Part 4: Independence from the ANC?

In this part of my open letter to ANCYL members, I look at the YL National Executive Committee’s claim of independence from the ANC in its defence against the ANC Disciplinary Committee’s ruling. (To comment on the letter, please go to its first part.)

Screenshot of the ANCYL's statement on the ANC's disciplinary ruling.

Hidden among procedural points against the ANC NDC ruling, well down the list of objections, features the point that lies at the heart of the conflict between the ANC and its Youth League: “The Misrepresentation of the ANC Youth League Constitution”.

What it says, as you will know, is that the YL’s constitution has been amended at its National Conference in June to state that being expelled from the ANC no longer automatically means being expelled from the YL – the YL will decide.  In other words, political positions rejected by the mother body can continue to be promoted through one of its sub-sections.

In the light of reports in the press that the amendments may have been added fraudulently, “misrepresentation” may eventually come to mean something different from what the authors intended, but irrespective of whether the amendments were adopted by the conference or not, the idea of independence from the mother body remains an utterly ridiculous one.  No wonder Derek Hanekom lost his patience with such nonsense.

The “ANC” in front of the “YL”

I can’t imagine that there’s a single YL member who misses the significance of the “ANC” in front of the “YL” in “ANCYL”.  Yet, here we find the “independent from the ANC” claim by the YL NEC again as part of the appeal, back in a new form after being roundly rejected by the National Disciplinary Committee.

Is it possible that the YL NEC members, people who take their politics seriously, could miss the fact that it would be absurd for a political party and its youth wing to pursue conflicting political goals?  Could it be that they don’t understand the difference between internal opposition to existing party policy and public statements contradicting party policy?

Could they honestly believe that any formation in the party can just issue any statement that suits it, irrespective of the current policy of the party?  And that a party which allows such a thing could still be a party, and not a loose collection of individuals promoting their personal interests?

It’s not possible, so the only logical explanation is that they’re misleading you.  They’re feeding you outrageous, ridiculous nonsense which they themselves cannot possibly believe.  And they’re counting on you being gullible enough to start shouting “independence!” without thinking what it means.

Or fearful enough of the consequences of not parroting the nonsense they feed you.

Intellectual dishonesty

This intellectual dishonesty has become a trademark of the YL NEC: determine the desired outcome, then find the theory that fits.

If they really want independence from the ANC, what are they doing in the ANC?  Independence is easy: just form an organisation outside the ANC.  They’ll never dream of doing that though, precisely because it’s the “ANC” in “ANCYL” which gives them the credibility to perform confidence tricks like this one so successfully.

The same intellectual dishonesty applies in my view to what I consider the fake nationalisation and expropriation rhetoric of the YL NEC, which is presented in the defence as the real reason why the (by implication unprincipled) ANC wants to get rid of these principled torch-bearers of economic justice.

That claim is the subject of the next part of the letter.