In Pursuit of Unity and Cohesion

Govan Mbeki, the author of "The Peasant's Revolt", was a leading theoretician in the South African struggle as a member of the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party., a photo by Pan-African News Wire File Photos on Flickr.

In pursuit of unity and cohesion

Reprinted from Umrabulo
Theoretical Journal of the ANC

Unity and cohesion cannot be achieved in a revolutionary organisation unless cadres have an opportunity to freely express and constructively engage on differing views, writes Thando Ntlemeza.

One of the prominent quotations attributed to British Labour Party leader Arthur Henderson reads: "The forces that are driving mankind toward unity and peace are deep-seated and powerful. They are material and natural…"

Yet history shows that negative forces and tendencies which perpetuate disunity among the people and their institutions have been defining features of human relations in many parts of the world. Some people claim that this remains a reality. Roxanne Lalonde confirms this when she says: "The political and social climate that prevails in the world today emphasises difference, disunity, and destruction rather than the qualities of unity and productive and constructive energy that are required to sustain human societies."1

People who converged at the Congress of the People in Kliptown in 1955 made a similar observation about the situation in South Africa at the time; hence they decided to commit themselves to developing a unity-promoting programme behind which they would unite all South Africans. This programme was consolidated into the Freedom Charter, a document that would guide the liberation struggle for many decades. The values of unity enshrined in the Freedom Charter also find expression in the Constitution and thus form the foundation of our constitutional democracy. Like the patriots who converged on Kliptown to unite people under the theme ‘South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white', we must unite all South Africans in building the non-racial, non-sexist, united, democratic and prosperous society envisaged in the Freedom Charter. To unite people behind this vision, we need a united organisation.

Historicising search for unity

A mission to unite South Africa's people and build an inclusive society based on civilising human values was developed by our forebears - heroes and heroines of the struggle - who fought not because it was fashionable to do so or because they sought to attain material benefits for themselves, their families and friends. Instead, they joined the struggle to build an inclusive and civilised society, because they were not prepared to accept a governing arrangement that was premised on the exclusion and oppression of the black majority. In essence, these freedom fighters struggled for the eradication of the racial discrimination and oppression that prevented the majority of South Africans from climbing the political and economic ladder.

During the struggle against racial discrimination and oppression, the ANC attracted many freedom fighters into its ranks because it symbolised a unifying force and a collective voice against the evil perpetrated by colonial and apartheid forces. It was guided by a collective belief that a high degree of political understanding would be achieved when political organisations fighting against the system of apartheid colonialism forged stronger ties between themselves and the ordinary people.2 Hence, it rallied all democratic forces opposed to the system of oppression and exploitation behind a common vision and the programme of action which resulted in the demise of the apartheid regime in 1994.

Projecting an image of a united and cohesive organisation does not necessarily mean that ANC members are blind to internal contradictions. Nor does it mean that they are hell-bent on hiding challenges facing the organisation. In fact, they know that contradictions are part of the underlying reality of any organisation.3 Literature and practical experience show that these contradictions cannot be resolved by purging some members. Instead, contradictions can be resolved through a more intense struggle within the organisation that takes the form of robust engagements.4 This is an angle from which debate on unity and cohesion should be approached. In other words, unity-debate ought to be used as a platform for the organisation to devise ways to resolve internal contradictions with a view to unifying members and structures as a mechanical approach may not necessarily yield sustainable unity.

Why was the ANC formed?

The ANC was formed to unite African people in a powerful and effective instrument that would be used to secure their own liberation from all forms of discrimination and national oppression.5 Over the years, the ANC evolved into an organisation that embraces and champions values of non-racialism and non-sexism. It remains the task of this organisation to mobilise all the people in society who objectively stand to gain from the victory of national democratic revolution.6

The task of uniting the people and building a united and cohesive society falls on the ANC as an organisation formed to unite people in a fight against national oppression and exploitation. It united with the people's organisations through tactical and strategic alliances and cooperation arrangements. At all times, policy cohesion and organisational unity were the starting point. The constructive manner in which leaders and members of the organisation engaged each other entrenched unity and cohesion in the organisation. As a result, ours developed into a formidable force capable of leading the struggle for fundamental change in society.

Dialectics of organisational life

The basis for development of an organisation is an interaction between different components of an organisation.7 This interaction is inevitable in associations and institutions of human beings because by their nature human beings are unique and view things differently because of their different interests, traditions, experiences and understanding of issues.8 This is so even when human beings are members of the same organisation. However, human beings may interact only to the extent that they form part of the same whole in which each is as necessary and imperative as another. Dialectically speaking, any change is a consequence of interaction between parts of the same whole. In organisations and society, human beings are at the centre of interactions which cause change; hence Holz states that: "…human beings are not the helpless objects of a fatalistic historical process, but are always the active subjects of history..."9

Indeed, human beings are agents of change in organisations and society. So, why is the issue of dialectics brought into the discussion on unity and cohesion of the organisation? Well, the point of departure should be to ask a further question: What is dialectics? Responding to this very question, Sciabarra tells us that: "Dialectics is the art of context-keeping. It counsels us to study the object of our inquiry from a variety of perspectives and levels of generality, so as to gain a more comprehensive picture…"10

For purposes of discussing unity and cohesion, it is the ANC which is an object of inquiry. One of the revolutionary thinkers of contemporary times, Mao Zedong, said some people think that once people join an organisation they become saints with no differences or misunderstandings on the issues because of their mistaken belief that all organisations are monolithic and for that reason there is no need for any talks about unifying members and leaders of the same organisation.11

Contradictions occur everywhere in nature, like the forces of attraction and repulsion inside an atom.12 Organisations are no exception because frank and robust engagements within the organisation show that forces of attraction and repulsion inside the organisation are very much at play. Dialectical materialism teaches us that organisations reflect contradictions of a societal environment in which they exist and operate. On this, Sciabarra says: "Society is not some ineffable organism; it is a complex nexus of interrelated institutions and processes, of conscious, purposeful, interacting individuals - and the unintended consequences they generate."

Sciabarra draws our attention to the nature of societal dynamics which play themselves out in organisations. All revolutionaries are supposed to know this reality. Revolutionary theory which is an approximation of reality serving as a guide to action requires all revolutionary organisations to adopt this approach which according to Mao Zedong, "means being analytical about everything, acknowledging that human beings all make mistakes and not negating a person completely just because he has made mistakes."13

Mao Zedong reminds us that there is no human being who is infallible: "Lenin once said that there is no single person [anywhere] in the world who does not make mistakes."14 This means that making mistakes is part of human nature. Therefore, human nature dictates that even revolutionary leaders may make mistakes; hence a revolutionary organisation "…needs patient and prolonged training of leaders through the many twists and turns, the victories and setbacks..."15

However, repeated and stubborn mistakes of some members which bring the organisation into disrepute may be sufficient grounds for the organisation to act against the culprits.16 Be that as it may, dialectically opposing ideas and views are to be expected in ideological and policy engagements in a revolutionary organisation. Hence, advocates of mistaken ideas and views need not be negated. Instead of negating a person for expressing certain ideas and views, Mao Zedong says: "[we must] …wage a struggle to rid him of his wrong ideas [and] proceed from good intentions to help him correct his mistakes."17

What Mao Zedong emphasises is that any mistaken views advocated by members of a revolutionary organisation must be corrected through means commensurate with building members as it cannot be the task of a revolutionary organisation to destroy some of its members or leaders. However, mistaken ideas and views should not be confused with opposing views - which may enrich the organisation with multiplicity of views.18

Like all other social objects, organisations are (to a large extent) shaped by diverse views expressed within the organisation which views are (in many cases) manifestations of the internal contradictions.19 This means that identity, growth and development of an organisation largely depend on the internal interactions in organisations. Central in intra-organisational interactions is exchanging of ideas and views among members of the same organisation.

At the 60th anniversary of the South African Communist Party in 1981, ANC President Oliver Tambo (by extrapolation) distinguished diametrical opposites from dialectical opposites. In particular, he emphasised that, unlike diametrical opposites, dialectical opposites are mutually reinforcing imperatives of the struggle, thereby reaffirming a long-held view that struggle and unity of the opposites are the fundamental concepts of dialectics.20 Once people view an organisation from this angle, they would know and understand that only when constituent parts of the same whole are active and fully functional can unity and harmony within that whole be achieved.21

Relationships between constituent parts of the same whole are not always without challenges and complications. In the case of revolutionary movements, this relationship can be viewed as contradictory. This may be the case because, while leaders are supposed to lead the organisation and its members, members must ensure that leaders provide correct leadership to the organisation and its members. It is members who resolve those contradictions in the structures that cannot be resolved by the leaders.22

Given the dialectical nature of a relationship between members and leaders of a revolutionary organisation, failures on the part of leaders may also be attributed to the members. This may be the case because members have a collective responsibility to ensure proper functioning of the organisation. Only when they discharge this responsibility will members be able to determine if those at the helm are still on track. In fact, under normal circumstances leaders who are revolutionary in outlook would voluntarily subject themselves to performance appraisals geared towards ensuring that the centre is strong. Revolutionary theory tells us that if the organisational centre does not hold, many centres will emerge and cause confusion, information gaps and tensions which may fertilise the ground for factionalism to develop, grow and intoxicate members at all levels of the organisation.

Factionalism requires members to be more loyal to the factions than to the organisation.23 Hence leaders and members of factions are even prepared to act in a manner that threatens existence of the organisation they claim to cherish. Faction loyalists do not believe that revolution can be entrusted in the hands of the people who are not members of their factions. This means that factionalism produces members who regard themselves as ‘super revolutionaries' who are ordained to influence the direction of the organisation, even if their approaches have a potential of pulling the organisation to the bottomless abyss of self-destruction, thereby leaving the organisation exposed and vulnerable. Failure to decisively act against factionalism within the ranks of the organisation will pose a serious challenge to democratic centralism - a fundamental principle that is supposed to enhance the unity and cohesion of a revolutionary organisation. While it happens to be one of the forms of centralism, the principle of democratic centralism is different from other forms.

On the principle of democratic centralism

Democratic centralism is often associated with revolutionary organisations. This principle guides processes of decision making. While decisions in these organisations can be influenced or taken at different levels, the principle of democratic centralism guides that process. In terms of this principle, decisions of higher structures bind all constituent and ancillary structures of the organisation. In other words, all component structures, including those which may have held contrary views on the matter, must accept decisions of higher structures.

Some commentators argue that a rule which requires lower structures of an organisation to accept decisions of higher structures leads to lopsidedness and over-centralisation - which stifle expression of views and suppress dissent. 24 With due respect, this argument cannot be accepted. This is so because instead of taking democratic centralism comprehensively this argument overemphasises the centralizing aspect, whereas if taken together aspects embodied make the principle more democratic.25

Some people associate the principle of democratic centralism with "command and control structure". This view is very much mistaken. Democratic centralism embodies collective will and purpose - not commandism.26 In other words, this principle includes ‘freedom of discussion' and ‘unity of action'. The democratic aspect of the principle embodies freedom of members of the organisation to raise and discuss matters of policy and direction.27 The principle does not provide room for the use of coercive measures to settle ideological and policy issues as these issues are resolved through discussions and persuasion, instead of compulsion and intimidation. In fact, coercive measures are not only ineffective but are harmful to peaceful coexistence in the organisation.28

While democratic centralism may be beneficial to an organisation, excessive centralism must never be embraced and practiced in any organisation that claims to be democratic in outlook and orientation. Cautioning against excessive centralism, Slaughter says: "Any premature attempt to resolve the internal crisis, based on excessive centralism and factionalism, will have serious consequences for the revolutionary party."29

A correct balance between democracy and centralism is needed.30 The relationship between the two tends to change with changing objective conditions. As our organisation operates under legal and democratic conditions at the current political juncture, a pendulum must necessarily swing towards freedom to discuss political and socio-economic issues within structures of the organisation with a view to create a common understanding of the issues.31

Primacy of discussion in an organisation

In a revolutionary organisation, constructive engagement should be encouraged within the context of promoting internal democracy because only through open engagement will members be able to raise and analyse challenges of the time and devise measures that are necessary to address the challenges. When internal debate is neither allowed nor tolerated; some members may find platforms outside the formal structures and processes to express their own views. Once this happens, the unity and cohesion of the organisation will suffer most.

While a mechanical approach to unity may be explored as an option, unity discussions remain an ideal approach to unifying members and structures of the organisation. Through robust and constructive debate, human beings influence each other. This equally applies to members of the ANC. At all times, members and leaders of an organisation with a revolutionary outlook should be inspired by Voltaire who, in the spirit of promoting discussion and debate, once said "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Hence, our organisation must create a conducive environment for its members to raise their political views, albeit within the parameters of organisational discipline, something which may also assist to expose those who do not follow party political line. In this regard, we may be inspired by Lenin who was firm and sharp in defending the party political line and organisational discipline. However, Lenin did not defend the party line because of any personal ambition or dictatorial habits on his part. Instead, Lenin was determined to prevent his revolutionary organisation from being over-run by irregular troops of the revolution.32 For that matter, the party line must never be confused with views which do not signify ideological and policy positions of the organisation as history shows that some sacrifice the principle for their political survival.

What is to be done?

In pursuing unity and cohesion within our organisation, we do not envisage a monolithic organisation. Instead, we seek to salvage the multi-class character of the movement because we know and understand that in any broad movement such as the ANC differences are to be expected.33 Dialectics tells us that all human organisations and institutions reflect conflictual and harmonious relations in society. Despite this, ANC members must always be guided by values and principles upon which the organisation was founded - but without overlooking development of these values and principles with evolution and development of society.

While objective conditions in society may contribute to shaping the character and approach of the organisation to political and socio-economic issues, we know and understand that it is primarily the internal contradictions as well as the struggle to resolve such contradictions which determine the outlook and orientation of an organisation.34 Coherence and cohesion at ideological, political and policy levels remain imperative for the organisational outlook and orientation. For this reason, we must engage in what Amilcar Cabral referred to as ‘the struggle against our own weaknesses'35 with a view to transforming all the antagonistic contradictions that are manifest in the organisation into a diversified internal organisational strength and power - something which the ANC mastered over the years of its existence and struggle.

Challenges of the current phase of the revolution demand that political, technical and strategic capacities of the ANC be further developed with a view to strengthening the organisation to be able to manage and resolve contradictions that are manifest within the organisation and in society. Political education and training of ANC members remains crucial at all levels of the organisation as the strength of a revolutionary movement depends on quality and conduct of the members and leaders. This means that the key obstacle to the revolution may be a lack of cadres within a leading organisation in society who remain focused and committed to advancing the interests of the country and its people, instead of using the organisation to attain material benefits for themselves, their families and friends.

A revolutionary movement which lacks the breed of cadres described by the late Govan Mbeki36 as the people who are willing and prepared to sacrifice personal interest for the public good will be weak and thus incapable of mobilising all the people in the country behind the vision and the efforts to effect democratic and socio-economic transformation in the current phase of the revolution. Put differently, "…our revolution will only succeed if the movement continuously produces a contingent of cadres who are conscious, competent, committed, disciplined and conscientious."37

Because of this belief and understanding, our organisation has decided to dedicate the next decade to the task of developing a contingent of ‘conscious, competent, committed, disciplined and conscientious'38 cadres who (according to Lenin) are supposed to be tribunes of the people in challenging and uprooting social injustices wherever they manifest themselves.39 With this breed of cadres, our organisation will be able to resist any developments in society that may threaten to undermine its capacity to lead the process of fundamental social change.40

* Thando Ntlemeza is a member of the ANC Eric Moscow Lusaseni Branch, Dullah Omar Region and a member of the Western Cape PEC Political Education Subcommittee.

References:

1 Roxanne Lalonde "Unity in Diversity: Acceptance and Integration in an Era of Intolerance and Fragmentation" (1994, April)
2 Nelson Mandela "Towards Democratic Unity", 24 September 1953
3 Andrew Narr "Dialectics: The philosophy of Struggle", June 2009 at p. 5
4 Andrew Narr " at p. 3
5 Constitution of the ANC, 1919
6 ANC Strategy and Tactics, 2007, at para 125
7 A. Spirkin, "Contradiction and Harmony" in Dialectical Materialism,
8 Hans Heinz Holz "Ten theses of Marxist-Leninist theory"in Nature, society and thought, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1992
9 Ibid.
10 Chris Matthew Sciabarra "Dialectics and liberty" The Freedom: Ideas on Liberty (September 2005) at 35
11 Selected works of Mao Tse-tung "A dialectical approach to inner-party unity", (November 18, 1957)
12 Andrew Narr at p.1
13 Selected works of Mao Tse-tung "A dialectical approach to inner-party unity", (Nov 18, 1957)
14 Ibid.
15 Micheal Velli (1972) Manual for Revolutionary Leaders at 41.
16 See Thando Ntlemeza "Choosing the best leaders to capacitate and legitimize the ANC" The Thinker, Issue 47, 56 - 58 at 57
17 Mao Tse-tung
18 See Thando Ntlemeza "Two centres of power is an illusion" Hlomelang Vol. 1 No. 15 (August 2005) at 5
19 MacGill and Parry "Unity of Opposites: A dialectical principle" in Science and Society Vol. 12 No.4 (Fall, 19480 pp 418 - 444 at 418
20 Mao-Tse-tung
21 Roxanne Lalonde (supra)
22 Micheal Velli (1972) Manual for Revolutionary Leaders at 41
23 Document titled "Conduct of a new cadre", 2000
24 Prakash Karat "On Democratic Centralism" The Marxist XXVI 1, January - March 2010 at p.10 -11
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid at p.9-10
27 http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/democratic_centralism
28 Thando Ntlemeza "Finding a common ground in the midst of political exchanges" Umrabulo 32, 2010 at p.82
29 Cliff Slaughter "What is revolutionary leadership?" Labour Review Vo. 5 No.3 October-November 1960 at pp 93 - 96 and 105 - 111.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Cliff Slaughter
33 Thando Ntlemeza "Now is not the time to go it alone" Umrabulo 30 at 72
34 Andrew Narr at p.4
35 Address to the First Tri-continental Conference of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, January 1966
36 Govan Mbeki, The struggle for liberation on South Africa
37 Resolutions of the 53rd National Conference of the ANC, December 2012, at page 4, para 7.
38 Ibid.
39 Alex Snowdon "The Case for revolutionary organisation" 25 May 2011
40 See ANC NEC Bulletin, November 2005 at p.2