April 2011 - Centre for Civil Society - University of KwaZulu-Natal

Officially the division was between the YCL general secretary Buti
Manamela and his then second in command KhayeNkwanyama. Manamela
on the one side was standing for re-election, and was proposing changes in
the party constitution to facilitate this. On the other side Nkwanyama was
challenging him, on the grounds that Manamela was too caught up in
parliamentary work and that he should leave the leadership of the
organisation to someone who could devote themselves to the position on a
full-time basis. But this is a completely secondary and insignificant matter!
What is important is what Buti Manamela stands for (in or outside of
parliament) and what alternative Khaye Nkwanyama has to offer. It was
not clear, at least to most people on the ground, what the challenge was
really about politically and if there even were political differences.
In any case the congress ended with the re-election of Buti Manamela and
a leadership that is seemingly fully in tune with him. But does the election
of Manamela mean that the problems have been resolved? On the contrary!
The class struggle in South Africa is intensifying and what is important to
analyse is whether the leadership of the SACP and its general secretary
Blade Nzimande, who is supported by ButiManamela, is moving in the same
direction as the workers and the youth, who constitute the party’s base
and membership. But the policies that they are now following were not
tested in an open democratic discussion at the congress. As long as this
contradiction remains, the party and the youth will face deeper and
deeper crises.
Need for a balance sheet
Almost seventeen years after the fall of the apartheid regime in 1994, it is
our duty to draw a balance sheet. We must take an honest look at the
gains and draw the necessary conclusions.
The fall of Apartheid came on top of decades of mass struggle and,
although the official outcome was a negotiated settlement, the real forces
behind the concessions were the oppressed masses who against all odds
stepped up their mobilizations, especially in the years between 1990 and
1993. Thus, it was the revolutionary force of the masses that won
bourgeois democracy for the South African masses and not the negotiation
skills of the ANC leadership.
For the first time in a century, black South Africans enjoyed freedom of
speech, organization and universal suffrage. The Apartheid regime could
accept the introduction of democracy as long as the capitalist system was
preserved. With the introduction of the Sunset clause in the constitution,
protecting private property, the old regime managed to prevent the
movement from achieving its socialist aims and aspirations.
Although the introduction of democracy was the greatest victory ever for
the South African working masses, the introduction of the Sunset clause
breaking the movement of the masses served society with major obstacles
for the future. For the working poor democracy is very important, but
mainly in so far as it facilitates the solving of other problems in life, such
as unemployment, poverty, racism, etc. But capitalism as a system, even
with the most humane and democratic face, is not able to solve these
problems.
This has indeed been confirmed by the state of South African society today
which is riddled with deep contradictions. It is true that a small group of
black people have indeed benefitted from the new state of things. A small
black middle class has been developed and an even smaller group of
people, especially through the so-called Black Economic Empowerment