The ANCYL condemed the position that the YCL had taken in supporting COSATU on succession. To say that one agrees with both positions in confusing if not self-contradictory. Again, the fact of the matter is that the succession debate did not take place prior the 22nd National Conference, but thereafter. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Nyiko Floyd Shivambu [mailto:[email protected]] Gesendet: So 05.07.2009 11:29 An: [email protected] Cc: Betreff: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: Succession debate - the problems of short memory
I personally do no have a specific view around the whole succession
debate, particularly concerning on who's supposed to start it. As a loyal
member of both the YCL and ANC YL, I understand and agree with my
organisations' positions on the issue. We however should not distort recent
past history, for a simple reason that it is recent past history.My memory
tells me that these are the facts:
* The ANC YL 22nd National Congress in Nasrec in 2004 did not
resolve on ANC succession.
* The 2004 Gauteng Provincial Congress had a discussion on
leadership issues towards the 52nd National Conference and the ANC YL said it's
too early and could be divisive.
* The ANC YL NEC resolved to support President Zuma for President
and went into a consultation with ANC YL structures.
* When Smuts Nghonyama responded affirming Gauteng's approach,
then the YL entered the debate premised first on the rights of President JZ and
secondly on the principle of two centres of power.
* The succession towards 52nd Conference was objectively
underpinned by strong organisational and ideological consequences, reflected
recently by the manifestations of the Conference aftermath, with the defeated
faction breaking away for political, ideological, personal, social and economic
reasons.
* The succession towards 52nd Conference was very divisive of all
Mass Democratic Movement structures including COSATU, SACP, ANC, YCL, ANC YL,
Parliamentary Caucus and government institutions in all spheres, and public
entities (SABC, IDC, DBSA, etc).... in one way or another, all these structures
suspended or expelled leaders on issues which were perceptibly or genuinely
linked to the succession battles.
* The succession debate led to the abuse of State institutions at
all levels, including the Criminal Justice System and the intelligence.
* The succession towards 52nd National Conference also assisted
to rid the movement of counter-revolutionary forces within our structures, and
because it took time, assisted in the consolidation of a common perspective
moving forward.
* We have derived great and possibly durable lessons on the
succession towards Polokwane and certainly we cannot make the same mistake,
whether we take the issue now or later.
These realities could possibly assist us in understanding both the YCL
and ANC YL positions around the need to pursue/avoid the discussion now. I
serve in both structures' national executive committee levels, and opine with
almost certainty that if both were to pronounce the entirety of the leadership
collectives for the 2012 Conference, there would be differences, except on
President. This might lead to strengthening each organisations' positions and
possible divergence, even on areas we could agree on moving forward. In its
very nature, the succession debate is very subjective and could erupt people's
emotions, thus blurring sober judgment on what is right or wrong. Whether the
debate starts now or not is not the issue, but the issue is how differently do
we handle the succession debate as compared to the period towards the 52nd
National Conference. All revolutionaries will agree that our reasons for
starting the succession debate now, cannot be the same as the reasons why it
was started earlier towards the 52nd National Conference. I believe there
should be greater involvement of our organisations' members on what they
believe should be leadership post 2012. Otherwise I agree with both the ANC YL
and YCL positions...... and these positions I can safely say are not personal
positions of Julius Malema and David Masondo respectively, but organisational
positions, which should be defended by all loyal members, avoiding separating
leaders from their organisations.
Floyd
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Alex M. Mashilo <[email protected]>
wrote:
In 2002 the ANC held it 51st National Conference, followed two
years later, in 2004 by the ANCYL National Conference. From the YL conference
the stage was set for succession dedate, with the organisation arguing that
comrade JZ must in the next Conference of the ANC, to be held three years
later, in 2007, elected to succeed Thabo Mbeki as the movement's president.
This was linked to comrade JZ taking over as SA's president five years later,
in 2009.
Thabo Mbeki did not like the YL's discussion. He said it was
too early, and that the ANC shall at the right time determine according to its
established procedures its next NEC which includes the president. Little he
make it clear that he was actually engaging with the YL's substative proposal,
with his position being that he did not like comrade JZ to become the
movement's president in 2007 and the SA's president in 2009, and that he will
acually contest and do many other things to gain a third term as ANC's
president.
Those who don't quickly shut-down their memories will also
recall that a year (2003) after the ANC's 51st National Conference (2002, the
ANC NEC issued a statement stipulating that going forward the president of the
ANC may not be the president of the republic. Thabo Mbeki held interviews with
SABC in which he further motivated this position. Little did he make it clear
that he wanted to continue as ANC president in from 2007, four years later.
Following the 2004 and 2005 national and provincial elections
two newly appointed premiers in Limpopo (Sello Moloto, who later joined COPE)
and KZN (Sbusiso Ndebele), and a Mayor (Mlungisi Hlogwane, who later zigzagged
between COPE and ANC) for Sedibeng Municipality in Gauteng, went over to call
for the constitution of SA to be amended so Thabo Mbeki can serve a third term
as SA's president.Could this have been without tactical coordination? Many of
us questioned.
But it was in 2004 that Thabo Mbeki condemed the YL for opening
the succession debate unnecessarily and too early.
What are the similarities and different about the succession
debate now and then?
Two years ago (2007) the ANC held its 52nd National Conference.
The period is the same (two years later if not almot)from ANC Nationl
Conferences (51st and 52nd respectively) between the YL's 2004 proposal for
comrade JZ to be elected ANC president in 2007 and Cosatu's 2009 proposal for
comrade JZ to continue as ANC and SA's president in 2012. Another similarity is
that the country went to general elections in 2004, as it has been the case in
2009.Yet comrade Julius Malema, current serving president of the YL, like Thabo
Mbeki did to the YL in 2004, condemed Cosatu for raising the debate in what is
called too early. Malema uses one of the similar reasons used by Mbeki when he,
augmented by Smuts Ngonyama who since went to COPE, condemed the YL. Like Thabo
Mbeki, Malema argued that the succession debate is not important now but
service delivery is.
What is different though, is that in 2004 the proposal for
comrade JZ to become president of the ANC in 2007 was made by the YL, and now
(2009) it's has been made by Cosatu, supported by the YCL.
It is now clear whose interests did Thabo Mbeki represent when
he hypocriticallycondemed the so-called early succession discussion. Whose
interest does Malema represent when he wrongfully and passionately (without
even visiting the recent history of the YL on the issue of succession)condemed
Cosatu for openly stating its preference for comrade JZ to continue in 2012 as
both ANC and SA's president?
In the Sasco NGC (1 - 5 July 2009) YCL National Chairperson
comrade David Masondo provided political education in a limited time slot.
Indeed the ANC is the organisational leader of the alliance, the allaince
partners have an inherent interest who therefore leads the ANC and how to
express this is only a matter for tactical consideratios. With the sort of
response that comrade Julius Malema echoed, it appears Cosatu was tactically
correct to state its preference openely. Otherwise our history illustrates that
when Thabo Mbeki condemed the YL in 2004 for raising the succession debate 'too
early' the mn was actually busy making sure he will stay on.
To agree with comrade David Masondo, it will be utopian to
suggest or agree to be pursuaded that other forces are not busy discussing
succession in the corridors. In fact, making open pronouncements as Cosatu and
the YCL did this year (2009) abount comrade JZ continuing in 2012 and 2014 as
president of the ANC and SA, and as the YL did in 2004, threaten the interests
of those who are not only discussing succession in the corridors but who are
also preparing in the same sphere for their preferences to emerge.
A re boleleng!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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] .
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
<<inline: winmail.dat>>
