Does an unholy chord of three strands afford Johann Rupert his arrogance if not indolence?

 

– layers of BLACK ELITISTS, ( ANC politically  connected shareholders, Civil society /Clergy, Academics and ANC presidential contestants,) gives Rupert’s claim credence-

 

Qoheleth, in the twelfth verse of the fourth chapter of Ecclesiastes a wisdom literature book in the Holy Writ reminds us: “Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A chord of three strands is not easily broken.” I thought of thought of this archaic though Sacred Text, as I began to crystallize the reasons for a Johann Rupert’s arrogance.

 

The South African political plateau confirms a make belief shifting reality, yet the role of capital protests no shaking at all- it defies any tremors. In order to fully appreciate the articulation of a Rupert we must first appreciate the actual control of apartheid and colonial beneficiaries have over the SA economy. The signpost of that constituency is none but one just Johann Rupert the face of apartheid wealth and the embodiment of a successful racist regime, which always had capitalism as its jet fuel and end game.

 

I paused and thought as to why Johann Rupert can be so arrogant if not indolent to engage the true issues that challenge transformation. Rupert out of his fundamental control of whatever defines SA in economic sense ventured to define the ANC led Government policy of Radical Economic Transformation by an insulting and dismissive “a code word for theft” With this five word conclusive definition Rupert spat on policy which represents the hope of the masses of blacks still at the station to also experience true empowerment. He tells blacks you have no hope at a future, unto you was not given the right to challenge the status quo of economic control, you lack the wherewithal to engender productive and truly empowerment capacity for at the core of your policy is a corruption, the aorta of your claim on empowerment is looting.

 

It all makes sense when you realize that the 1994 Consensus has come full circle, the famous sunset clause and less said Brenthurst agreements that protected white apartheid and colonial benefit, has made more whites wealthy and quadrupled white wealth in democracy.

 

Current, Department of Trade and Industry endorsed statistics tell us that 23% of all companies on the JSE are black-owned. That figure is also to be understood in real 13% and 10% in diverse forms of black identity. We also know that a paltry 3% of SA’s economy is truly black-owned, according to DTI.

 

A closer look at other stats on senior management index leads us to conclude that after 23 years of democracy and despite all the progressive policies, i.e. affirmative action, employment equity act, etc., implemented by the ANC led government currently a mere 21% makes up the top executive leadership teams of SA’s top 40 companies and the number of black CEOs running JSE-listed companies has dropped from 15% in 2014 to only 10% in 2015. The last statistic confirms instead of growth undeniable regress of a significant 5% meaning the battle on transforming the SA economy is not won.

 

Recently Minister Edna Molewa, Minister of Environmental Affairs, in sea of unnerving silence on the part of many black elitists became the second senior ANC politician after ANC presidential contender Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma to take Rupert’s arrogance head on. She described Rupert as a ‘beneficiary of the largesse of the interventionist apartheid state’. She continued to attribute the ‘stellar fortunes of his late father’, to that which Dan O’Meara described as ‘volkskapitalisme’. Her application of O’ Meara’s ‘volkskapitalisme’ reads as follow, ‘By means of volkskapitalisme, the racist Nationalist Party government leveraged state power and state assets such as state-owned banks to buoy Afrikaner businesses and turn them into the corporate behemoths of today.’

 

Molewa therefore makes a pertinent analysis and assessment, on the contradiction and mindset of Johann Rupert and his ilk, that we may surmise suffer of selective amnesia as to how the State under apartheid was used to advance and develop the fallacy of an Afrikaner nationality and nationhood.

 

Theresa Oakley Smith managing director of Diversi-T, during May 2017, in referring to recent labour statistics by the South African Labour Force, asserts “ In terms of recruitment white men make up 42,10% of that 100%. African men make up 17.9%…’ According Oakley Smith, ‘White men received 38.8 % of the promotions last year, white women 16 percent, African men 14%, in spite of employment equity….’ Oakley Smith continues to assert, “There is a very good opportunity for white men to seek out other white men, and in the business environment for example if somebody comes in for an interview, the white man walks in and there is already an assumption that he can do the job.”

 

It is here that Molewa correctly concludes in asserting that we must ask questions on the role of the private sector in levelling the playing field from an economic perspective, and whether it has, in fact, “come to the party”.

 

Appreciating the historical trajectory of a system that debased the masses of South Africans in blackness of second class citizenship combined with the glaring anomalies of what democracy means and has come to stand for in economic expression as no dissimilar to the historical apartheid reality, it is difficult not to concur with Molewa and to hear Oakley Smith that questions must be asked to the private sector. I therefore concur that we must ask questions, yet I want to spread the net wider than the race and gender as the two strands that defines white monopoly and ultimately Ruperts polluted air for a definition of radical economic transformation in the face of private sector understood in its monopolized white male and pale identity configuration.

 

Closer analysis dictates that for both Molewa and Oakley Smith, the arrogance of a Rupert is based on two fundamental issues which Molewa identifies with the enterprise of race as the vortex and the epicentre of a ever pervasive reality and fulcrum apartheid ideology which some conveniently assume is gone. When we protest it may be gone in statutory institutional form, we cannot but concede it stands in structural definition sense. Oakley Smith goes a step further than the reality of race, and puts another layer which rings the bells on the gender issue of a superior white male identity still ruling the economic world of a SA.

 

In that same tradition of unpacking the strands that holds a Rupert in power and confirms his brutish arrogance, I wish to postulate another strand of black elitist immanent of varied which in this season makes up the not easily broken chord we read about earlier. Therefore, another component to the conclusions drawn by Molewa and Oakley Smith on the comfort of business as usual attitude in agreeing as to the veracity and impending need to ask questions from colonial and apartheid beneficiary worlds is the black elitist.

 

I will therefore advance that perhaps the major reason why Rupert is this arrogant is due to the role and salience of the ANC advanced black elitist in their respective spheres attesting a set of layers. It is thus my assertion that if white male pale dominates the SA economy in monopolized sense as aided by a constitutional democracy the economic landscape and outlook of SA, it derives its legitimacy from this third strand, less from the advanced race and gender reality, which features in ontological sense strongly.

 

The prevailing disparity of white male control and monopolizing of our SA economy is directly translating to the salience of a silent empowered black constituency. The arrogance is hatched on the complicit role and not devoid of what attests a convenient silent empowered strand made up of intertwined and interdependent layers cohort immanent in black political, economic academic, civil society including faith leadership empowered elitists.

 

 

Black politically connected ‘shareholders’ layer:

 

This four-layered third strand of the chord of intertwined and interdependent configured black empowered elitists share an unholy alliance with apartheid white male and pale economic dominance and control as well as monopoly.

 

Since 1994 and with every aspect of BEE later BBEEE a crop of blacks who essentially shared a political affinity and proximity with political leadership have been empowered. We must accept that it remains the ANC intent to continue developing a middle class. Beyond this aim, which the ANC to some degrees has achieved, is a group of economically advantaged superior to other blacks group. You will recall how Tokyo Sexwale once conceded when they opted to be deployed economically, they had never a clue how wealthy they would become.

 

This group of super advantaged and wealthy black elitists granted made their money from ANC blessing and white pressurized favour in a network BEE deals that had good bad and ugly outcomes, yet never left whites poorer, but always more empowered. This groups regardless to how defined simply have no voice against the white capital that it is enmeshed in and often is used as an unleashed weapon to ring moral bells. We can think of the Jay Naidoo’s of the our world who have in singularity of purpose attempted being a conscience to the ANC led state, when he is awkwardly silent on the disparities that perpetuates the nightmare of apartheid entrenched economic dominance by the very white identities.

 

We even have some like Trevor Manuel who today categorically deny that white identity as having monopolized our economy. Matthews Phosa, Murphy Morobe, Valli Moosa, Popo Molefe, Frank Chikane, Cheryl Carolus etc, have former activists but today wealthy have a one dimensional morality that of wanting to lecture the current ANC leadership yet is comfortable with the decline in black executive leadership the anomalies of this democracy that keeps the masses enslaved to worship of a white identity.

 

Where is the discomfort of the activists the Financial Intelligence Centre, illicit financial flows cites a claims that SA lost around R60bn for the period of 2015-16 and that this figure is incrementally raising. Let us not forget the obvious capital gains enjoyed by local, mainly white shareholders. Why are these activists today shareholders in variety of white owned companies today silent on this and sees nothing wrong with that. Why this chameleon morality?

 

 

The Reconfigured Black modern civil society layer:

 

Another dimension of black elitist role is understood in those who makeup the modern civil society formations and faith stream leaders. These have a very interesting and chameleon morality where they in scripted sense seeks to red card for example the Guptas but have nothing to say about the abuse that continues in mining communities. Their advocacy has no appetite to challenge the economic disparities of our society they also have no desire to for challenge the attitude of Rupert. We not sure if their programmes and projects are also sponsored by the Ruperts?

 

We have seen the face of SAVE-SA Sipho Pityana leading this chameleon morality when he is consciously silent on the disparities of our economy in its manifested sense. This group includes also the reconfigured clergy identifiable in a hijacked SACC political agenda of seeking a president’s removal when it never can ask the uncomfortable questions from the white business that assist their foundations, programmes, and projects.

 

This chameleon morality that can be sharp to see the wrong of blacks in government and not that of whites in business is fast becoming our new reality. How does the bread price-fixing scandal of 2007 escape the wrath of the group of civil society and clergy not red card what Molewa: “that capital is not by nature altruistic, and that the country’s large monopolies have scant regard for the effects of their actions on those who are hardest hit by their relentless pursuit of profit. Why the silence on the data colluding monopolies?

 

Black Academics layer

 

The Latin phrase ‘Quis custodiet ipsos custodes’, as derived from found in the work of the Roman poet  Juvenal from his Satires is translated to mean who guard the guards.

 

In August of 2011, I penned a note analysing the Native Intellectual for his/her visible absence in political discourse. I cited that if they have any presence, it is fashionable in opposition politics formation. This means when they analyse it is in the interest of what I termed “white thinking” which proves pervasive in post apartheid context. My argument has matured to include all public intellectuals aka analysts. In South Africa today you are seen as lackey of Government if you share and attribute credit to the transformation paradigm manifested in the ANC led government, you are equally honoured and showered as an independent mind if you necessarily opposed to Post – 1994 political unfolding.

These and many other paradoxes leaves me wondering if we are not force fed a diet concocted by ‘imbedded analysis’ where analysts drink from the same cup of brotherhood in which they articulate in academic astuteness and pronounce in political bed rocked an analysis which sets the discourse of what we deem politics in SA.

I have already postulated in my earlier note, – The Crises of the Native Intellectual – “the challenge of Intellectualism is the proximity of its nuanced historic affinity to the concept and subject of elitism”. This notion has come full circle in South Africa and purports to be at variance with what should inform our public intellectuals experienced in written and oral expression.

In a later piece I critiqued the role of black leadership at former white tertiary institutions as having been absent in true transformation. I have postulated its role is best understood in the fact that South Africa’s black academics did not escape the captured nature of apartheid wealth. We know this because apartheids academic institutions played a pivotal role in its upkeep.

 

The academic institutions may today show a black face as Ramphele was at UCT, Njabulo or a Jonathan Jansen at UFS yet these while becoming experts on black errors of governance is yet to critique the apartheid appropriated systems of wealth, never outright challenging its benefactors to account. They therefore appear safe hands for the apartheid largesse benefactors. We must ask the black academics vocal on adjudicating the ANC led government in a one sided critique why they have no voice in engaging the statistics of an SA as confirming the monopoly by a white identity visible in arrogance of maleness. How is it they never ask pertinent questions from white business do they also attesting a chameleon academic morality?

 

If Rupert is therefore arrogant it is directly linked to the presence of the black elitists. There is unholy alliance of the black elitists to never challenge appropriated and now entrenched economic reality of South Africa in the face of growing black poverty as the recent statistics shows.

 

To therefore red card Rupert and his ilk in pure race and gender description is one part of our economic reality and dilemma. The other part, which equally confirms an anomaly of note, is connected to the black cohort of elitist; it does not end there.

 

Black ANC presidential contesting leaders layer:

 

A cardinal component of this unholy equation is and remains the role and salience of black ANC politicians particularly males. ANC led leaders are enmeshed in the ownership of our economy and their status as being a part of albeit insignificant in capital size sense but 100% in political sense.

 

You will recall until now people like Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, Treasurer General Zweli Mkhize, Secretary General Gwede Mantashe, Chairperson Baleka Mbete all contenders for ANC 2017 high office who is in the running to lead the ANC, until now have remained completely voiceless on this insult of Rupert on ANC policy. Many ANC contenders no different to the economic beneficiaries hide behind a statement released by the ANC spokesman. The glaring contradiction of the latter is confirmed when the same leaders despite Kodwa’s official statement on a Makhosi Khoza, or state capture for political reasons we must assume venture their own contradictory personal opinions. We do not hear the chairperson of the ANC Social Transformation Committee usually a vocal contributor Lindiwe Sisulu expressing her discomfort with Rupert’s statement or drawing attention to his arrogance originating out of a supreme race mindset. We don’t hear the discomfort of the monopolized construction cartels that in an unholy fashion could by and through corrupt means fix prices as they agreed to share the benefits of the development of infrastructure in the uprun to 2010 FIFA World Cup.

 

We must equally ask those same questions of those who define the horizon of black empowerment particularly those who today more and more are reincarnated as a solid apartheid defence economic bufferzone. Their silence and blind loyalty to those who made them from the Rupert and ilk stable in this season that lends legitimacy to the Rupert attitude.

 

If the executive management of JSE listed companies confirms a contraction and digress from 15- 10% it must be asked what was the contribution of the empowered blacks mainly males in this equation. Recently there was an uproar when Patrice Motsepe arguably the signpost black collective economic freedom launched his new bank and decided to appoint two white male and pale ones to lead. We can look at Ramaphosa’s Shanduka and we will quickly see this phenomenon repeats itself for more truly empowered black ones.

 

 

Rupert cannot help his arrogance, he grew up in a time when his father was the other power in a twin personality tussle of Afrikaner political power en route to a crafted Afrikaner nationalism and was offered the economic opportunity highway to make him go away, the same which saw him becoming head of an empire extended to Johann Rupert who in this democratic season exponentially continued to entrenched that apartheid reality.

 

In a large sense for Rupert nothing has changed from the day of his dad. Whites are still wealthy; they made even more money in democracy then under apartheid. Empowered blacks don’t challenge him because he had a hand in some of their wealth.

 

The land remains owned as always under apartheid, the governments changed in colour but the powerbase due to a 1994 consensus never altered anywhere or anyhow. Rupert’s wealth has quadrupled when blacks die of poverty with a black government. Rupert has captured elitists in the ANC and directs their prism of economic well being for SA. Rupert sponsors well heeled pseudo civil society formations. How can we expect of him not to be arrogant, it is business as usual. He has captured the black academics that have an opinion on black led government from a claimed high moral ground when it cannot remotely have the presence of mind or voice to red card this arrogance that confirms a despicable disparity in which the false white identity is still honoured.

 

Now when you introduce a new policy that says radical economic transformation and you start saying the fiscus will be used immanent in R500bn annualized procurement from the State, to ensure this is realized. When you start saying change is no more optional but sectors of the SA economy remains monopolized in definition of white identities of male and pale description. When you start dissecting sectors and industries and show the untransformed state of these, when you start saying there are five white families benefitting grossly from Eskom with 100 year contract in annualized billions despite he fact that we know the coal supplied to Eskom is not always of the quality these companies claim.

 

 

I hold one day in a distant future, when we are willing to let the black elitist fig leaf of our ambivalent morality fall, beyond our hype and classically conditioned minds on what patronage as is claimed of a Gupta economic fly is e may wake up appreciate this moment. Not patronage not as told by those who must thank O’ Meara’s ‘ volkskapitalisme’. Yes, beyond the white capital captured state of the majority of ANC leaders, black business leaders, black academics and black faith leaders, who despite knowing the truth in cheapness of political self-interest is wholly in concert as scripted by the very oppressors to have us focus in one dimensional sense on a black naturalized family of Guptas, perhaps economic flies in the face of apartheid tigers. Does it mean we must agree with the wrong the Guptas have done, where it can be proven, certainly no, it is the ambivalence of this chameleon morality we are classically conditioned to accept is not discomforting and alien.

 

We will then know that the Gupta’s opened our eyes as to how white males have captured our economy aided by a thin slice of empowered reconfigured black males, their spouses, families and friends immanent in the postulated strand chord made up of four intertwined and interdependent layers that speaks to black elitist group.

 

The words of Qoheleth rings more true today then ever before, a chord of three strands is not easily broken.

 

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

Political Commentator

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Unpacking SG Mantashe’s ANC presidential contest #HeritageDay Tweets!

Unpacking SG Mantashe’s ANC presidential contest #HeritageDay Tweets.
–Captured suspended between smooth transition, succession and the relevance of organisational democracy–

The upcoming ANC Presidential 2017 contest manifests in jolts of commentary, and personal opinions that often needs unpacking, especially when the Secretary General ventures a personal opinion in a very contested terrain and space.

Mantashe the ANC’s colourful SG, for the last decade, is one not easily silenced, and fears not expressing his opinion on diverse matters. We are told he is not in any race for number one or two spots and as rumour has it has set his eyes on chairpersonship of the ANC come December 2017. The SG of the ANC is a significant position therefore we pay attention to what the office bearer says regardless if it’s a personal comment or organisational. It usually is understood as an organisational position hence the social commentary volcano that erupted in response to his tweets.

Mantashe has overtime given us in a sense his personal running commentary of how he was approached by both leading contenders NDZ17 and CR17 and how he turned them both down.

This week, Mantashe chose Heritage Day to share with us another piece of his own mind on ANC presidential handover analysis and what the way forward may look like for December 2017. Let me therefore first defend Mantashe’s right to express his opinion it is acceptable in a democracy and in a democratic ANC.

Let us now turn to his now infamous tweets: “when Tambo handed over to Mandela, that was smooth. Mandela handed over to Mbeki. When Mbeki resisted, there was a crises (sic). If President Zuma recists (sic) to handover to Deputy President Ramaphosa, there will be a crises (sic). If that happens, there will be a crises (sic). He added his personal advice: “ if we elect Ramaphosa to be a president, let us have a woman Deputy President. That will be smooth. That is my personal advice # HeritageDay.”

While Mantashe must be afforded his opinion, the challenge is his personal opinion is construed and misconstrued as an organisational position because of the centrality of his senior position.
Mantashe’s comment stands in the forming thinking of some who prognosticate unity as only attainable in what he terms a smooth transition of succession.

This transition of succession for Mantashe is a deputy president automatically succeeding the incumbent.
The first challenge with this thinking is that it presupposes an idyllic reality and not a confirmed acknowledged polarized democratic ANC in 2017 with 8 candidates vying for number one spot. It appears those who advance this want to have their cake and it eat. They want a smooth transition of succession in a democratic context, which registers a glaring contradiction.

There are those who believe the ANC is now more a democratic organisation then in the Mandela era. A quick reflection of that era will confirm a form of pragmatism because the ANC was new to governing and the then emerging culture of standing back for another as Chris Hani showed with Mbeki in 1994, is assumed as culture and standard. Back then you could persuade a personality not to contest and thus what appears or is claimed today as culture in history of this past of Mbeki election was hardly a tradition but an accidental reality aided by the reality of its newness to governing.

What is indisputable is the ANC in 2017 attests a democratic organisation if there is one thing Zuma as president came to do is to let that democracy stand, whether by de-fault or intend, this may not be understood or acknowledge by all. Democracy dictates anyone can stand for elections and everyone therefore feels entitled to stand. The means and art of persuasion is not as simple in an entrenched democratic context in a post 2004 context. To therefore prove desirous of a smooth transition immanent in a hand over when you want democracy to stand is to ask for democracy not to stand. That’s the first error with Mantashe’s prism expressed as his personal view.

Secondly, Mantashe in his most recent tweet unequivocally tells us because Mbeki didn’t want to hand over a crisis emerged. Depending on ones polarised mind one may agree or disagree with this analysis, however the prism of Mantashe is this act of resistance on the part of Mbeki, constitutes the fundamental reason for a precedent that he envisages may repeat in 2017. This is not necessarily the gospel truth.

The third error Mantashe and those of the school of smooth transition makes is to disown the 2017 ANC election as having a number of particular and cardinal different dimensions than any before. The first new reality is the non-negotiable reality of a very strong woman candidate in NDZ. The second reality is that, that woman candidacy is a rival in a very close battle, and is not in the top six. This by itself alters the historical realities that for many have became the foothold claim of a practice and even asserted policy of a succession.

Mantashe’s fourth error is not acknowledging the stark reality of a different contest, since it is the first time in the ANC in democracy after Mandela that a sitting president upfront made it clear he will not run for a third term. Let us pause and reflect, when Mandela handed over to Mbeki the leading of government business in his second year of leading SA a situation evolved that saw Mbeki leading the government for the better part of Mandela’s term and his own two ensuing terms. At the end of his two terms as ANC president as afforded by the ANC constitution Mbeki was not ready to retire. He was nominated and opted to stand despite counsel. There was not anything constitutionally wrong for him to stand.

Mantashe therefore commits a glaring mistake of not factoring in the reality of the colossal differences between Mbeki’s (2007) and Zuma’s (2017) respective choices at the end of their respective ANC two terms. His analysis is therefore flawed, unless he knows something we don’t of a definite Zuma third term. We have it on record that Zuma is not contesting so he cannot be considered as one to hand over as was rightly expected from Mbeki.

To therefore claim, if President Zuma do not hand over we will have a crisis, is to compare dissimilar circumstances and choices. In my assessment President Zuma’s handover will be to accept the contest for a new president, and not to pave the way, or anoint his successor in claims of new ANC tradition. Thus President Zuma’s acknowledgment of candidates contesting for the position he will be vacating is his biggest confirmation of handover.

Mantashe in the fifth instance assumes a former President Mbeki standing in 2007 was incorrect, yet he does not explain why, because we cannot even argue former President Mbeki was wrong to stand at Polokwane because the constitution afforded him to stand for it prevents no one a third even a fourth term.
Mantashe’s sixth and plausibly gravest error is when he advises – if Ramaphosa is elected he must have a woman deputy president. This appears an innocent comment veiled in defence of a woman candidacy but it is laden with serious contradictions. The first is on the diaphragm of his now confirmed smooth transition dictum, he sees Ramaphosa naturally succeeding because Zuma must not resist handing over.

He then continues to assume the deputy president candidate whoever that may be must be a woman.
With this SG Mantashe attempts to craft his theory of succession in which we must assume the female therefore in 2022 will succeed the Deputy President Ramaphosa if he is not re-elected for a second term. This may make for logic if you are a smooth transition succession theorist who operates in an ANC of 1994, the ANC of 2017 as already advanced is markedly different, and democracy an entrenched reality, as the plethora of candidates confirm.

Mantashe is particularly careful if not dismissive not to accommodate a scenario of – if Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma is elected her deputy must be a male or female. It is interesting that Mantashe opts to be smooth transition succession captured immanent in an automatic handover, and not to let democracy count and stand in its own shadow in presidential elections. At one level this is also personal for Mantashe’s legacy to be remembered in the dying days of his decade in that position to have worked for unity. That unity has presidential succession as it anchored tenant and that succession is only possible in handover from a sitting president to his deputy.

I would want to believe that SG Mantashe did not remotely suggest or in veiled sense imply with his Zuma handover claims, the latter has the unilateral power to ask Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma to step aside to attain this smooth transition for Ramaphosa, when he suggested Zuma must hand over to Ramaphosa to avert a crisis. If this is what was meant he clearly falls into the precarious trap of denying NDZ her human agency, her democratic right to contest and therefore ignoring the branches and ANC structures that have already pronounced her as their preferred candidate. It may also be interpreted as bordering on typical male chauvinism.

We must therefore conclude Secretary General Mantashe’s personal analysis proves flawed because it is premised on four false notions, a claimed smooth transition is only interpreted in succession will confirmas organisational democracy. Mbeki should not have stood in 2007 at Polokwane; and he discounts the fact that Zuma in 2017 is not standing for a third term. Lastly a female candidate regardless to how real in 2017 can and should only deliver a deputy president in final role.

Mantashe will forgive us for seeing his own male chauvinism in claims of a woman candidate only fit to be deputy president in a season when some claim NDZ is the front runner and the candidate to beat. He will thus struggle not be read as saying the deputy president position is the male ANC offering to a loud female claim to lead.

Let us not forget Mantashe in paraphrased sense is on record to have said much earlier, the presence of a deputy cannot mean he is not fit, what would the purpose of a deputy be if he were not to succeed?
The challenge with this conclusion is its ambivalence for the post of deputy secretary general, why is Mantashe not extending that same logic to mature into saying we need no contest for the SG position because the fact that Deputy SG Jessie Duarte already serves naturally must translate to her readiness to succeed him as SG.

The one time when the SG advanced a position immanent in candidates he ventures to assume 2017 must only deliver a man still in charge with a woman as his deputy.

This thinking confuses and misdirects the undeniable reality of a rival contest between Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma and Cyril Ramaphosa. This contest is so real that if we accept, as before the pronouncements on candidacy by the Women, Youth and Veterans leagues of the ANC, NDZ is the contender to loose come December 2017.

Mantashe therefore invokes the order of a deputy president as sacrosanct and is perhaps conveniently oblivious to the choices of the recognised Leagues and to his possible surprise that of branches, who already have pronounced on their choice for number one candidacy. Are we to assume Mantashe does not respect the ANC structures and their respective choices?

To Mantashe we say the 2017 elections is therefore no ordinary contest given the reality of the candidates in leading and the ANC structures known choices, and the challenge of democracy as a practiced reality in the ANC. There has never been an ANC president that was not chosen or supported by the ANC structures. Are we to assume 2017 will be different and that the SACP and COSATU preferences will outweigh the ANC structures? From where this comfort of conviction?

Those who advocate for a non-contest and claims of farcical unity of smooth transition and handover claims, refuse to acknowledge the proverbial horse have bolted a long time ago. They refuse to acknowledge and see the two rivals in full bloom of contest for number one spot and nothing less and with due significant support.

May we remind those of the doctrine of third candidate alternate option of the 2016 Tshwane Municipal elections where branches and grassroots told the ANC to allow for a contest, and the ANC led by its provincial leaders opted for so called unity immanent in third neutral person, of Thoko Didiza which delivered an ANC loss while the divisions continue.

Clyde N.S Ramalaine
Political Commmentator
As published in ramalainetalkpoliticalanalysis.com September 25, 2017