State capture, corruption and mismanagement have happened partly because of misplaced race, struggle and party solidarity.
The ANC is guided by democratic centralism, where every member has to obey central decisions and where leaders vet even the lowest-level appointments. These are among the reasons why corruption flourished in a system where everyone must support the party leadership, no matter whether it is wrong, incompetent or corrupt. “Deployment” to government or to the private sector is based on loyalty and struggle “credentials”, rather than ability and competence.
There is the belief that the party laws are above those of the country, even above individual conscience. Many ANC members and supporters would rather follow the party line. They uncritically support party leaders. When corruption is exposed, the party faithful close ranks.
In a centralised party system, a small group can capture the party and wield power over life, careers and public resources. Jacob Zuma and a small group of allies took control of the ANC this way. A small group of Zuma-ites captured parliament, democratic oversight institutions and the police, prosecuting and intelligence agencies by appointing their allies to positions of authority. Members and supporters of the ANC, SACP and Cosatu kept quiet because of a misguided loyalty and discipline, and because of black and struggle solidarity.
They made centralised decisions that were accepted as edicts. They appointed loyalists to every level of party and government. They were uncritically supported by the rank and file, under the rubric of loyalty.
Many ANC supporters often still back leaders, issues and policies almost exclusively on the basis of race
Many ANC supporters often still back leaders, issues and policies almost exclusively on the basis of race. US scholar of race Cornel West, in a different setting, warned about reducing every issue to “racial reasoning”. When an individual is corrupt, all one has to do is to claim racism, and people will rally emotionally to that person. Misplaced black solidarity often demands closing ranks behind dubious personalities.
If a white person rightly criticises a corrupt black person, the corrupt person is embraced. Misplaced struggle solidarity has the same effect. If a non-ANC person, or an opposition party member or supporter criticises a corrupt ANC leader, the corrupt ANC leader is protected. If a black person is doing the criticism, he or she is a “puppet” of whites or “white monopoly capital” and “selling out” their race.
Black victimhood also encourages corruption. It appears that almost every wrong government decision, failure and poor policy made by current leaders is blamed on apartheid, colonialism or conspiracies by the white elite or hostile Western countries.
It is true that the enduring consequences of slavery, colonialism and apartheid have stunted the development of SA. The global political, trade and institutional architecture and rules are also loaded in favour of industrial countries and against African and other developing countries.
In SA this has taken the form of blaming “white monopoly capital”, the shorthand for foreign companies, local white-owned companies and global markets. Of course markets must be deracialised, the creation of black businesses must be promoted and black talent must be nurtured. But can every poorly thought-out decision, lack of service delivery and corruption be blamed on colonialism, apartheid and white-minority rule or “white monopoly capital”?
When do people take responsibility or be held accountable?
When do people take responsibility or be held accountable?
Zuma built a R240m mansion while his supporters lived in squalor. Zuma blamed it on “white monopoly capital” and Western “imperialists”, meaning former colonial powers who supposedly wanted to destabilise his presidency.
Black leaders in government and the private sector are increasingly using colonialism, apartheid and Western “imperialism” to cover their incompetence, mismanagement and corruption. Many African leaders and governments have cynically promoted the idea of Africans being victims.
This easy option numbs creative thinking. It means that leaders and governments can shirk their responsibilities to voters. It has also made it difficult to hold leaders and governments accountable for wrongdoing, lack of delivery and corruption. According to West, the black freedom struggle should be understood “not as an affair of skin pigmentation and racial phenotype but rather as a matter of ethical principles and wise politics”.
• Gumede is associate professor, School of Governance, University of the Witwatersrand and author of South Africa in BRICS (Tafelberg). Peter Bruce will be back next week
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.