Parasitic Centralism Klepto-parasitism in politics by Communist University Vice Chancellor Dominic Tweedie The phrase “democratic centralism” describes all democracy, because in all democracy there must be an executive centre, as well as a mass periphery, which, in democracy, is the authority and the source of legitimacy for the centre. Democratic centralism has natural beauty. Bureaucratic centralism is the ugly, negating opposite of Democratic Centralism. When the central power is only bureaucratic and no longer even periodically subordinate to the basic popular power, then democracy is absent, and there is only bureaucracy. That’s what we don’t want. Let us hold the above truths to be self-evident; leave the good democratic, and the bad bureaucratic, centralisms; and look at the transitional condition, when the former is degenerating towards the latter. This degeneration, I suggest, is what happens when there is political kleptoparasitism. Parasitism in general happens when one species or individual – the parasite – benefits at the expense of another. Parasitism happens while the victim is still alive. Kleptoparasitism is a special form of the phenomenon. It is parasitism by theft. In nature, kleptoparasitism is seen when the parasitic animal lives by stealing food that was got by another animal, whether of a different species, or of the same species. Seagulls, for example, steal the food of other birds, including other seagulls. Male lions, for another example, are lazy to hunt. They steal food from the female lions. The political phenomenon that I am choosing to call “parasitic centralism” has the general characteristics of kleptoparasitism. It happens while the mass, popular base continues to exist and to exercise agency. It happens when the centre yields to the easy temptation of stealing the fruits of popular mass organisation, in a parasitic manner. The immediate consequence of parasitic centralism is the weakening of people’s power. Its eventual consequence will be the complete destruction of people’s power and the institution of bureaucratic centralism, wherein people’s power remains only as a fiction, or a myth. It is a necessary to have a term for this phenomenon. “Parasitic centralism” will do for the time being. It can help us to objectify something that is a serious present threat to our movement, and to our revolution. January 8th Statement Few disagree that mass organisation is the key to the success of our liberation project, called the National Democratic Revolution. In the ANC NEC’s 2015 January 8th Statement the regeneration of the ANC at a grassroots level is given first priority, under the Freedom Charter’ first main heading: “The People Shall Govern”. Regeneration of the ANC at a grassroots level means “building strong and vibrant ANC structures at grassroots level that are able to provide leadership to government and society,” according to the January 8th Statement. The statement goes on to say: “Our branches must serve as the leading force to address issues in their communities through the establishment of street committees… Each branch of the ANC must hold regular branch meetings and regular meetings with the community on issues that affect our people.” There are clear, objective reasons why such a regeneration is critical at this time. An election is approaching in 2016 that could result in the loss for the ANC of not just one, but up to four more metropolitan authorities, to add to the Cape Town metro already controlled by the DA. Further down the line is the possible loss of the Province of Gauteng at the next parliamentary and provincial election, in 2019, to add to the Cape Province, also already controlled by the DA. Brigades are not the answer If elections are going to become battles of “brigades”, where volunteers, sometimes paid for their services, blitz areas far from where they live, having been transported by buses, then the party with the most money to fund such a blitz-brigade type of campaign will win. The only counter to such a campaign is the building of strength in each ward. The existence of ANC organisation at ward level is what has given it overall victory in all of the elections since 1994. But the ANC has increasingly, especially in Gauteng, begun to rely on brigades, while its branch organisation withers. In the last election, such brigades were organised by the ANC itself, and also, separately, by the SACP and by COSATU. In Gauteng, the ANC organised two, rival sets of ANC brigades. A victory was secured, and some of the brigaders like to think that the success was because of their efforts. Consequently, there is now an on-going lobby in favour of this kind of practice. But it remains the case that good organisation at ward level will always defeat generalised political propaganda of all kinds, including mass media, advertising, and brigades. This is has been our real experience, as well as our common sense and our political science. In a contest of “brigades” and media, the party with the biggest fund will win. It is therefore only a matter of time until the ANC’s opponents become capable of mobilising, and effectively applying, a far larger fund of money than the ANC can find. In the past when this was the case (as in 1994, for example) the ANC won because of self-funded grassroots organisation. The danger therefore does not end with the prospect of defeat in a battle of the brigades. An even worse prospect is the lock-out of the ANC from ward politics, by the superior grassroots organisation of other parties. This will start to happen when other parties realise that street and ward organisation is the key to political power – in other words, when they realise that politics is a retail, and not a wholesale, business. According to their own documents, the EFF have indeed understood this, and are already taking steps to establish their own, parallel organs of people’s power so as to undermine the ANC in every single ward in the country. Our weakness: Parasitic centralism What is it that has destroyed the ANC’s former hegemony at local level? In my observation, the culprit is parasitic centralism. An easy way of illustrating this is to point out that when ANC branches are not in Election Mode, they are in Conference Mode. Because of this, the ordinary ANC member never has a chance to speak in her own branch meeting, about her own concerns. All of the time will be given over to the ambitious candidates and delegates, and especially to the incumbent higher ANC office-bearers and representatives such as Councillors, MPLs and MPs. Comrades can strive hard to create a “quorate” branch meeting, which can involve hundreds of people waiting for long periods of time. When the meeting opens, who will speak? Whose agenda will it be? Of course, it will be given over to the honoured ones. Nobody can challenge them. It is like the lion who feeds on the prey of the lionesses. The lion arrives, and takes the lion’s share. In the SACP there is sometimes more, and better-quality, discussion in meetings – when they occur. But the SACP has its own version of parasitic centralism. It happens in the form of a monopoly of centrally-imposed “campaigns”, which when they dominate party life, result in exclusion of local concerns from the agenda of the party at local level. Higher committees of the Party are apt to use the basic structure as a mobilising tool for centrally-conceived campaigns, some long-term and others not thought through. This practice has increased since the collection of levy has been centralised in the head office. Now, funds that were formerly supposed to be made available to lower structures are withheld to pay for centrally-demanded activities. Provincial, District and Branch officials are constantly busy trying to make these central campaigns work. Filling the buses and distributing the T-shirts becomes their major task. It’s parasitic centralism. COSATU is recovering from its own kind of parasitic centralism, not so much within the affiliates, but particularly between COSATU the federal structure, and the affiliates as mass periphery. Instead of deferring to, and serving, the affiliates, COSATU had begun to treat them as subordinates and to speak directly to the members that the affiliates had organised, as if they belonged to the centre like an army under a single general. If the term “parasitic centralism” tests positive for common meaning and understanding – or if we find a better, perhaps more African, term for this phenomenon – then we can start to eradicate the problem. We have no choice but to do so, because otherwise the call for regeneration of the movement will only mean more food for the kleptoparasites, as has been the case for too many years. - Communist University Vice Chancellor Dominic Tweedie
Posted on: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 21:54:48 +0000