP Special National Congress by September 2009: *The discussions on the General Secretary being forwarded to parliament and possibly cabinet need to be taken forward. They also raise issues about other senior SACP national, provincial and local officials serving in parliaments, provincial legislatures and municipal councils, and executives in the 3 spheres. In terms of our Constitutional provisions and related Congress resolution on Special National Congresses, we are due to have a Special National Congress in the 3^rd year of the 5 years between National Congresses. The 3^rd year falls from July 2009 to July 2010. We propose that we have our Special National Congress in September this year to consider a variety of major issues related to the new political terrain we find ourselves in and the new issues of deployment that have arisen, including the role of the General Secretary and other key SACP officials at all levels in effectively serving in legislatures and executives, on the one hand, and Party structures, on the other. 9. *Need for Ongoing Consultation and Discussion: *Obviously, forwarding the General Secretary to parliament is major issue, and we should not be naïve about it. There could be unforeseen consequences The decision is correct for now. But it may not always be. So we need to regularly consult about this (and the related issues) and debate the matter and seek to arrive at consensus as part of strengthening the SACP and advancing the struggle for socialism. sasco member wrote: > Comrades > Since the space is more broad and open for debate especially after > Polokwane, I thought I should raise a question that seems to be taken > lightly. > Remember raising questions also means raising those that we may not > want to see/hear raised. > Ok process aside. Let me ask my question. > The status quo organisationally is that the GS of the Party and > several provincial secretaries have violated the Constitution of the > Party including the NS of the YCL in terms of the YCL constitution. > The violation in question is known publicly I need not raise it here. > However thats not my primary concern. My primary concern and question > is whether; as argued by Jeremy Cronin on national TV, the decision of > the CC to endorse the decision of GS was consistent, correct and > principled and effect does it have on the organisation as a whole? Was > the decision of the GS to violate the constitution consistent, correct > and principled? > There is now talk of "conditions have changed" does that mean when the > position of provincial secretaries was also made permanent/fulltime > mean that it was expediency such that because "conditions then were > different" it was an organisationally sound thing to make the > positions fulltime? In other words was the decision of congress taken > to build the Party in order to be changed later let alone violated to > suit individual's personal choices? Or vice-versa, was it taken to > suit individual choices even then? > When the decision was taken was there no foresight into "conditions > that would later change"? Because as communists would say; change is > permanent. > In any case what are these conditions that have suddenly changed? Is > it the space that the communist party is now "having" as others are > whispering. Ok, the space is there but to do what? Where is the Party > perspective on the Global Financial Crisis? Because for me space means > space to articulate and hegemonise ideas of the Party. So, the > conditions changed for what? So that what can happen? > I hope we work to find answers to these questions because, in future > we must handle such matters differently. I also hope I wont be > insulted like in the past when I raise questions that I believe must > be raised in terms of the principle of "self-criticism" > SM > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
