The GNU: ‘Liberation Movement’ Model
In this blog series we are unpacking the recent elections, the formation of the proposed GNU, and Al Jama-ah’s position as it relates to the ANC’s Liberation Model.
In Part 2 we looked at the DA’s proposal, what we called “The DA’s Grand Coalition Model” – and how it came about. In this blog, we will unpack the ANC’s response, what we will call: The “ANC’s Liberation Model.
While the ANC and the DA were still meeting, and discussing their ‘grand coalition’ partnership, the ANC National Executive Committee (NEC) actually rejected the proposed DA model, and proposed an alternative model of their own; one that was viewed as more practical in the circumstances.
They also cleverly revised a Statement of Intention (SoI). This statement revealed a different strategy and included bringing in other partners, instead of only the DA and its moon-shot pack members such as the Patriotic Alliance (PA). The purpose, it seems, was to lure into its GNU model other and smaller parties; ones that would add to the ANC’s numbers and thus place the ANC and these partners in a better position to challenge the DA and its ilk.
While these negotiations were happening on the front end, between the DA and ANC, and before this SoI was released, the other parties were also meeting. The PAC and EFF for example, caucused to see how they could be considered as an alternative grouping with which the ANC could partner to form a GNU; together, the group called themselves the Progressive Caucus. The idea for this group was mooted by the EFF and supported by Al Jama-ah. They brought on board others that included the ATM and the UDM
A quick word about the SoI is in order at this point:
first, after having browsed through the SoI, the impression is given that was part of process to redirect the ANC and those joining this GNU;
second, the SoI comes across as a life-line for the ANC in trying circumstances;
third, though the document’s preamble was clobbered together with the spirit of Ubuntu, it did not insert those humanitarian values that stressed the need for the sacred protection of human life and here it could have pointed to the genocide that has been unfolding on a daily basis in and outside Palestine;
fourth, while the GNU’s foundational principles are duly acknowledged, the question is: why did it not categorially underline that parties steer clear of openly identifying with genocidal states and oppressive governments across the globe;
fifth, that its foreign policy be forthright against any nation-state that go against universal values and practices;
sixth, though the head of state has been granted the constitutional right and prerogative in appointing individuals into responsible posts that this practice should change; it should instead use collective decision-making process in appointing such personnel;
seventh, that consultation shall be a key feature of GNU’s activities; and
eighth, that the document should not be cast in stone and be open to amendments as the GNU evolves.
Al Jama-ah’s revised position regarding the GNU; was in response to the ANC’s SoI.
Despite the shortcomings pointed out in an earlier sections, the ANC’s proposal of a recrafted GNU differs from that which it presented to the DA. This reconfiguration does not imply being ‘in bed’ with the DA as many critics assume; quite the contrary in fact.
Joining the ‘ANC’s Liberation Movement’ GNU model actually:
(a) waters down the DA’s political powers,
(b) marginalizes DA’s influence in all spheres of government,
(c) allows its critical foreign policy against the Zionist state to continue; and
(d) its legal quest to charge the Zionist state’s political leader for ‘crimes against humanity’ to remain on the cards.
Read: Al Jama-ah’s revised position regarding the GNU