In adopting the 1996 Constitution at its 50th Conference in Mafikeng the ANC entered a terrain of struggle it might have fatally missed an opportunity to characterise as part of the spokes keeping its historic wheel in balance. It is inarguable, given how the ANC unfolded side by side with the 1996 Constitution, that the movement was not ready for it. Evidence in rhetoric, political behaviour, relationship with the rule of law, the continued posture that ANCness is the supreme firmament over the law, and the birth pains of a looming federalist multiparty democracy prove the low depth of readiness.

The ANC is not demonstrating intellectual, philosophical, and moral readiness for the constitutional democracy they are part of creating. The central danger identified by this observation is that, since 1996, gradually, and perhaps initially since 1994, without noticing, the ANC became increasingly subjugated to the belief that it ‘won the liberation struggle vis-a-vis a political settlement’. This has grossly undermined the understanding of the nature, form, and character of the transferred political power to ‘we the people’ as in the opening statement of the 1996 Constitution. 

The transfer of political power promised consequences of a social, economic, and moral justice form, nature, and character. The later demands for economic freedom in our lifetime, radical economic transformation, and reconfiguration of the templates of economic domination find their roots in the liberation promises written in the 1996 Constitution. Never before have South Africans, including those who led the ANC, and those who opposed it, functioned within a political dispensation that obligates organs of state to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill the rights in the Bill of Rights. This obligation defines ‘we the people’ beyond those that have organised themselves as political parties. We are the market for their politics, and if we are unhappy we show it in how we vote or don’t participate. 

Beyond the freedom from colonialism and apartheid awaited our freedom from the tyranny of one dominant party governments, majorities that could not be dislodged from political power, and minorities organised around chauvinist issues such as race, gender, and tribalism. The facility of public representation that allows anyone who qualifies as a Member of Parliament to become the President of South Africa purely on the basis of a 51 plus one majority has increased the prospect for appropriate leadership befitting societal challenges. 

It is not going to be easy to be given a President whose standing in society is questionable because s/he enjoys the integrity and good standing as defined by his or her party. As the ANC NGC deliberates on the renewal of the liberation movement, one of the standards it should keep track of is that beyond the NGC, there are smarter voters.

In the new RSA democratic order, the ANC faces a post-liberation paradox. To either continue centralising the logic of its existence in its branches and members, or looking beyond these and anchor it on voter approval ratings. It is no secret that this paradox is known and variously analysed within the ANC structures. What chokes it is that ANCness, which was a node of political settlement determined political power, has largely escaped sustained critical interrogation with regard to what has it become. Leadership succession and contestation has become its permanent lens or vector of analysis. 

The battle for leadership positions has reshaped how politics of the liberation movement are run. The deliberative, robust, and revolutionary character of the liberation movement has ceased to being the preserve of its thinking self. Ideas that ultimately prevail are sponsored by the highest bidders. It has come down to the black Woolworths grocery bag politicking. 

As the NGC is in session, we the people, stand at the edge of a political lifeworld populated by rented ideas, most of which will come to rival and surpass what the true objectives of the liberation struggle were all about.