STEVEN FRIEDMAN: SACP will stay in the ANC as long as it has a seat at the decision-making table

Will the SACP become an important, independent, force in this country’s politics? Possibly, but not now. Excitement at claims that the SACP, at its conference last week, decided to contest elections on its own, exposed a flaw in much political coverage here: an almost total lack of memory.


The party actually resolved to fight elections on its own in 2007. Its decision last week simply repeated that — and hedged it with enough "ifs and buts" to ensure that it is no more likely now to contest elections on its own than when it passed the last resolution a decade ago.

Will the SACP become an important, independent, force in this country’s politics? Possibly, but not now.

Excitement at claims that the SACP, at its conference last week, decided to contest elections on its own, exposed a flaw in much political coverage here: an almost total lack of memory. The party actually resolved to fight elections on its own in 2007. Its decision last week simply repeated that — and hedged it with enough "ifs and buts" to ensure that it is no more likely now to contest elections on its own than when it passed the last resolution a decade ago.

It suits the SACP’s leadership to claim that this is an important change because they hope it will influence the battle within the ANC by signalling that a victory for its patronage faction, which the SACP opposes, could force it to go its own way.

This means that the threat to contest elections is not really about seeking independence. It is about doing what the SACP has done for decades — remaining within the ANC and trying to influence its leadership battles. And, as in the past, it is likely to remain in the ANC as long as it has a seat at the decision-making table even if, as in the past, it has little influence over policy. If contesting elections on its own gets in the way of that, it will not do it.

This is so, despite the fact that deciding to fight elections on its own would not be as dramatic as we are led to believe because the SACP could stay in its alliance with the ANC if it chose this course.

The alliance in its current form is highly unusual. In other democracies, parties that are allies fight elections separately and then work together afterwards. They may make sure that they do not compete for votes, but they do fight the election in their own name and so the senior partner is the one that wins more votes, not the one anointed by party officials.

Here, SACP members run for office on the ANC ticket so we have no idea how much support it really enjoys among ANC voters. If this changed, voters, not politicians, would be able to decide how strong a role the SACP plays in politics. But, because this would reduce the control of ANC and SACP officials, they avoid it, whatever congress resolutions might say.

Given all this, it seems logical to write off the SACP as a force for change. That would be a mistake.

Current SACP leaders may see the threat to contest elections purely as a lever in ANC politics. But they face growing demands within the party for a different approach — from the start of the conference, delegates were eager that the party should agree to contest elections.

Nor do claims that the SACP is dead make sense when we consider that its membership was, at the last count, heading for 250,000 and has increased four-fold over the past 10 years.

The membership spike is a result of an influx of young people into the party. SACP leaders claim that the new members are attracted by the campaigns it has organised. But there have been no noteworthy campaigns for a few years and those it did run in the past were muted — it is hard to see why they should have attracted many people. So the other explanation offered by SACP leaders is more credible: that the new members are ANC supporters unhappy with what they see as corruption in the governing party who want the SACP to become a vehicle to campaign for change.

It is, in the main, these young members who are pushing the SACP leadership to agree that it should fight elections on its own. There is a generational split in the party between older leaders and newer ones who want a very different sort of SACP, whose influence depends on the votes it can attract. It seems likely that this view will prevail when the current generation of leaders moves on and that the SACP could then become a voice — within or outside the ANC alliance — which relies on voter support for its influence.

It seems logical to write off the SACP as a force for change. That would be a mistake

It is unclear what this new SACP would stand for: it might be a more coherent left-wing voice but, since many of the new members are said to be more interested in cleaning up the ANC than in moving left, it could become a voice for a more ethical and democratic political leadership. It is unlikely to win anything like the support needed to govern but, if its membership surge is a guide, could become an important voice in this country’s politics.

The "decision" that caused the stir showed that the SACP was still too wedded to the past to be a strong force for change. The rise of a new generation of member suggests that the current leadership’s view is on its way out and that a new SACP may offer a new voice in our politics.

• Friedman is research professor in the University of Johannesburg’s humanities faculty.