Comrades, we seem to have a consensus on the timing of the succession debate. As it stands the debate was misplaced and not even appropriate. In fact, there was no compelling reason for the call to be made - let alone a need for it. If you twin both Floyd and Alex's submissions you will come to a determination that we come a long way with this debate and we seem to allow agitators to repeat history. All cadres of the movement know very well that the succession debate belongs to the ANC branches not anywhere else. It cannot always be spelled out to all and sundry that this is not a happy-go-lucky organisation but a movement of protocols? It's cause that anyone comrade who wishes to introduce a debate must channel it to the appropriate forum not anywhere he/she likes. As a youth movement, we must stand up against agitators and call order where it's necessary to defend the ANC culture and traditions. We don't have to stand on sideline when an alliance partner causes the confusion and get away with it because they are perceived to be kingmakers. There is no such a thing in the ANC - power belongs to the branches. We do not have so-called kingmakers as such things are foreign concepts created by the media. In a nutshell, let's not get distracted when there is a plethora of issues on the table as per mandates from Polokwane. We need to keep asking the NEC if it has been able to institute a specific programme aimed at restoring the unity and coherence of the ANC, the Alliance and the broader democratic movement. If not why? Because this is the very programme that hits at the core of the ANC's communications strategy at all levels of the organisation, including the Alliance and the broader democratic movement. The centre must hold, maqabane! Morgan Phaahla, Ekurhuleni
"Sometimes, if you wear suits for too long, it changes your ideology." - Joe Slovo --- On Sun, 7/5/09, Nyiko Floyd Shivambu <[email protected]> wrote: From: Nyiko Floyd Shivambu <[email protected]> Subject: [YCLSA Discussion] Re: Succession debate - the problems of short memory To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009, 5:29 AM 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] . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
