Personal Wealth or Real People’s Power?

By Ronnie Kasrils

website_update1

History may well record the year 2009 as a time in which South Africa was forced to confront the inadequacies of an economic system which divides rich from poor. South African society is more unequal than Brazil, our HIV/AIDS infection rate is higher than Malawi (that country has a confirmed HIV infection rate of 12% while South Africa’s hovers above 20%) and most disturbingly, newly elected cabinet ministers purchase vehicles in a recession year, which exceed R1 million, and as workers lose their jobs by the thousands, the General Secretary of the largest federation in the country, COSATU, accepts a salary increase of 100%. Ronnie Kasrils, reflects on a South African society edging closer to the corrupting influence of absolute power.

I well recall in the early years of Angola’s independence the sight of struggle icon, Lucio Lara driving around the congested streets of Luanda in a modest yellow Opel. Lucio was Agostinho Neto’s right-hand man, comrade-in-arms during the liberation struggle, Political Bureau member of the MPLA Workers’ Party, Central Committee Secretary for Organisation and a senior Cabinet Minister revered by the masses. It was soon clear that many of his colleagues resented his display of modesty and fervent grass roots concerns as they succumbed to the fruits of office and sped around in their top of the range BMW or Mercedes--Benze limousines – the emergent WaBenzi class. After Neto’s death in 1980 it was Lucio Lara who introduced the young Eduardo dos Santos as the MPLAs choice as leader and President of Angola. Before long, as the flashy life-style of a new political elite gained ground, Lucio Lara was increasingly marginalised by the new leadership, his revolutionary wisdom and experience ignored and even despised, although he remained totally loved by the urban and rural poor whom he had served with such vigour and loyalty. As petro-dollars and war-time profiteering became the name of the game in oil-boom Angola, an ailing Lucio Lara sought to explain to close friend and journalist, Victoria Brittain, what had become of the great liberating ideals of the MPLA:

“I don’t have illusions about many things anymore,” he reminisced. “In the Angolan struggle perhaps we didn’t have philosophers or sociologists, but we had those words of Neto’s: ‘The most important thing is to solve the people’s problems.’ Once in the Council of Ministers I heard someone say that we should stop using this phrase. I thought maybe he was right because no one spoke against him. In my opinion that was when the Party began to collapse. The leaders felt they all had the right to be rich. That was the beginning of the destruction of our life.”1

Victoria Brittain, long-time supporter of the MPLA, seeing at close quarters the rise to power of those for whom personal wealth had become more important than serving the people, entitled the book she was writing on the country, Death of Dignity. No doubt Lucio Lara would approve of the concerns repeatedly raised by Cosatu General Secretary Zwelinzima Vavi and the statement of his ANC counterpart and SACP Chairman, Gwede Mantashe in today’s South Africa: “The biggest threat to our movement is the intersection between business interests and holding of public office. It is frightening to observe the speed with which the election to a position is seen to be the creation of an opportunity for accumulation (of wealth)...If we do not deal decisively with this tendency, the ANC will only move one way, that is downward”2.

As South Africa is regaled by one revelation after another involving luxury limousines, lavish banquets, expensive hotel bills and other extravagant follies – our political leaders would do well to read Victoria Brittain’s book and closer to home, take a look at a most illuminating article written by Rusty Bernstein in The African Communist way back in 1991 (No. 124, First Quarter 1991), which has been referred to in the latest 50th anniversary issue of the journal (No. 178, Third Quarter 2009). The 1991 article was entitled “The Corridors to Corruption” and its warnings about the pitfalls ahead for the struggle generation, and the dangers of falling into them, are prescient and uncanny for today’s South Africa.

The article was accompanied by a cartoon of a limousine with motor-cycle outriders and a pedestrian remarking: “There goes a ‘Man of the People’.” Bernstein, a luminary of the communist party and liberation movement, key draftsman of the Freedom Charter, and co-accused with Mandela in the Rivonia Trial, was well-placed to formulate his observations and concerns. Writing under his pen name “Toussaint,” Bernstein reflected on the failure of East European Communism, and the role that a creeping corruption had played in undermining the integrity of formerly dedicated revolutionaries in Africa and elsewhere. “I want to try and examine some of the forces that shape the bahaviour of leaders of socialism,” he wrote, “and try to establish whether it is their characters and personalities which determine the system – or, on the contrary, whether there are factors in the system which create their character and behaviour.” He was able to spot the hazards as the ANC Alliance prepared to take power and wrote:

“I want to draw on factors which can be seen in embryo in our own South African liberation movement...the subtle process by which the fore-taste of power corrupts seems to be creeping upon us unnoticed. We ignore the warning signals at our peril. Unless we can identify and eliminate the factors which have corrupted good honest leaders and organisations elsewhere, could well repeat the experience of their decline and fall”.

Bernstein considered how a process that had corroded the moral integrity of good honest revolutionaries once power had been achieved could well be repeated in South Africa. He considered the metamorphosis from Comrade to Minister of the typical respected People’s Leader whose life had formerly been devoted to serving the poor and oppressed in an exemplary way. He imagined, sensitively and not without sympathy, how the new life-style – appropriate suits and dress; limousine with chauffeur and body-guards; ministerial residence with retinue of servants; champagne and smoked salmon; the demands of “Protocol” and “Security” -- could come to take charge.

Despite these radical changes the “Comrade Minister”, in Bernstein’s view, was determined not to be seduced and diverted from the objective of representing the interests of the ordinary people. The trouble, Bernstein continued, was that he or she no longer would really interact with the people: “He meets only other officials, or diplomats and businessmen wanting special favours from the government. He sees ordinary people from the windows of his car, and from the platforms of public meetings. But he no longer hears what they say or think or want.”

As for the aides in the ministerial office, only a few could be called “veterans of the struggle.” Most were formerly young activists, bright and specially trained for the posts, and supporters of the new government. But few of them were motivated like their Minister by selfless idealism. They developed a style of work suited to a regular civil-service career, where it was better to do nothing than make a mistake. Publicly they must be seen to toe the official line, and where they were not prepared to do so, they could resign from their jobs, or conspire secretly in order not to lose the confidence of the Party leadership.

Bernstein, basing his story-line on the upheavals of East European communism, contemplated with the growth of corruption and a failure to redress the needs of the people, a scenario of rising popular discontent. “Things are not going well for the new government”, he wrote about an imagined near future. “The opposition has reorganised, and is obstructing the new government’s policies. There are even rumours of sabotage. Foreign investors are withdrawing. Prices are rising and jobs are being lost. The servants of state want to combat discontent and bolster the government. They want to show the world that things are not as bad as the gossip suggests. They have the best of intentions – to encourage investors, improve the morale of the government’s supporters, and dismay its opponents. Gradually they develop the habit of hiding the bad news, or “massaging the statistics” to make things look better than they really are. Only the good news must be allowed to get out.”

Rusty Bernstein believed that the East European experience, first of crisis then of fall, could happen in the new South Africa. We South Africans, he wrote, needed to learn from what had happened in Eastern Europe. Those events of 1989-90 could provide several different story-lines, all ending in much the same way. From his often close experience and study of the socialist camp up to the time of the dramatic collapse in one country after another, he offered the following scenario as a possible example:

“The opposition to the government grows stronger and more active. Some people are said by ‘Security’ to be planning a coup of uprising. The Security chiefs might be right, or they may be exaggerating the danger. They may just be building up a case for demanding a larger departmental budget and wider powers. Who knows? Who, even in the government, can any longer distinguish between what is being alleged by officials and what is actually happening in the country? Dare any Minister oppose the Security Department’s demand for a State of Emergency? Detention without trial? Suppression of opposition parties or newspapers? Should public meetings be prohibited and new elections postponed indefinitely? Should strikes be made illegal to protect the supplies of food and power? The Minister’s are nor reckless men. They know the whole future of the country depends on their decision. If they could trust their own instincts against the whole weight of ‘Security’s’ assessments, they might turn down the demand for emergency powers. But if their judgement should be wrong, all will end in disaster. They decide to be safe rather than sorry. Reluctantly they decide to accept special security measures. Democracy is buried, and replaced with rule by emergency decree. This marks the end of all the high idealism with which the people’s government set out.”

Bernstein foresaw a Security Department with growing power playing on paranoia and alleging, where it suited them, that some people were planning a coup or uprising. In the circumstances of growing opposition he imagined how frightened ministers would not oppose the demand from the security establishment for a State of Emergency and detentions without trial. “An end result could well be the burial of democracy. This marked the end of all the high idealism with which the people’s government set out.”

Bernstein stressed: “My story is not either totally factual or totally fictional. It is not the story of a particular country or a particular party. But I believe it is a fair example of the real tragic story of socialism’s decline and fall almost everywhere in Eastern Europe. It contains within it.....the separation of the leaders from the people....That separation lays open even the most honest and dedicated comrade to irresistible pressures in high office. It explains, in part at least, what they do – and what they fail to do.”

Bernstein did not hold the view that power must inevitably corrupt. But he argued that we must understand that the “trappings of power”, passed on from generation to generation, system to system -- if unchanged -- kept the policy makers separate from the people, underpinned existing power relations and insulated them from the forces of change. In reference to the Freedom Charter, he reminded us that “the ending of white supremacy...requires the total overturn of the status quo” of which the existing apparatus of state was an essential part. “Since the trappings of state power serve to uphold the status quo,” he argued, “the trappings of protocol and privilege which surround apartheid power must be essentially hostile to our cause.” And he continued: “They are incompatible with our aim of transforming society to ensure equal rights for all, and contradict the democratic spirit of our programme.”

Whilst not wishing to suggest that the only cause of failure should be ascribed to such mechanisms of power, Bernstein averred that the case studies provided much evidence for the conclusion that the existing trappings of power are incompatible with the social transformation of society. “In Eastern Europe”, he continued, “attempts were made to take over the trappings of capitalist power, complete with all their diplomatic usages and privileges, and use them to serve the cause of socialist power. The results have been too disastrous for us to ignore.”

As an outstanding Marxist, Rusty Bernstein was well aware that socialist theory had always noted that the transition from capitalism to socialism cannot be a matter of transforming the economy alone. “It has always stressed”, he emphasised, “that it is equally necessary to change the whole superstructure of the system. Eastern European socialists generally followed that teaching. They made sweeping changes on a wide canvas – some critics say too wide. They changed institutions and customs of all kinds – parliaments, administrations, armies, factory managements, schooling, religion, social relations. They acted in the conviction that all former social institutions had to be changed if they were to serve the building of socialism. But surprisingly not in respect of the trappings of power and its diplomatic modalities (my emphasis – RK). These were simply left unchanged. Whether this was because they were simply overlooked, or whether they were given a low priority until they were too well established to be altered, or whether they were deliberately preserved is unclear... Whatever the reason, the fact is that the trappings were not changed...they kept the old trappings, worked within them, and were undermined by them...”
The article concluded as follows:

“We can benefit now from the examples of those who have not tackled the problem in Eastern Europe, and in newly independent Africa. Their experience demonstrates the corrupting consequence of simply taking the trappings of capitalist power over into a new social order... we have the chance to seal off in advance the Corridors of Corruption, where others tried and failed. .... It demands that we debate the matter openly...it also demands that we measure ourselves against the standards of honesty, incorruptibility and dedication which we expect – and generally get – from our leaders; and that we understand the pressures that they will be subject to if we cannot find the right answers. The task is nothing less than setting the world of liberation and socialism on a new path, where dreams of power without the corrupting restraints of the old order can be made real. Real people’s power!”

It is worth repeating that those words were written in 1991, three years short of South Africa’s first democratic election which voted the ANC into power!

Of course there have been efforts at transforming the South African state and its practices since, but clearly not in the systemic sense envisaged by Bernstein. It is not sufficient, however, to simply insist that public office bearers resign from business positions and directorships or that ministers overhaul their own regulations governing such things as vehicle and travel standards. Witness the lame excuses recently provided by some ministers that they were ignorant of the costs of their cars or hotel accommodation because this was in the hands of their officials and security honchos. Behold the talk about militarising the police and the intolerant attacks on Kader Asmal for daring to raise concern. This speaks volumes on just how incisive Bernstein’s views were and Lucio Lara’s explanation of what went wrong in Angola. It is important that we understand that this is not simply a problem of good or bad personalities – although it makes a huge difference who runs the show – but of a system, its structures of governance, the accountability of leadership to the people, ultimately the relations of power.

What can be done? Bernstein suggested: “A public campaign by our movement, against the entrenched trappings of power...” We did not take notice when he urged:

“We dare not wait until our leaders occupy the seats of power before we find alternative ways. We have the opportunity now to debate and reach consensus about alternative modes of behaviour and conduct which would be suitable for our own leaders in high places. Such alternatives might well offend against the existing behavioural codes of the hide-bound ranks of today’s great and powerful. No matter. The offence given by such alternatives is less important than our need for new ways which will be appropriate to a new society based on social justice and equal rights. And inimical to corruption in high places.”

We must work to ensure that such a debate is not simply left to government ministers debating the ministerial regulations handbook on what is appropriate or not to their status and needs. Such a debate needs to become a public campaign, broadened to involve civil society as a whole, in the interests of deepening and defending our hard-won democracy. The lead must be taken by the left in our country, embracing those within the ANC and Alliance together the social movements, and not left to the machinations of the media moguls and opposition parties or big business allies in government whose interests lie in maintaining the economic status quo.

I want to believe that it is not too late nor that all our leaders are selfish AmaBenzi upstarts – the South African equivalent of neo-colonial Africa’s WaBenzi elite. I am quite sure that many of those sincere women and men in positions of power, those coming from an authentic struggle background, and honestly striving to cope with the pressures of office, would in fact welcome such a move in the interests of their own responsibilities and of the people who have elected them to serve the country. Nor all should be tarred with the same brush, for as much as some of the egocentrics show scant regard for thrift others illustrate a sober disposition in keeping expenditure within reasonable bounds and the genuine needs of office – with which there can be no objection. The trouble is that whilst some may opt for Lucio Lara’s equivalent of an Opel the signs are of an overwhelming trend to splurge-out on the most expensive brand images – from limousines to the latest Prado and Gucci outfits; accommodation and dining at only the top hotels and restaurants; ministerial residences boasting the most expensive imported furniture and newly installed swimming pools. Like any a contagious virus such crass materialism spreads with alacrity and needs to be kept in check by public censure.

Our elected government and leaders need to be assisted to stick to the commitment exemplified by Agostinho Neto’s words and take heed of Lucio Lara and Rusty Bernstein’s warnings. The mission is not about enjoying the trappings of power and becoming personally rich but of serving the people. That has been the purpose of all the sacrifice -- not the accumulation of personal wealth. The choice for the socialist left in South Africa is do nothing and be afraid or lead the debate for a full overhaul of the system of governance and its modalities in the interests of “Real People’s Power!”

Ronnie Kasrils is a member of the African National Congress, a former Minister of Intelligence in the Mbeki government, and is a founding member of the Not In My Name solidarity group which speaks out against Israeli atrocities.

End Notes:
1. “Death of Dignity” by Victoria Brittain” Pluto Press, page 95; and “African Communist”, 3rd Quarter 1995, Lucio Lara interview by Victoria Brittain;
2. 2.“Cape Times”, September 18, 2009

Amandla Menu

Events Notifier

Amandla! TV

Special Feature

Latest Issue

Back Issues

Popular Articles