Malaika wa Azania wrote: In an interview today, I was asked whether or not I agree with the principle of cadre deployment and without hesitation, I said yes. A country that is serious about change, especially one with a history like ours, can never entrust its governance to people with no progressive revolutionary theory. I am completely opposed to a country that is governed by transactional leaders whose technocracy supercedes their ideological outlook to development. I do not believe that a country must be run by uneducated people, but equally, I do not believe that educated people with regressive ideological outlook must govern. Given a choice between a leader with only a matric, but who is thoroughly grounded in Afrikan Nationalism, or one with a PhD but who is right-wing, I would opt for the former, because education means nothing if it is not supported by progressive ideological outlook. Hendrik Verwoerd had a PhD, as did many other architects of apartheid. The only real problem with cadre deployment is that it is not cadres who get deployed. The word cadre means A nucleus of trained personnel around which a larger organisation can be built and trained. Those of us who studied Biology will remember that a nucleus is a membrane bound structure that contains the cells hereditary information and controls the cells growth and reproduction. It is commonly the most prominent organelle in the cell. In layman terms, a nucleus can thus be defined as the central and most important part of an object, movement, or group, forming the basis for its activity and growth. A cadre is a specially trained person, rooted concretely in organisational literature, history, culture and discipline. A cadre has an astute grasp of an organisations ideological posture and orientation, and is a dedicated and loyal servant of the organisations cause. A cadre subordinates his own interests for a cause, because he understands that he is a core which must function so as to sustain the life of the organisation. Most of the people who are getting deployed in this process called cadre deployment are not cadres, they are simply members of the organisation. They have membership, they may even attend functions and conferences, but their cadreship is questionable. It is questionable because anyone who is the nucleus of an organisation would always work to ensure the growth of the organisation and reproduction of cadres who will continue to keep it alive. Instead, they marginalise anyone who is deemed a threat, which is usually someone who possesses potential to lead, or someone who dares to speak truth to power, against the rise of destructive tendencies and vices. They do things that destroy, not build, organisations: maladministration, corruption, misappropriation of funds, personal accumulation of wealth etc. These are not vices of a cadre, they are actions of a mere member who has no firm grounding in ideology, who does not understand the purpose of an organisation and who, frankly, has no respect for its cause. However, if cadres (not members) were deployed, the rot we are subjected to in our local municipalities and other spheres of government would be non-existent, because these people would understand that the attainment of a truly national democratic society demands complete selflessness, honesty and utmost loyalty to no other cause but the interests of the poor. Member deployment must not be confused with cadre deployment, because cadre deployment (the one that is not vulgarised) is progressive and revolutionary.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:51:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015