Klipspruit West Crisis: Are We Getting It Wrong Again?

We are back here again and it seems we will be walking around this mountain for a tad longer than we all anticipated.

It was Davidsonville last year, now it’s Klipspruit West, evidently a manifestation of a much bigger problem and not one to be confused in narrowness of education.

Our children are denied schooling and we are told the teachers are on a go-slow. In all of this we hear some community leaders stoking the fires and threatening mass mobilisation to spread wider. As a parent and lifelong activist for equal education, I detest our children losing one hour of schooling in a cramped curriculum and academic year. I detest a politicised organised labour that has less interest in the advancement of our children but their personal made sacrosanct rights to organise.

Yet I am not immune to the plight, frustration, and agony of former Coloured communities. No matter how you look at it, how it’s understood or heard from the mouths of the people, we dare not be dismissive of their claims. It would be sheer ignorance and even blatant arrogance to assume you from outside these communities understand what it means.

On the subject of appointment of principals after all the necessary steps and processes are followed it should not matter who is appointed in a ‘normal society’, however our society is not normal and to pretend it is to be deceiving. We are a society which battles the toxic combination of colonisation and colonisation of the special kind commonly called apartheid. As if that is not enough, we also dealing with the reality of the new anomalies that the democratic state in some instances inadvertently produced in other instances in glaring arrogance.

It would appear; on the one hand all that Gauteng Education MEC Panyaza Lesufi must do is provide the hardcore evidence to show the people of Klipspruit West, Davidsonville and others that there are Coloured principals in apartheid geographic spaces such Soweto, Laudium, Katlehong etc. This evidence, if it exists, is crucial to assist the misconceptions and claimed contradictions.

You will notice I refer to these racial labels, but not because I endorse them. I consciously identify as Khoisan hence I reject the apartheid labels for a means for classification of identity configuration. I do so because the democratic State has in bad advice continued to uncritically appropriate the discredited race frames for identity formulation. A subject I have raised in my submission to the recent ANC National Planning Conference. All Coloureds may not be Khoisan but all Khoisan were classified as Coloured, hence my natural involvement in these circumstances.

For as long as the GED does not share the statistics if they exist as reality, the argument of apartheid Coloured communities being the only playground for a forced cross-pollination will continue to stand.

If I were MEC I would start there, nothing beats evidence that the non-racial stratification is not just focussed on so-called Coloured areas but also on so-called Black and so called Indian areas.

To advance the argument that South Africa is a non-racial society is on the one side true yet on the other a founding myth. We cannot deny that despite our claims of non-racialism, South Africa’s former townships remain racially stratified in dominance of its apartheid demographics. Meaning you still have the majority of people in Soweto people as black and Eldorado Park as Coloured and Laudium as Indian. We must engage what this means and how we can attempt to make transformation and social cohesion stand in these apartheid communities.

The implications therefore remain, that language will be factored in as a cardinal departure point for these communities no different to others. If people go to a local clinic, police station, and even a school and cannot be heard in their mother tongue it may be argued their human rights are encroached upon if not violated. We know for example the Police Station in Eldorado Park is a classic example of this anomaly.

Therefore, resorting to labelling people racist and disbanding the SGB is perhaps the easy way out but does not solve the problem. You may win the cheap debate and right to stand on your tomato box, as the one who told Coloureds they are racist, but it does not exempt you from your own plausible racist mind in attempt of dealing with a community.

One may choose to disband the SGB because one can, because they floatedon one or other policy regulation and therefore prove dysfunctional, hardly an uncommon challenge in SA. That is short-termism and attempt at immediate crisis-averting tactics. It does not deal with the real problem that we all who claim sensibility know exists.

We had Davidsonville; what have we learnt and not learnt. We clearly haven’t learnt anything because we are back here again.

What is indisputable is exacted punitive inequality (epi), the case we lodged with the SAHRC on May 28, 2017 stands. Exacted punitive inequality suggests while the constitution demands an equality informed by an equality of humanity, politicians, civil servants and officials claim a right to exact punishment on Coloured communities for a multiplicity of reasons from as narrow as sheer disrespect for the identity to a means to show them for voting a specific way.

This issue of a school principal appointment makes up part of that exacted punitive inequality that is understood in colloquial sense of marginalisation.

Again I suggest, provide the Soweto scenarios where Coloured Principals are appointed. Show how there are both Indian and Coloured principals in former black areas. If the Department can show it, the case may fall flat.

However, if the department cannot show it then we must accept former Coloured areas are used as the testing grounds, if not laboratory, of a one-dimensional social cohesion utopia and not other areas. Why then? Hence it can be argued the department has a specific agenda.

The collective frustration of Coloureds is underestimated and completely miscalculated by some in government. I hate being a prophet of doom, but my conscience and reading of the mounting pressure confirms we are sitting on a time bomb and it won’t be long when we will ask in embarrassed if not tragic sense why didn’t we see this coming.

How many times do we have to come back to this part of the mountain?

Advertisements

Making Sense Of “The Gathering Media Edition 3rd August 2017” Hosted At CTICC

Last week I attended the publicised Daily Maverick “Gupta leaks” presentation. As in the case of the preceding event that failed to take off in Braamfontein last week I had gone representing the Inkuleleko Foundation whom I consciously associate with for its core values and its principled publicised mandate. I went to understand, engage and make sense of what we are pummelled with daily in snippets of salacious news advantage tit bits. I wanted to ask some questions and engage this section of the media that considers itself the anointed non-propaganda based pristine Fourth Estate.

Well we arrived and at the entrance to the actual venue room security guards were deployed. Clearly this event was not going to be derailed by the BLF or anyone the organisers identified as a threat – real or fake. At the security check-in some BLF members led by its leader Andile Mngxitama were present and although they, like all of us, paid to attend this R1800.00 per delegate event were refused entry.

The BLF was not the only denied entrance. We can confirm the vice chairperson of the Inkuleleko Foundation, Lulamile Jack, despite paying for flights, renting of a car and registration, was also refused entry. I suspect his Inkuleleko Foundation baseball cap was the reason he was denied entry. The event had as one of the sponsors Nando’s. It is clear after the embarrassment Gordhan and Jonas suffered at the UJ event; the organisers realized the event could be derailed only by those who would be inside the venue. Hence, they took much more precaution.

Inside it became quickly evident as with the Braamfontein event that these events are weighted in favour, by as high as 70-75%, of what South Africa defines as whites. We are still not sure what the overarching aims of these events are beyond a gathering some may rightly consider a talk-shop where the public is yet to be afforded the opportunity to speak or engage the panellists.

The programme was made up of an assortment of panels with a 60/40 distribution of white and black identities. The venue was jam-packed. First to kick off was the panel moderated by Bruce Whitfield where he had Sipho Pityana, the face and mouthpiece of the Save SA, Mike Abel, business matriarch Wendy Applebaum and Styli Charalambous, the Nando’s king.

This panel essentially attempted to look at what the role of capital is and should be in support of the media. Let me qualify media. Media in this sense means those present at “the gathering” and excludes what they colloquially define as Gupta Media, meaning ANN7 and New Age. Needless to say, the latter – after being denied entry – became the soft target and laughing stock of this gathering. We also were entertained to comment on the Independent Media of Iqbal Surve, whom it was claimed were invited but did not come. Not missing a chance and opportunity to poke fun at what is generally in this group accepted as propaganda media, Pityana wasted no time to promote the upcoming week’s key events, the August 8 vote of no-confidence marches.

This session was followed by a presentation of the press ombudsman Joe Tloloe. The truth is an aging Bra Joe, besides starting a nice story on his previous arrest, said nothing more than to defend his personal job. He took his aim at the ANC government which he identifies as the problem. The press ombudsman said nothing in challenge to this crowd, but came to uncritically endorse them. He attempted no counsel, neither solicited or attempted any intruding questions on the challenges of self-regulation, thus he failed to make the case for a self-critical media.

I thought the Ombudsman would ask the gathering ‘how can you claim to be independent when you have denied others of your sector access to this gathering?’ I figured the press ombudsman would throw a stone into the bush of a self-righteous media present to ask how independent they are from capital’s true influence? Well none of that surfaced or was remotely on the radar of Ombudsman Tloloe. He gave them a true endorsed free pass, therefore robbing our discourse from what it perhaps need as honest input from his venerated office.

Next up was Mark Heywood and Jay Naidoo, moderated by Xolani Gwala. This combination of former trade unionists didn’t help the debate at all. Their own glaring contradictions stand paramount and if I am correct Naidoo was not well received, not sure if he had the wrong mind or presentation for the day. In some circles, the man dubbed super wealthy ‘Dalai Lama’ of democracy spares no opportunity to tell all-and-sunder about his work on some farms in the Northern Cape. Thus, Naidoo was not going to be critical of the gathering in attempt of objectivity. He failed to engage even what they brought him for. Mark Heywood is Mark Heywood. He was not the bodyguard and doorkeeper he was at the Braamfontein event. On this day he was a panellist where his opinions fitted perfectly into this space because the media present here made up a section of the politics of Heywood.

In between breaks and standing in groups of those one may know, we had occasion to briefly chat with among others Mcebisi Jonas, also on the programme with his former boss Pravin Gordhan, and many others like Ferial Haffajee, also a panellist on the fake news and media sustainability slot.

I took time to engage some new acquaintances from the media space and found a number of Cape-based young black journalists just as lost on the motives and programme of this gathering. Another panellist was Sam Mkokeli. He reiterated the general mood of the gathering, when he labelled ANN7 and New Age as fake news outlets that must be stopped and suggested independent media the appropriate way forward. The challenge with Mkokeli’s conclusion is that he, like so many at this gathering, is yet to explain this independence which they in convenience and almost arrogance parade.

Beyond lunch it became clear that questioning the panels was not part of this gathering, it was neatly crafted to ensure that the agenda of the day was attained and not what is considered true public participation.
We came to hear the Fourth Estate of SA in self-righteousness lamenting the threats of an intruding ANC that wants to regulate them. The gathered engaged an ANC that it sees as useless in all its facets of governance, yet a government that must consider sponsoring the Fourth Estate. The next panel was made up of Jackson Mthembu (Chief whip of the ANC), Phumzile Van Damme (Communications Member for the DA) and Mbuyiseni Ndlozi of the EFF. I enjoyed Ndlozi he in his gifted sense of articulation registered sensible and salient points.

Yet, Jackson Mthembu was driven into an unnecessary corner to admit (which we all know is a sophism) that he does not watch ANN7 of read the The New Age. I fail to understand why Mthembu, as communications specialist, could not easily deflect this subject by saying as a South African I read and watch all news because I don’t have to agree with it but must hear them for they have a following. Mthembu was made to look lethargic by the younger and more agile Van Damme and sensible Ndlozi. Ndlozi had the presence of mind and courage of conviction to tell the gathering they warrant self-introspection, something not a single other panellist had the presence of mind or the honesty of heart to attempt. Ndlozi told them it is white monopoly capital, even venturing to say Thabo Mbeki would agree. So, for the day Ndlozi for me was the one that made my trip perhaps worthwhile.

The real reasons for the gathering as per the programme was going to start between16h30 – 18h30pm, with the last two slots dubbed respectively ‘#GuptaLeaks’ and ‘Joining the dots: Media and Dirty Tricks campaigns.’

The #GuptaLeaks panel was completely white: Sam Sole Stefaans Brummer, Adrian Basson and Richard Poplack. Let us not be overtly race conscious a counter argument could easily be made that they broke the story, hence them leading it.

Before the last two panels sat, I had a chance to engage John Vlismas, somewhere at the back of the venue. Vlismas was also tasked to entertain us to some comedy. I enquired as to when there would be a chance to ask questions. Vlismas politely thanked me for the question and informed me the event was not organised to entertain any questions but really to come and listen to the panellists and those on the programme. I retorted, “how public in participation is the event if we are not afforded a chance to engage panellists but essentially are here to listen?” To that there was no real reply.

After this we as Inkuleleko Foundation delegates decided to leave the event, because we had already heard Gordhan and Jonas and thought it merely a political campaign unfolding. In the end, I concluded as I anticipated before going, the event was a political gathering hosted by the media. It is certainly part of the campaign that leads us into Tuesday August 8, 2017.

It was hardly an attempt at true self-introspection of the self-righteous media; it denied ANN7 and The New Age legitimate and active members with undeniable following in the SA citizenry an equal opportunity that they afforded themselves. Somewhere during one of the breaks I remarked to Stephen Groottes from 702 and Primedia, this gathering is toxic for its self-righteous attitude, and there was no humility present or any appreciation for the ambiguity of those gathered. Particularly for denying their opposition access, the gathering confirmed its own compromised state. I asked him how different a 403 ENCA is to a 405 ANN7, which he clearly had a different view on. I enquired as to how 403 is accepted as objective and devoid of propaganda, when ANN7 is naturally accepted as bias. Groottes indicated he had to go.

I left the gathering with my few questions, key of those:

What an independent media presents?
As to what independence means, independent from what and in relation to what?
Is it independent from Government (the natural demon as led by the ANC)?
How independent can media be when capital owns media in some instances in stark confirmation of white monopoly capital?
How critical can media be when it is depending on capital for its livelihood-advertising and sponsoring of these events?
How independent can media houses be about their owners in honest reporting?

Sam Sole said on 702, the day after the Braamfontein event, that the so-called Gupta emails were obtained when two whistle-blowers approached them. Collecting a trove of emails is no small feat:
Who then qualifies to be hacked?
Will we for example also have access to emails delivered by whistle-blowers, of every president, minister, deputy minister or politician’ s emails since they assumed public office?
What will amaBhungane and Scorpio do when files stolen from the offices of the CJ of the CC and Hawks respectively surface at its doorstep? What would be the applied ethics to engage that information, which it can be accepted will eventually be publicised?
May we ask Jonas as panellist why we have to believe his version, since he like so many stood accused not just once on corruption?
Why is he silent on some nagging questions on the PIC, which he chaired?
Why no one in this section of self-righteous media find it odd not to engage Gordhan on the Treasury Internal Audit report that is public for more than sixty days?

Yes, you may assume I have too many questions. You are right, I have a ton more, but these events will not allow some of us to raise them despite our willingness to hear them, they just do not want hear some of us.

The 26+ who voted against the ANC line betrayed being a cadre!

A cohort of opposition in the SA Parliament brought its eighth motion of no-confidence in President Jacob Zuma. The Speaker is afforded by the constitution and the subsequent Constitutional Court ruling the power to choose a secret ballot, which is what transpired. The result of the motion confirmed 384 members of parliament in attendance on the day, 198 votes against, 177 votes for the motion, and 9 votes abstaining.

 
In the aftermath of the defeat of the motion many began to make interesting deductions and analysis informed by the calculus they prefer to use. The fact is the eighth motion failed despite the cited mystical numerology of the eighth motion on the eighth day of the eighth month – for those who read numbers as indicating a specific sign.

 
The ANC defeated the motion, but not without cause for grave concern. It became clear that at least 26+ ANC MPs decided to vote in favour of the motion, thus adhering to the opposition’s call for a “conscience vote”, though this can also be made out as cheap blackmail if not sheer tactics of intimidation.

 
It is perhaps important to begin to ask what does this result mean if the critical factor of an ANC Cadre is brought into play? The ANC is confronted with the undeniable reality to ask itself tough questions, one of them we attempt engaging in this musing centres on the type of cadre it may representing it in parliament.
It is then here that we must accept the ANC before 1994 and the ANC entrusted to lead in political office marks decisively distinct organisations regardless to how we from a romantic sense demand the opposite. The ANC before 1994 needed all and everyone to support or join it, because the liberation cause was for the emancipation of those oppressed. The ANC in political power as leader in democracy can afford to be more circumspect, forthright and picky as to whom it wants to accept as its member and afford the claim of its cadre.

 
The ANC has currently approximately 1-million members yet it is common knowledge the ANC is held in political power by the more than 11-million that gave it a mandate. It then must make natural sense to remonstrate is it possible that the ANC rethinks its criteria to give due consideration to include in deployment some of the 10-million that may not be members but have shown a deep sense of commitment in cadreship to the ANC?

 
It would then mean we must begin to unpack, how to interpret the behaviour of the 26+ Members of Parliament, so as to ascertain if their behaviour embodies that of a true ANC cadre?

 

 

In closing the 53rd ANC Conference held in Mangaung, President Zuma informed all that the Conference dedicated the next decade as the “decade of the cadre”. Clearly the conference saw a need to engage the subject of being a cadre as a cardinal aspect of giving effect to the values and mandate of the ANC as entrusted by the masses to lead SA. This resolution was not necessarily new and should neither be separated from the one issued by the ANC’s longest-serving President OR Tambo in the January 8 statement delivered in 1985.
President Tambo in his call for a year of the ANC cadre went further in warning of a treacherous path, in his own words a “path we traverse”, one “fraught with numerous dangers and hazards”. We may comfortably and consciously assume in both instances of the ANC leaderships of 1985 and 2012, a call for a year of the cadre proved sensitive for the challenges the ANC was confronted with given the shifting context of struggle.

 
Chris Maxon in his opinion piece in January 2013 asserts, “first and foremost the ANC has always been a movement of cadres. The criterion in this assertion is whether or not a cadre is resolute in carrying out the ANC line, keeps to ANC discipline, has close ties with the masses, has the ability to find his/her bearings independently, and is active, hardworking and unselfish. That is what has been imparted to people who wanted to become cadres of the movement.” I tend to agree with Maxon on this score.

 
One involuntarily thinks of the collective words Presidents Tambo and Zuma and that of Maxon, when one attempts to make sense of the result and the voting patterns of ANC members in Parliament in this vote of no-confidence. That resoluteness to carry out the ANC line and keeping the ANC discipline is especially challenged when we hear the chairperson of the NDC, Cadre Derek Hanekom attempt to justify not keeping the line and ANC discipline when he invokes the seniority of Members of Parliament. Meaning one’s seniority affords one to break with the party line and still be justified in one’s actions.

 
It is important to link these two presidential statements at this crucial time and in the aftermath of a very challenging few weeks. President Tambo warned of a ‘path we traverse fraught with dangers and hazards’. President Zuma announced the year of the ANC Cadre, yet in 2008 in addressing the Youth League, he explained ANC discipline as follows: “To us discipline is everything. It means that you must have a grasp and understanding of our theory of revolution and the ability to articulate its strategic objective, that of building a non-racial, non-sexist, democratic and prosperous society.

 

 

Discipline to the ANC means that we must learn to listen and respect the opinions of others whilst maintaining the fundamental principle of collective decision making and a respect for a culture of democratic centralism.”
In the aftermath of the defeated motion the DA buoyed by the support of the 26+ ANC parliamentarians shared its intentions to bring a motion to dissolve parliament. It therefore must be accepted that these ANC deployed ones placed the ANC in definite harm’s way of looing its entrusted right to govern thereby plausibly disrupting the implementation of critical policies and projects. The case can be made that their self-centeredness potentially jeopardised the ANC’s legitimate leadership of the society and the country could have been forced to an early election.

 

 
The heart of the ANC is best understood in those who are defined as ANC cadres. Have we this week seen that ‘path fraught with dangers and hazards’ in full manifestation? President Tambo reminds us who that cadre is with this apt summary: “Who are these revolutionary cadres about whom we speak? Where are they? They are not special people. It is we – men and women, young and old, black and white – who are involved in daily struggles, making sacrifices in pursuit of the people’s cause. It is we, the workers in the factories, the mines, the farms, the commercial establishments and offices of various kinds; we, who work in health and educational services as well as those of us occupied within the residential areas.” Have we not this week lived through the defiance of that culture of democratic centralism by ANC cadres?

 

 
To join the ANC remains a personal and voluntary decision. By one’s own volition a membership form is completed, a small fee paid and a membership card issued. Yet to become a cadre of the ANC one signs up to a life of loyalty to the organisation, its values, constitution, its philosophy, ethos, democratically elected leadership and culture of governance immanent in centralised democracy. One signs up to have an opinion, which the Movement values and needs, yet one signs up for a contestation of views in designated and duly afforded spaces, to persuade others and to equally be open for persuasion. Signing up to be a cadre is to recognise and respect the party leadership, its structures and to adhere to party lines when directed.

 

 

One therefore signs up to learn and to teach, where your age whilst respected, does not automatically translate to a rightful claim of authenticity of cadreship, instead one’s conduct.
In light of this summary of what makes a cadre, we are compelled to ask: are the 26+ that decided to reject the party line, and acted out in ill-discipline prior to and during the actual vote acting out this cadreship or were they acting as members?

 
Let us then attempt to appreciate one of the adopted and sacrosanct blueprints on ANC Leadership immanent in title of the ‘Eye of the Needle’. In its preamble and rationale, as third aspect asks the following challenging questions: “How do we deal with individual ambition, lobbying, promotion of friends and pursuit of selfish interests? How do we ensure that electoral processes do not tear the movement apart? How do we prevent attempts to use the movement as a step ladder towards self-enrichment?”
How do we deal with individual ambition, lobbying, promotion of friends and pursuit of self-interest?

 

 

We must ask those who decided to risk the ANC in legitimate power with their individual and group conscious break away from and disrespect for leadership direction, did you not with this so called ‘conscience’ vote place your personal ambition, yielded to opposition lobbying (tactics and strategy) as paramount? Were they not in pursuit of self-interest, when they dared to risk exposing the ANC because they can? Were they not parading a self-centeredness in their respective media interviews?

 
The 34th aspect of the Eye of the Needle, poignantly outlines as broad requirement of leadership the following: “An ANC leader should understand ANC policy and be able to apply it under all conditions in which she finds herself. This includes an appreciation, from the NDR standpoint, of the country and the world we live in, of the balance of forces, and of how continually to change this balance in favour of the motive forces of change.”

 
Clearly those in parliament constitute beyond doubt ANC leadership to the legislative dimension of our democracy, hence we dare ask of them how was the national democratic revolution served with their choice against the ANC decision immanent in Luthuli House and its Caucus? How did ANC MPs who consciously decided to vote with the opposition read, interpret and understand the balance of forces at play in our political context that seeks to unseat the ANC in using its President as the door.

 
The 40th aspect of the Eye of the Needle binds ANC cadres to the following: “An individual with qualities of leadership does not seek to gain popularity by undermining those in positions of responsibility. Where such a member has a view on how to improve things or correct mistakes, she should state those views in constitutional structures and seek to win others to her own thinking. She should assist the movement as a whole to improve its work, and not stand aside to claim perfection out of inactivity.”

 

 

We are involuntarily compelled to ask from the cadres who chose to go with the opposition in the vote including those who chose to abstain, as to their individual and collective wisdom in consciously undermining those in positions of responsibility (the Secretary General) and their actions not to be interpreted as an attempt to be popular.

 

We must ask of them as to why they have not raised their views in the respective and designated constitutional structures. We equally have to ask from those who had the presence of mind to raise their views but were defeated in the ANC designated structures why they could not accept the defeat and continue to serve?

 

We warrant asking from those the ANC deployed how their individual and lobbied stance have helped the cause of the ANC when they absolve themselves in a sense of claimed perfection?

 
The ANC throughout its history, including during exile, afforded opportunity for even its soldiers to act in democracy, meaning there was a designated chance, time, and place for cadres to critique and self-critique leadership. The fundamental premise for this is the conviction that all critique must be constructive and it necessarily starts by first owning up to one’s conjoined role. We must ask where the 26+ fits into this self-critique and where they have owned up to their role? We must know how constructive their critique is when they absolve themselves and demonise others?

 

The 51st and 52nd aspects of the Eye of the Needle, warn against the role of media for ANC leaders: “Media focus on government and the ANC as a ruling party also means that individuals appointed into various positions are able to acquire a public profile in the course of their work. As such, over time, they become the visible members who would get nominated for leadership positions. This is a natural expression of confidence and helps to widen the base from which leaders are elected.

 

However, where such practice becomes the main and only criterion, hard-working individuals who do not enjoy such profile get overlooked. Artificial criteria such as acceptability to the media, eloquence specifically in English, and warped notions of “sophistication” are then imposed on the movement’s approach.”
We are thus compelled to inquire from the ANC deployed cadres to parliament that considered themselves distinct from the ANC and only mandated by the South African public in claim of the exacted oath as to why they allowed themselves to be hoodwinked by a media presence that works for a different agenda? The various captured incidents of media events that ANC cadres share with opposition tendencies as a means to enhance their personal political and public profiles warrants an explanation.

 

It is therefore imperative for the ANC to know from its deployed members as to why the ANC must trust them to continue to serve at the pleasure of the ANC when they can agree with the opposition and adhere to the proverbial general(s) of another army in a war situation. The fact that the ballot was secret does not naturally absolve those who voted with their crafted oppositional consciences, to answer the ANC and its leadership that deployed them. Equally it does not exempt the ANC to consider engaging its deployed, especially those who were vocal and taunted the ANC that they would vote with the conscience.

 
The ANC cadre is a cadre that has an ANC conscience, he / she is a cadre that places the ANC first and will not attempt to put the ANC in harm’s way because self interest, imagined or real, as the centre.
We ask again what type of cadre does the ANC have that can go to Parliament on an ANC mandate and decide to vote against the ANC in concert with the opposition under the guise of a ‘vote of conscience’. We must ask again who and what determined this ‘conscience vote’, does it mean the members never voted with their consciences before?

 
The ANC therefore must help us identify with it as to how it will respond to those who have placed their personal interest and popularity in defying the ANC discipline and line in this regard.
It is abundantly clear the organisational discipline President Zuma so eloquently reminded the Youth League about in 2008, in 2017 is not upheld by those who regard themselves as senior parliamentarians, as confirmed with their individual and group choices of defiance of the “fundamental principle of collective decision making and a respect for a culture of democratic centralism”.