He did not do a bad job at all, considering the tight rope he had to walk with all the in-fighting inside the ANC.

He did seem a bit more bland than I would have expected though.

Agreed.

“It seems to me that it takes the sting out of democracy when they don’t put things like removal of the president to a vote.”

What I meant is a vote internally in the NEC. I did not mean to say that they have to do it this way, but that I use this as an example of the powerful dominating and compare that with the democratic spirit.

I seriously doubt that the leaders who called that meeting would have been willing to step out of there with a no answer, even if that’s what the majority of NEC members wanted (not that many would have had the guts to go against it, even if they wanted to). Even in the Zuma camp some didn’t like the way it was done (NEC and non NEC members), yet they walk out with a “unanimous decision”.

I don’t think that’s the key problem. The British, French and many other systems the party elects the leader, not the public. The same happened when PW got the boot. The NP chose De Klerk. But of course normally they act at the peril of loosing the next election.

That is the key fault that undermines much of our politics. The fact that the ANC is protected by virture of its party of liberation status.

That and the fact that MP’s are in complete control of the party due to the use of the proportional representation system.

It seems to me that it takes the sting out of democracy when they don’t put things like removal of the president to a vote. In such systems (requiring unanimity) the powerful rules and not the vote, exactly one of the things democracy tries to solve. Like parliament where individuals are “not supposed” to think for themselves and vote according to it, but merely to mention their own ideas (a semblance of consultation) but then rubber stamp the ideas and decisions of a small group of leaders.

I was really captured by Mantashe language use when I heard him say this:
“ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe said Manuel was “ready to serve, he is waiting for the next command”.”

You can find it here: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20080924064134158C259106

I will keep this little “next command” quote in the back of my head.

One thing though your split differs somewhat with Gumede’s. He would put Phosa, Ramaphosa and Sexwale and Cosatu, SACP in he same camp. The serious bunch.

And then he talks about those interested in patronage and pardoning. For all his money I am sure Rhamaphosa still likes to see himself as a NUM and Cosatu man.

With respect to Kgalema Motlanthe you are right. He still defended Mbeki when Mandela had spoken out against Aids.

He did of course change tack on Aids but still said:

“We don’t regret the way we have dealt with the issue. We have approached this issue very comprehensively. We are in the same boat with the TAC now.”

Great that he was with TAC, but there is a lot to regret.

Politicsweb opines:
“It is not clear to what degree Motlanthe took up these issues on HIV/AIDS, Zimbabwe, and cadre deployment, out of conviction – or whether he was just behaving like a loyal apparatchik dutifully defending and implementing the ANC ‘line’ set by Mbeki.”

A policy of deployment and central control is not a problem if the center is accountable and holds the party and individuals to account for misdeeds.

His stance against corruption is very welcome. “Where he came to distinguish himself in the last few years of Mbeki’s rule was in his outspoken despair at the corruption that had set in across party and state, particularly at local government level. In early 2007 he told Carol Paton of the Financial Mail that “this rot is across the board. It’s not confined to any level or any area of the country. Almost every project is conceived because it offers opportunities for certain people to make money. A great deal of the ANC’s problems are occasioned by this. They are people who want to take it over so they can arrange for the appointment of those who will allow them possibilities for future accumulation.”

and…

“Though detractors say he is not as clean as he appears, nothing of substance has stuck. Indeed, Motlanthe appears desperate not to be embarrassed.”

His positive view of how the Afrikaner Nationalists lifted Afrikaners from poverty is not that remarkable, it is a view I have heard is prevalent amongst many SACP and Cosatu members. In fact it was discussed at a large Union meeting.

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=104369&sn=Detail

Wessel, you would especially like his admiration for the NP nationalist policies. But not his AIDS denialist policies. Also note that he is a key pusher of the cadre deployment system and that deployees toe the party line.

To me it looks a lot like the Zuma camp is a “coalition of the aggrieved”.

The following link illustrates the feelings of Nzimande and Vavi towards Sexwale, which is not positive.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=3045&set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20080411053926288C648896

You have the three musketeers (Phosa, Ramaphosa and Sexwale) on Zuma’s right hand and the Fantastic Four (ANCYL,SACP,COSATU,YCL) on Zuma’s left hand. It seems what they have in common is being anti Mbeki. They surely do not have the same policy views.

Note Sexwale:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2007-12-08-sacp-countering-revenge-key-after-limpopo

“In Polokwane, we will elect a quality leadership who can hold each other accountable,” said Tokyo Sexwale, who has denied accusations of bank-rolling Zuma in the leadership race. “If they fail to perform, we will use our power to recall them,” he said.

So if they used Zuma because they thought he would be the only one who would be able to beat Mbeki, then they might just not need him that much any more. They would probably still want him to help win the elections . Who knows after that?