MPHUTLANE WA BOFELO writes that genuine political revival requires the dismantling of leader-centrism, hierarchies, bureaucracies, orthodoxies, dogmas and canons.
REPORTS of power plays and factional fights between the Taliban and the Ankole in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) amidst initiatives of the African National Congress (ANC) to reconfigure the Provincial Executive Committees (PECs) of Gauteng and KZN exposes the futility of opting for leadership reshuffles instead of interrogating and confronting the ideological infrastructure, organisational culture, and political conduct that may be at the root of problems and challenges facing a political organisation.
After poor electoral performance in the 2024 National General Elections, the African National Congress (ANC) decided to somewhat crack a whip on the PECs of two of the most populous and influential provinces, Gauteng and KZN. It is understandable that the provincial leadership of an organisation is ultimately responsible for any negative or positive development related to that organisation in a province. On the other hand, the decision to implement some kind of reshuffling or reconfiguring of the PECs in the two provinces carry the undertones that the party sees the provincial leadership as the key internal factor behind the drop of voter support for the ANC in these provinces.
The ANC could have focussed on internal factors such as the competence, performance and political, social, and economic conduct of its ministers, premiers, members of executive council (MECs), mayors, members of mayoral committee (MMCs) and councillors, the neoliberal trajectory of its socio-economic policy trajectory and the poor implementation of existing policies and programmes.
It could have paid equal attention to the (poor) quality and level of the political consciousness, education, discipline, conduct and activism of its ground forces; its rank-and-file-members and cadres.
It could have critically examined and assessed the role played by its organisational culture and infrastructure and the extent to which the political language and symbolism that it enlists in its engagement with the people is relevant or irrelevant to the realities and arguments of 21st century South Africa.
Does not the level of disillusionment, sophistication and scepticism of the current voter require much more than food parcels, t-shirts, and title deeds distribution on the eve of election day, the display of guerrilla attire, the recital of the Freedom Charter, struggle songs and slogans, NDP promises and RET rhetoric?
Is a top-down, overly centralised organisational culture still relevant in today’s South Africa?
Is politics centred purely around state power tenable and sustainable in the current epoch?
Is it not about time that the ANC and all political parties in South Africa, particularly those that were part of the liberation movement, develop a horizontal and participatory democratic organisational culture and explore and experiment with forms of popular participation beyond election conferences and the ballot, and forms of politics and power beyond institutionalised politics and institutionalised power?
By now parties such as the ANC, South African Communist Party (SACP), Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) and Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO) should know that the realities and arguments of the time calls for politics that goes beyond evoking the names and spirits of Tambo, Hani, Sobukwe and Biko and shouting African Nationalism, Progressive Democracy, Pan Africanism and Black Consciousness on top of one’s voice. It should be common knowledge in political circles by now that to remain relevant to the moment at hand demands serious re-examination and reconstruction of their ideopolitical and organisational language, practice and infrastructure.
The fact that the interventions of these political parties in the face of dwindling support and poor performance are anchored around leadership reshuffles rather than reshaping of organisational culture and review of their ideological and political language and practices betrays the leader-centric, bureaucratic and hierarchical organisational culture that is dominant in conventional political parties and related organisations. This culture can hinder the ability to adapt to changing political landscapes or to implement meaningful organisational reforms.
The idea that the success or failure of the party is mainly dependent on the capabilities and actions of a single leader leads to parties concentrating on changing their leaders as a primary response to challenges rather than on broader organisational changes or collective efforts.
A bureaucratic culture grounded on a high degree of formalisation and centralisation of authority – accompanied by rigid frameworks that prioritise procedural and political correctness and hierarchical decision-making over flexibility and innovation – reduces the capacity of political parties to adapt to changing political landscapes or to implement meaningful organisational reforms. In line with a hierarchical and commandist organisational culture, most political parties are structured in a way that centralises power and decision-making at the upper echelons of the organisation. This results in lack of responsiveness to grassroots concerns and a focus on maintaining the status quo rather than embracing change.
Political parties hardly make efforts to elicit the views of constituencies and communities on the reasons for the decline in their support, nor do they build robust platforms for popular engagement, participatory democracy and member-centred organisational processes. This leader-centric, bureaucratic and hierarchical approach indicates a reluctance to engage in more substantive reforms that could address underlying problems.
Instead of reshaping their organisational culture or revisiting their ideological and political practices, these parties opt for superficial changes that do not necessarily lead to long-term improvements. However, genuine political revival requires that those who are earnestly interested in far-reaching and sustainable transformation and development release themselves from the shackles of hierarchies, bureaucracies, orthodoxies, dogmas and canons that they may explore and usher in new people-centred politics that dislodge the dictatorship of the political and corporate elite and that dismantle partyism, economism and statism.
The first step should be the decentralisation of decision-making and reducing of organisational hierarchies to ensure that power is distributed more evenly.
Among others, political organisations must consider rotation of leadership positions in some instances, limiting the tenure of leaders, continuous involvement of members and constituencies in the monitoring, review and assessment of political leaders and officials, and providing for members and constituencies to recall incompetent and unscrupulous leaders. This must be accompanied by continuous assessment of the effectiveness of organisational practices, making necessary adjustments, and encouraging members to provide feedback and engage in collective reflection on the organisation’s progress and challenges.
It is, therefore, important for political parties to invest in the political education of members to enhance their understanding of democratic principles and practices, and organise workshops, seminars and study groups to keep members informed and engaged. Importantly, political parties must enlist the feedback to adapt their organisational and political language, culture and infrastructure to ever-changing circumstances. This requires that political parties embrace the culture and ethos of creativity and innovation, open themselves to new ideas and approaches, and to the exploration of and experimentation with different forms of doing politics and new forms of participation and decision-making.
Mphutlane wa Bofelo is a political theorist who focuses on the interface between politics, governance and development.
