By Leslie Mxolisi Dikeni
Over the past few months, much has been said by political analysts, party leaders, trade union leaders, different civic organisational leaders and different members of the ANC about the successes and failures of the pre- and post-Polokwane conference of the ANC.
The analysis and stated arguments of these various actors centred around, the various leadership squabbles within the ANC, the succession debate, the different policy outcomes of the Polokwane conference and who the “dominant” and “less dominant” forces behind those policies are, the different ideological forces dominating the ANC and linked to this is whether the ANC is a political organisation that has adopted socialism or capitalism as an ideological path for the developmental process for South Africa. Key to some of these vignettes, are the conflicting debates over the relationship between the ANC and its alliance partners, Cosatu and the SACP.
In my view, all these various analytical political assertion are discursive, outward looking, politically-deterministic and have failed to deal with the structural historical problems of what was a socially dynamic liberation movement.
In particular, they have failed to analyse the rich historical “organisational culture” of such a liberation movement, and the importance of culture in sustaining, building, and socially developing an organisation. And this is the point that this piece wants to address. In so doing we need to first come to a common understanding of what we mean by the phenomenon of organisational culture. But what is this phenomenon we call culture? The word has been derived metaphorically from the idea of cultivation: the process of tilling and developing land. When we talk about culture we are usually referring to the pattern of development reflected in a society’s system of knowledge, ideology, values, laws and day-to-day ritual. The word is also frequently used to the degree of refinement evident in such systems of belief and practice, as the notion of being “cultured”. Both these usages derive from 19th century observations of “primitive” societies conveying the idea that different societies manifest different levels of social development.
Nowadays, however, the concept of culture does not necessarily carry this old evaluative stance, being used more generally to signify that different groups of people have different ways of life. When talking about society as a culture we are thus using an agricultural metaphor to guide our attention to very specific aspects of social development. It is a metaphor that has considerable relevance for our understanding of organisations (Morgan, 1997).
It is through this theoretical conceptual framework that I would like to examine the historical organisational culture of the ANC. However, for reasons of time and space it will be difficult here, to deeply penetrate and/or deal in detail with such a dynamic historical trajectory, built over years and influenced by various social actors of the liberation movement (if we can still claim it is such). One can only offer a thumbnail sketch of such an organisational historical process. Suffice here, is to divide such a historical organisational and cultural process into two periodical stages (this notwithstanding the continuity and discontinuities in such a historical process) the colonial and the post-colonial period. The colonial period, can briefly be characterised as that period when the ANC was directly in conflict with the apartheid regime in fighting colonialism and racism in all its forms. Such a period was a moment in time characterised by many different stages and took different paradigmatic shifts. These are for example, the year 1912 during the birth of the ANC. This period, as with many other historical periods to follow within the historical discourse of the ANC can be described in many ways. However, at a specific cultural level the most apparent cultural character of the ANC was that of a movement that was strongly influenced by religion, by social values of both traditionalism and modernity and a social concern for the liberation of the African people from colonialism and racism. At another specific level, to reach that goal meant that the liberation movement had to use a variety of strategies and tactics ranging from mass mobilisation, organising and developing concrete actions against the apartheid colonial regime.
The second period was that of the 1950s and that of the 1960s. The historical events of this period were similar to those of 1912 except with some minor changes at a strategic level. For example, during this period the liberation movement embarked on armed struggle and other actions such as mobilising the international community against the apartheid regime. The apparent, historical organisational and cultural rupture that took place within the liberation movement based on the conditions of the time (the continuation of violent repression by the regime and the banning of political organisations), was that of the 1970s and the 80s. This period is characterised by two distinct and yet interwoven ideological trends within the history of the liberation struggle in South Africa, that of the black conscious movement and that of what was popularly known as the congress tradition. At a specific organisational cultural level (our primary concern here), this period can be characterised as that of popular uprisings by different organisations organised into different sectors of South African society. Though holding different ideological positions and having different interests these organisations were dynamic and united by a common agenda, that of opposing the apartheid regime. Of importance, organisationally and culturally speaking these organisations operated within a framework of organising people within the different sectors (for example the UDF with its affiliates) of South African society. Among many other things, this meant that they had greater autonomy amongst themselves, actions taken were specific and issues based, members within the organisation could be more creative and dynamic, be more critical, more vibrant and thus could engage freely in political and social issues of the day.
The most critical and complete different historical organisational cultural rupture that took place within the history of the ANC was in 1990. Briefly described, this period, resulted in the disbandment of the UDF and other organisations operating at the time. Among other things, this meant that all the different affiliated organisations to the UDF were now absorbed by the ANC. At an organisational and cultural level of analysis this meant that the ANC had to adapt itself to accommodate these diverse organisations operating from an organisational framework of organising different sectors of South African society. The key question to be posed here is: Was the organisation prepared for this? Hence, the emerging debate at the time, from the members of the Department of Political Education of the ANC on whether the organisation should become a political party and/or remain as a liberation movement. Many (including myself) argued vehemently that it must become both. Others argued differently and were divided and argued for either of the two options. As in many debates of this nature, there are “winners” and there are “losers”, we lost, and thus the liberation movement became a “political party”.
Contrary to the popular belief of the “winners” in this political game, mainly that, the organisation was progressing and thus becoming more “professional”. In my view, this was a nightmare, in other words, metaphorically thinking George Orwell’s Animal Farm story was becoming a true reality as opposed to some fairy tale. It is important to note here, that my analysis is based on me being a member of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and an underground member of the ANC. During this period, while working for the Department of Economic Planning, I ethnographically observed the emergence of this particular culture. While observing, it became evident to me that the patterns of interaction between individuals, the language that is used (for example the concept of “organic intellectuals” as conceptualised by Antonio Gramsci disappeared from the vocabulary of many activists in the movement) the images and themes explored in conversation, and the various rituals of daily routine were changing. Linked to all of this was the daily talk among some organisational personnel of how we need to develop a corporate style in approaching organisational work. For example, issues that I considered being pedantic like the social style of dressing and types of cars being driven became serious organisational issues. And often those possessing the best cars and the best suits fitted the criteria of bringing more value to the organisation.
At a branch and regional level, meetings and other public forums always seemed dominated by polite yet disinterested exchange. Members rarely got involved in any real debate and seemed to take very little in-depth interest in what was being said. In fact, this particular phenomenon was very much observable from what I would call “mafikizolos” (johnny-come-lately) who had no historical pedagogical induction about the history of the organisation. Meetings were treated as rituals by these “newcomers”. This superficiality was confirmed by observed differences between new and old members of the organisation. Whereas in public, the ethos of harmony and co-operation ruled, in private, people often expressed considerable anger and dissatisfaction with various organisational leaders and with the organisation in general.
In public, the impression that all was well gained the upper hand. When problematic issues were identified, they were always presented as challenges to minimise the possibility of upsetting anyone. Driven underground by a style of leadership that effectively prevented the discussion of differences, genuine concerns were not given the attention they deserved. The worse in this case, was the development of a “status cult” which often resulted to petty struggles between so-called “senior comrades” versus “junior comrades”. Educational qualifications also suddenly became an issue for socially measuring who adds value within the organisation as opposed to social knowledge and organisational experiences. In this sense, we can see how “corporate culture”, develop as an ethos within the organisation created and sustained by social processes, images, symbols and rituals. Finally, as in the case of George Orwell’s Animal Farm book this culture has slowly penetrated the organisation and thus, has become a social repertoire. It is about time that the organisation should discontinue this historical cultural organisational social repertoire.
Any analysis that seeks to understand both strengths and weaknesses of the outcomes of the deliberations in Polokwane, should at least be able to incorporate within its theoretical framework of analysis a historical organisational interpretation of the ANC.
Shared values, shared beliefs, shared meaning, shared understanding and shared sense-making are all different ways of describing culture. In talking about culture we are really talking about a process of reality construction that allows people to see and understand particular events, actions, objects, utterances or situations in distinctive ways. These patterns of understanding help us to cope with the situations being encountered and also provide a basis for making our own behaviour sensible and meaningful.
* Leslie Mxolisi Dikeni is a sociologist and author of several books including
South African Development Perspectives in Question and Habitat and Struggle: The Case of the Kruger National Park in South Africa