This is a very small yet significant development because of the direction of travel it suggests the ANC is taking. I will do my best to break it down here with *a lot* of context.
**Summary**
* The ANC has decided to open its mayoral nomination process up to the public
* In the past, the way it worked was that whoever won the internal election for the relevant ANC branch would become the mayor
* The ANC has been moving away from that slowly, and now they have arrived at a point where they are open to nominations from the general public
* They have also increased the requirements to stand as a mayoral candidate to include having a tertiary qualification and other markers of professional competence.
* According to the article, there is one single portal for nominations through which all candidate nominations will be submitted – ANC members and non-members will be screened and interviewed on the same criteria
* However, the expectation is that if the ANC selects a non-member as candidate, that person would go on to join the ANC as a member before the election and sign a pledge to implement their manifesto
Okay, now let’s break this down slowly. What is actually happening, and why does it matter?
**1) Political parties are the weak point in South Africa’s otherwise solid institutional architecture**
* Countries become prosperous when they have institutions that promote innovation, accountability, liberty, reward merit and protect people from exploitation.
* South Africa’s Constitution was written in the 90s, and its institutions were designed with a strong focus on preventing exploitation and abuse. South Africa’s state institutions are genuinely good.
* Despite this, South Africa struggles with corruption, government incapacity and persistent poverty and inequality.
* The reason for this is not because there is something wrong with the *state* institutions. The problem is the way political parties work internally.
* On this sub, we often talk about institutions, but we seldom mention the political party itself as an institution. But political parties are an institution, and the rules that govern them strongly affect the way the state works, in my opinion.
* It is the bad design of the political parties that explain why South Africa does poorly even though it has all the right things in its constitutional architecture.
**2) Parties should be dynamic, diverse and willing to change; but also have integrity and enforce accountability**
* Besides the ANC, South Africa’s political parties are mostly fiefdoms built around one particular leader who has run the party since its founding.
* They are generally not dynamic and they limit their own ability to grow by being too inward looking and unable to change.
* This explains why there have been countless parties and very, very few have ever grown to be larger than 5% and to keep growing or at least not collapse.
* The best of these parties is the Democratic Alliance, which is the second largest party in South Africa and at least changes its nominal leaders frequently. But even the DA does not function like a party that truly wants to govern the whole country. It does try new things from time to time, but it doesn’t have the courage or trust in itself to give their changes time to work.
* But the ANC is much better on this metric than any other party. It is ideologically diverse and is basically a coalition of people who disagree and have conflicting interests. It changes its leaders regularly, both within the party and in the state.
* The ANC’s problem, however, is a lack of structures that promote integrity and lack of accountability.
* Instead, the ANC absorbed Soviet ideas like cadre deployment and democratic centralism which promote corruption. These ideas mean that instead of selecting the best person for the job, the ANC appoints people in non-political state roles based on fealty to the organisation. I’m talking about authorities that run water boards, for example.
* Through the ANC and because of the ANC, corrupt forces were able to turn state machinery into a vast patronage network that has bled the country for decades now.
* The internal rules and designs of the ANC, and of every other party, are what have hobbled South Africa. The ANC is designed to maximize membership and it does so, but has no rules to enforce good governance. And parties that should have replaced the ANC by now struggle to grow in numbers because they are too insular and have little to no internal democracy.
**3) The ANC can change, and this is the easiest way to save South Africa from decline**
* The ANC was founded over a century ago. It was a very different organization then compared to what it is now.
* The one thing that has been true of the ANC since its founding is that it is open to change and diversity of thought within the organization. It has changed leaders since the very beginning.
* When the ANC decides to change, it does so through an institutional approach – it creates new structures and amends rules. The party generally abides by its rules. It operates as a real institution and not just a giant group chat. The fact that it is over a century old should make it obvious that we are dealing with people who know how to think in terms of written rules and institutions, not just interpersonal relationships.
* Based on this track record of reinvention, one should not be too cynical about the ability of the ANC to change. If the leadership of the party agree and write down that they are going to change the ‘rules of the game’, then it actually does happen.
* For example, the ANC introduced a ‘step-aside’ rule where any member formally charged with corruption must ‘step aside’ out of their government role until a court judgement is made. This led to the [resignation of the Speaker](https://www.voaafrica.com/a/south-africa-s-speaker-of-parliament-resigns-amid-graft-allegations/7555665.html).
* Reforming the ANC – without restoring their majority – would be the easiest way to fix South Africa. It would mean we have two decent parties – ANC and DA – which together can govern in a moderate and sensible way.
* If the ANC were to completely implode, that would lead to a much, much more difficult situation. The DA would not have a sensible governing partner. The DA has little to no presence in vast swathes of the country. It would be forced to grow and change and it might not do that very well.
**4) This change will make no difference in the short-term, but it indicates a positive direction of travel**
* I do not think that this particular change in processes is going to make a difference to the ANC in the short-term. The nomination window was fairly small, and it is still very early days. They will probably still elect poor candidates into mayoral positions and continue to fail in local government for the next few years.
* But what matters is the direction. It shows that the ANC’s old habit of renewing itself by changing its rules and processes still exists. Somewhere in the ANC, memories of a much older, more liberal and less Soviet organization do exist. Someone or someones in the ANC ‘get it’ – the path to renewal is not just trying to be better, it’s about changing the rules of the game.
* When the rules of the game change, one thing that happens is that those who do not like the new rules tend to purge themselves from an organization. This means that the process is auto-catalytic.
* In the late 2000s, moderates in the ANC did this. They founded a new party which flopped, concentrating the influence of bad ideas within the ANC.
* But now, in the 2020s, the reverse has happened. There is a long list of shadowy characters from the 2010s ANC who have left, stepped aside or otherwise diminished in influence.
* As long as the ANC keeps walking in this direction – rewriting rules to promote merit, integrity and performance based advancement within the party – it will eventually reform.
* A reformed ANC winning between 30% – 40% of the vote and in coalition with the DA at 20% is the best case scenario for the next few decades of South Africa.
1 Comment
**Submission Statement**
This is a very small yet significant development because of the direction of travel it suggests the ANC is taking. I will do my best to break it down here with *a lot* of context.
**Summary**
* The ANC has decided to open its mayoral nomination process up to the public
* In the past, the way it worked was that whoever won the internal election for the relevant ANC branch would become the mayor
* The ANC has been moving away from that slowly, and now they have arrived at a point where they are open to nominations from the general public
* They have also increased the requirements to stand as a mayoral candidate to include having a tertiary qualification and other markers of professional competence.
* According to the article, there is one single portal for nominations through which all candidate nominations will be submitted – ANC members and non-members will be screened and interviewed on the same criteria
* However, the expectation is that if the ANC selects a non-member as candidate, that person would go on to join the ANC as a member before the election and sign a pledge to implement their manifesto
Okay, now let’s break this down slowly. What is actually happening, and why does it matter?
**1) Political parties are the weak point in South Africa’s otherwise solid institutional architecture**
* Countries become prosperous when they have institutions that promote innovation, accountability, liberty, reward merit and protect people from exploitation.
* South Africa’s Constitution was written in the 90s, and its institutions were designed with a strong focus on preventing exploitation and abuse. South Africa’s state institutions are genuinely good.
* Despite this, South Africa struggles with corruption, government incapacity and persistent poverty and inequality.
* The reason for this is not because there is something wrong with the *state* institutions. The problem is the way political parties work internally.
* On this sub, we often talk about institutions, but we seldom mention the political party itself as an institution. But political parties are an institution, and the rules that govern them strongly affect the way the state works, in my opinion.
* It is the bad design of the political parties that explain why South Africa does poorly even though it has all the right things in its constitutional architecture.
**2) Parties should be dynamic, diverse and willing to change; but also have integrity and enforce accountability**
* Besides the ANC, South Africa’s political parties are mostly fiefdoms built around one particular leader who has run the party since its founding.
* They are generally not dynamic and they limit their own ability to grow by being too inward looking and unable to change.
* This explains why there have been countless parties and very, very few have ever grown to be larger than 5% and to keep growing or at least not collapse.
* The best of these parties is the Democratic Alliance, which is the second largest party in South Africa and at least changes its nominal leaders frequently. But even the DA does not function like a party that truly wants to govern the whole country. It does try new things from time to time, but it doesn’t have the courage or trust in itself to give their changes time to work.
* But the ANC is much better on this metric than any other party. It is ideologically diverse and is basically a coalition of people who disagree and have conflicting interests. It changes its leaders regularly, both within the party and in the state.
* The ANC’s problem, however, is a lack of structures that promote integrity and lack of accountability.
* Instead, the ANC absorbed Soviet ideas like cadre deployment and democratic centralism which promote corruption. These ideas mean that instead of selecting the best person for the job, the ANC appoints people in non-political state roles based on fealty to the organisation. I’m talking about authorities that run water boards, for example.
* Through the ANC and because of the ANC, corrupt forces were able to turn state machinery into a vast patronage network that has bled the country for decades now.
* The internal rules and designs of the ANC, and of every other party, are what have hobbled South Africa. The ANC is designed to maximize membership and it does so, but has no rules to enforce good governance. And parties that should have replaced the ANC by now struggle to grow in numbers because they are too insular and have little to no internal democracy.
**3) The ANC can change, and this is the easiest way to save South Africa from decline**
* The ANC was founded over a century ago. It was a very different organization then compared to what it is now.
* The one thing that has been true of the ANC since its founding is that it is open to change and diversity of thought within the organization. It has changed leaders since the very beginning.
* When the ANC decides to change, it does so through an institutional approach – it creates new structures and amends rules. The party generally abides by its rules. It operates as a real institution and not just a giant group chat. The fact that it is over a century old should make it obvious that we are dealing with people who know how to think in terms of written rules and institutions, not just interpersonal relationships.
* Based on this track record of reinvention, one should not be too cynical about the ability of the ANC to change. If the leadership of the party agree and write down that they are going to change the ‘rules of the game’, then it actually does happen.
* For example, the ANC introduced a ‘step-aside’ rule where any member formally charged with corruption must ‘step aside’ out of their government role until a court judgement is made. This led to the [resignation of the Speaker](https://www.voaafrica.com/a/south-africa-s-speaker-of-parliament-resigns-amid-graft-allegations/7555665.html).
* Reforming the ANC – without restoring their majority – would be the easiest way to fix South Africa. It would mean we have two decent parties – ANC and DA – which together can govern in a moderate and sensible way.
* If the ANC were to completely implode, that would lead to a much, much more difficult situation. The DA would not have a sensible governing partner. The DA has little to no presence in vast swathes of the country. It would be forced to grow and change and it might not do that very well.
**4) This change will make no difference in the short-term, but it indicates a positive direction of travel**
* I do not think that this particular change in processes is going to make a difference to the ANC in the short-term. The nomination window was fairly small, and it is still very early days. They will probably still elect poor candidates into mayoral positions and continue to fail in local government for the next few years.
* But what matters is the direction. It shows that the ANC’s old habit of renewing itself by changing its rules and processes still exists. Somewhere in the ANC, memories of a much older, more liberal and less Soviet organization do exist. Someone or someones in the ANC ‘get it’ – the path to renewal is not just trying to be better, it’s about changing the rules of the game.
* When the rules of the game change, one thing that happens is that those who do not like the new rules tend to purge themselves from an organization. This means that the process is auto-catalytic.
* In the late 2000s, moderates in the ANC did this. They founded a new party which flopped, concentrating the influence of bad ideas within the ANC.
* But now, in the 2020s, the reverse has happened. There is a long list of shadowy characters from the 2010s ANC who have left, stepped aside or otherwise diminished in influence.
* As long as the ANC keeps walking in this direction – rewriting rules to promote merit, integrity and performance based advancement within the party – it will eventually reform.
* A reformed ANC winning between 30% – 40% of the vote and in coalition with the DA at 20% is the best case scenario for the next few decades of South Africa.