The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

In recent
days and weeks, our newspapers and airwaves have been filled with all manner
of divergent views on a whole range of subjects. In some instances, the
exchanges have gotten very heated, whether about racism at the University of
the Free State or the amount of force police officers may legally use to
catch criminals.

This is not abnormal. As we have said before, South
Africans should not fear debate. Nor should they be concerned about the
expression of different views, whether within the ruling party, the Alliance
or broader society.

Debate is a fundamental feature of a democratic
society, and is necessary for the development of ideas and social progress.
No person or organisation can claim a monopoly of wisdom, nor can any idea
be immune from scrutiny.

No organisation, and certainly no liberation
movement, can hope to develop and grow if it does not create space for open,
democratic debate. Indeed, the resilience of the ANC during even the most
trying times is due in large part to its ability to accommodate a diversity
of views and interests. It has been able to remain united and coherent by
working to ensure that all views are heard and considered within the
structures of the organisation.

What distinguishes the ANC from a debating
society, however, is that each discussion leads to a decision, and each
decision forms the basis of united action. The principle of democratic
centralism, which is widely misunderstood by those outside our ranks,
requires that once a decision is democratically taken within the collective
after open debate, all the members of that collective are bound to respect,
defend and implement that decision.

This means that while all ANC members
are encouraged to vigorously debate any matter before the collective, they
should undertake that debate in a disciplined matter, and respect the
majority decision. That doesn't mean the matter cannot be opened for review
at a later stage.

Debate is not restricted to the ANC. Within and among its
Alliance partners there has long been a culture of debate. For many decades
the Alliance partners have sought to influence the thinking of each other,
and have made themselves open to influence. This has been done in the
understanding that the correctness of any decision can only be enhanced by
exposure to a range of different perspectives.

Thus, over the years, the
South African Communist Party (SACP) has had an impact on the thinking of
the ANC and vice versa. The ANC and SACP have had a profound impact on the
political direction of the progressive trade union movement.
This gave birth
to a very unique relationship between the ANC and organized revolutionary
trade unions which has been aptly captured by Chief Luthuli in his famous
assertion that the African National Congress is the shield and the
progressive trade union movement the spear.

Those outside the Alliance (and
even some within) have struggled to understand this cross-pollination of
ideas. Indeed, many people fear it. And so arises this feverish
pre-occupation with a "left takeover" of the ANC. This is not new. For
years, the ANC has been advised to break with the SACP. There are those who
fear the "unhealthy" influence of the trade union movement.

The point that
many people fail to grasp is that the ANC, by its own definition and by any
objective standard, is in fact an organisation of the left. It is a
multi-class national liberation movement with a bias towards the working
class and poor.

This is evident in its policy positions and in the
programmes it has pursued over the last 15 years in government. These
policies have been, and continue to be, the subject of ongoing debate,
within the ANC and within the Alliance. Not everyone agrees with every
policy position, but all are bound to respect the collective decision.

The
policies that this administration is pursuing do not belong to one person or
any group of people. They are the policies of the organisation, adopted in
Polokwane in December 2007, captured in our 2009 election manifesto, and
detailed in government's Medium Term Strategic Framework.

As government
proceeds to implement its programmes it is guided by these policies, and
follows the strategic direction provided by the constitutional structures of
the movement.

This is borne out, for example, in government's economic
policy. There has been much talk in recent weeks about who exactly
determines the country's economic orientation. This talk is not confined to
those outside the movement and Alliance.

There are some who promote the
idea that economic policy will be determined by one or other Minister, and
that a great struggle is on to determine who that Minister should be. We
should be cautious about accepting this idea. As soon as we start
associating government policy with one individual, we risk forgetting that
these policies are developed collectively and reflect an organisational
position.
Though there are Ministers responsible for coordinating economic
policy, they do not determine policy. That is the function of Cabinet,
drawing on the positions of the ANC which is the key policy formulator,
guided by the mandate of the electorate.

Policy arises from debates in the
ANC, through a very intensive process leading up to national conferences,
where resolutions are taken, thus informing the policy direction.
There is
nothing therefore in the argument that the Alliance partners determine the
policy of the ANC. It appears that people get mistaken when Alliance
partners raise their views in an open debate, commenting on policy.

What
is surprising is that people always forget this, and yet ANC processes are
so open and so transparent. To demonstrate that people quickly forget this,
when an ANC member expresses his view on any issue, people immediately ask:
"is this new policy?"

They forget this elaborate and close to scientific
policy making process in the ANC. We should not be afraid to debate policy,
but we should be cautious not to associate certain policy positions with
individuals. There is an unhealthy tendency to label comrades, sometimes
even to call each other derogatory names.

This detracts from the purpose
of debate, which is to critically examine differing perspectives. Rather
than impugn the motives of comrades, we should concentrate instead on
exposing every view to scrutiny, regardless of who expresses it.

We should
not shy away from debate. Nor should we fear criticism of our views, whether
by comrades or in broader society. It is important that we debate economic
policy. It is important that we debate how to improve the effectiveness of
our police, and how we can better safeguard the lives of our police men and
women. We need also to debate how best to respond to incidents of racist and
sexist abuse.

Though these may be emotive issues, we should nevertheless be
able to conduct these debates in a way that deepens our understanding of the
issues. No person should be afraid to express themselves on any matter, just
as no person should assume that their views are beyond criticism.

If the
history of the African National Congress is any guide, the expression of
difference is not something to avoid; it is instead something to encourage
and to nurture. Only once all views have been canvassed can we say that our
decisions are the best they can be. Only then can we be united in
action.

Jacob G.
Zuma