Change for its own sake is reactionary

As part of a strategy to woo voters in the US presidential elections in 2008, Barack Obama used a strategy of promising Americans change as soon as he was elected into office.

“Vote for Change” and “A New Beginning” were two main slogans used in this campaign that ensured Obama became the first black president in American history.

Americans have learnt that a simple call for change is not always followed by actual change. Almost four years after its election, the Obama administration has failed to implement major promises made during his campaign. Change is a very enticing subject. I mean, who does not want change? We all do. It may be a change to a better career or change of a car. Moving to a new house or new can also be a change many would die for. So change can be beautiful.

In the past year or so, a very vociferous call for ‘change’ has occupied the discussions within the structures of the ANC.

Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter were also not spared these incoherent, and yet recurring, calls for change. Those who argued for this change felt that the current provincial and national leaders of the ANC had overstayed their welcome, and therefore had to be replaced with others. South Africans are very indifferent towards leaders who lead forever. So these calls were quite enticing. After all, many would argue, leaders must give others a change to also lead.

In its document, Through the Eye of a Needle, the ANC states: “The selection and election of leaders should reside firmly in the hands of the membership. This can only happen if there is open and frank discussion on these issues in formal structures of the movement. Quiet and secret lobbying opens the movement to opportunism and even infiltration by forces hostile to the ANC’s objectives.”

However, the ANC warns, “Such discussion should be informed by the critical policy and programmatic issues that face us in each phase of struggle”. So, while discussions around leadership should be frank and the selection of leaders lie firmly in the hands of the members, such a discussion should be informed by “policy and programmes” of the organisation.

The discussion around change of leadership, widely led by the ‘pro-change groupings’ were, therefore, extremely premature. Leaders were discussed before the debates around policies and programmes, as espoused in the above document.

Long before the ANC national leadership could disseminate policy documents to branches for deliberations, foot soldiers were already marshalling throughout the country lobbying for ‘change’.

In his paper titled Chaos, Anarchy and Counter-revolution under the guise of ‘Change’, Free State ANC political education officer, Oupa Khoabane writes “…what entails the change we are talking about? Do we want change for the sake of it or do we change faces?” There can never be a more relevant question like this in the current political atmosphere.

Even after the dissemination of policy documents to branches, these change provocateurs did very little to advocate for change around any single policy position. Instead, much of the energy was spent arguing for change of this and that leader, to be replaced by this and that leader. The unprecedented meeting held in Lejweleputswa, in the name of the ANC, to announce the candidacy of Mxolisi Dukwana, Gregory Nthatisi et al, is a case in point here.

In the document, Through the Eye of a Needle, the ANC concurs that, “As a movement for fundamental change, the ANC regularly has to elect leaders at various levels who are equal to the challenge of each phase of struggle.” Such leaders, the ANC continues, should seek to influence and to be influenced by others in the collective. Those are the basic tenets of the ANC tradition.

As in dialectics, change must not be seen as a series of quantitative shifts that leaves the essence of the ‘thing’ intact. Change is signified by material qualitative leaps from A to B. There is absolutely nothing wrong with change of leadership.

But such a change of, or desire to change, leadership must be informed by the complexion or phase of the struggle. Such a desire must be informed by the policies and programmes as decided by the general membership. Any desire for change before, or beyond, this phase is both reactionary and malicious.