I will not respond to Cde Maviyo’s confusion on the hat that he chose to respond to, because I also don’t subscribe to asking which hats people and comrades wear whenever I engage in the battle of ideas. (Ziwaphi Vol 10 No1)
If this were the approach, it would be difficult to engage with Cde Cyril Ramapahosa because he has a Marikana mine hat, a Sunday Times hat, a businessman hat, a deputy president of the country hat or a deputy of the ANC hat.
The battle of ideas is named as such precisely because it’s about ideas and not the hats. So Cde Maviyo must rest assured I will not engage him on the basis of being a Cuban medicine graduate, a family man, a former leader of the YCLSA or a respected people’s doctor, but I will focus on his IDEAS and his IDEAS only.
I have also chosen to ignore the allegations that I feared the Cat (Cde DD Mabuza) and went for the Rat’s jugular (Lucky Ndinisa), because my views on the political conduct of Cde DD Mabuza are not only well known but are also well documented and I would not use this space to recycle them.
Cde Maviyo’s characterisation of Cde Lucky as a Rat is an admission that the type of ANC that Cde Lucky is leaving behind is run by a vicious Cat that keep all the Rats on the run.
That’s not the ANC that Cde Lucky inherited in 2008.
Back then there was politics and we criticised Cde Thabang Makwetla, but he never victimised anyone. He was not feared, but he was respected.
Coming back to the real issue, why I singled out Cde Lucky Ndinisa?
First, in my first interview with him in 2008, I made a commitment that we’d assess him on the four promises that he made.
I have fulfilled that promise and the question is whether he did fulfill his.
Did he over-promise? That’s not my problem, but this does not seem to be an issue that Cde Maviyo is questioning either.
I’ve picked up six main issues from Cde Maviyo’s intervention:
1. Where was the collective when the shenanigans against comrades Collen and Shirley were being committed?
2. Cde Lucky must remain unemployed.
3. Cde Lucky is moneyed and corrupt.
4. All other “senior” comrades had been rewarded but nobody said anything about that.
5. The characterisation of the left through insults to Cde DD
6. Lack of support from the ANCYL, ANCWL, SACP and COSATU
The rest of the input focuses on issues which Cde Maviyo would have loved me to interact with. I will not delve into those, because even though they need to be unpacked, they were not the purpose of my article in the first place.
To help us focus, I’ve summed up Cde Maviyo’s response into one main issue:
Cde Lucky was not an individual, but part of a collective. His failures were those of the entire collective, these include the SACP, ANCWL, ANCYL and COSATU, and may I add, SANCO and the entire mass democratic movement.
On the contrary, Cde Lucky was not an ordinary leader of the ANC, he was the Provincial Secretary of the ANC, and this is what Rule 17.3.3 of the ANC constitution states: “The Provincial Secretary shall be the full-time functionary of the organisation.”
Now there’s a reason why the constitution says that out of all the 35 PEC members, only one – the Provincial Secretary – shall be a full-time functionary of the organisation.
It’s for this reason that others call that position – the engine of the organisation, meaning that all the responsibilities of the PEC rests on his/ her shoulders as a full-time functionary.
Among others, the ANC constitution – states that the ANC shall establish departments and committees which report to the SG and the PS, not the President and the Provincial Chairperson.
These are serious responsibilities, but our organisation felt it wise to entrust them on one individual.
In the democratic movement, we characterise an individual as a sum total of his/ her social relations, and that his or her personality develops in proportion to the intensity and extent to which he/ she pursues these relations.
These relations impact on the individual just as the individual impacts on them.
My conclusion has been that the manner in which Cde Lucky interacted with these relations, they impacted heavily on him than he impacted on them.
Hence the question – was he an agent for change or he allowed the new tendencies to change him to be worse off than when he assumed the position of PS?
Let’s take, as an example, the late President-General of the ANC, OR Tambo, if he had adopted the Lucky Ndinisa approach to politics, namely, choosing to allow the social relations to impact on him than the other way round.
What would have happened of the liberation movement?
Cde Lucky could have chosen to be another Cat or a Dog to put the Cat on the straight and the narrow, but no he chose to be a Rat that was always on the run.
That’s what distinguish genuine comrades from sell outs.
Now using the same argument – if Cde Lucky’s conduct since being the PS had to be evaluated, would he have been characterised as OR Tambo or as Gatsha Buthelezi?
Did Cde Lucky confront the foreign tendencies or he embraced and internalised them?
On the issue of political support, every time the left (SACP) took a particular stance on the issues confronting the liberation movement, he was always in the forefront of defending an individual called DD.
I have attended more media conferences where he was defending an individual than outlining the programme of the movement. In fact in his entire two terms, he has never convened a conference to outline the ANC’s Strategy and Tactics, and as a member of the ANC, you know that any leader that cannot articulate the S&T is not fit to lead anywhere.
Cde Lucky behaved as though the Cat was the Alpha and Omega, whereas in Marxist philosophy we believe that the only thing that does not change is change itself.
In his own words, Cde Lucky believed that the ANC was the political centre. Now as the “centre” (PS) of a political centre (ANC), what was stopping him from convening the Alliance and the MDM formations of less than 100 comrades on a common programme, but was able to convene a provincial general council of more than 1400 people whose only item on the agenda was to pronounce on the election for a third term of just one individual?
Cde Ndinisa was the custodian of the ANC constitution.
If his predecessors turned a blind eye to Ngrayi’s National Party tendencies, what political justification was there for Cde Lucky to fail to act?
If we were to use Cde Maviyo’s line of thinking, then Cde OR Tambo would have been justified to say ‘my predecessors did nothing about the apartheid regime, therefore I’m also going to choose to be a Rat and succumb and declare that the apartheid army is too powerful to be defeated.’
OR chose to be a lion when the apartheid regime was a jackal.
What prevented Cde Lucky from mobilising his fellow Rats against an unruly Cat?
Why he chose to be a puppet Rat instead?
I do not wish for Cde Lucky to be unemployed – it’s the last thing I will wish even for my worst enemy.
If he has the qualifications and passes an independent interview, then he deserves to get the job.
No individual has a right to deny anyone any opportunity, particularly in government, because government is not anyone’s private firm.
Yes, for now, we have some individuals who behave as though it’s their private property, where people are forced to camp outside the gates of politicians houses just to get a job, or where others the only qualification they need is to sing praises to a politician and raise three fingers.
These are tendencies that must be defeated, they are not insults.
It’s a fallacy, therefore for Cde Maviyo to characterise our Party’s programme as insulting Cde DD.
The current phase of our Party’s struggle is founded on Marxist philosophy of the negation of the negation and it is aimed at defeating these new counter-revolutionary tendencies which are not only foreign to the movement but are aimed at annihilating the NDR.
The ANC has the Strategy and Tactics as its guideline for the current phase of the National Democratic Revolution.
As long as the ANC’s S&T has no chapter that talks about the philosophy of “Grass Eating” and the most recent “The Cat chasing the Rats” – the struggle continues.
These are not only foreign to the democratic movement, but they’re counter revolutionary, hence our Party has escalated from the struggle and unity of the opposites to the negation of the negation for the current phase of the NDR.
To characterise the current phase as “insulting Cde DD” is not only trivialising a Marxist philosophy, but amounts to denialism that our movement has to change and change quickly before it’s too late.
The agitation will continue, because for us it’s victory or death!