South Africa

South Africa

Replacing Hanekom: Not so simple, not so easy

Replacing Hanekom: Not so simple, not so easy
Photo: The chairman of South Africas ruling African National Congress (ANC) national disciplinary committee Derek Hanekom addresses a press conference at the party's headquarters in Johanesburg

On Monday morning ordinary citizens woke up to what had kept the politicati a-Twitter all night. ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe had written to the chair of the party’s National Disciplinary Committee, Derek Hanekom, and asked him to explain why he should not be removed from his position. As part of his letter Mantashe included several tweets sent out by Hanekom which appeared to infer that he was encouraging other ANC MPs to vote against retaining President Jacob Zuma at the Union Buildings during the Parliamentary vote two weeks ago. The move suggests that Zuma is finally beginning to hit back. But it also adds to the complexity of an already complicated political situation. By STEPHEN GROOTES.

The most honest way to start investigating the decision to formally start a process that could see Hanekom being removed from his position is to state that for this, as for so many other things in the ANC at the moment, there could be up to around seventeen explanations for what is happening. Much hinges on your view of Mantashe. If you think that he is weak, that he has “Mantashed” on Zuma and still justifies retaining him a President, then you may believe this is the end of Hanekom, and perhaps the end of the ANC in some way. If you think that he is playing a much longer and more difficult political game about supporting Cyril Ramaphosa, then perhaps you would have different view.

And who knows where the truth lies, if such things exist anymore anyway.

But we can say without any doubt that this is a significant move. In the view of this writer, one of the most important dynamics of the last eighteen months or so has been the fact that every ANC national executive committee meeting has seen questions about whether “Zuma will survive”. There has been no hint of a discussion about whether Zuma’s critics will survive, it has appeared that they have been the people with agency, the political power to move, while Zuma has had to simply survive. The next NEC meeting will be different. For the first time since probably the climax of the Nkandla scandal, it will be about whether one of Zuma’s most vocal, and public, critics can survive.

The position of chair of the ANC’s National Disciplinary Committee is in the gift of the NEC. It elects members to that committee and to the chair of that committee, and it elects members and a chair for the Appeals Committee as well. It is then up to the NEC as well to decide whether to remove someone as chair or as a member of these committees. This means that any move against Hanekom is going to be yet another proxy battle around Zuma. While it will be about the future of Hanekom, it will really be a test of strength for Zuma.

One of the curious features of the letter written by Mantashe is that it only mentions the series of tweets authored by Hanekom. It does not refer to any of his other public statements. Hanekom spoke at The Daily Maverick Gathering and made similar comments that were recorded on video. He has spoken at numerous public meetings. He is also the chair of the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, which has been bluntly critical of Zuma’s rule. Any of these aspects could have been used against Hanekom, and yet Mantashe is only relying on a few tweets. Perhaps, this is deliberate, it is possible that Mantashe does not really want Hanekom gone. Or perhaps it is more tactical, in that the ANC would not want to rely on third parties for evidence, with all of the difficulties that that could bring. It certainly seems unlikely that Hanekom will deny being responsible for these tweets, and he would then have to explain each and every word of them, which could end up strengthening the case against him.

One of the interesting parts of the context around Hanekom is what is happening to the other anti-Zuma rebels in the ANC. Makhosi Khoza has been removed from her position as Chair of Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Public Services and Administration. She is also facing a disciplinary hearing from her home province of KwaZulu/Natal. Mondli Gungubele has made no secret of his antipathy towards Zuma, and he has said he is currently facing no action, although he doesn’t rule it out in the near future.

And then there is Pravin Gordhan. The former Finance Minister does not appear to be facing any kind of action at all at the moment. Last week, ANC stalwart, Professor Ben Turok said on the Midday Report that trying to discipline Gordhan “would be the most ridiculous thing in the world”, because he “has so much public support”. There is no doubt that Gordhan would be a tough nut to crack. As the man who almost sat upon the massive fault line running through the ANC, it could be like his removal from Cabinet all over again. And that’s before you consider that case against him, that all he has said, again and again, is that he would vote his conscience. It would be quite an admission on the side of an ANC prosecution to have to say that from just that statement it was obvious he voted against Zuma.

But the point of this is that there are four people who have indicated they voted, or would vote, against Zuma; Gordhan, Gungubele, Khoza and Hanekom. Last week Mantashe said that those who had said in public they had voted against Zuma would be disciplined. But none of them are yet facing discipline. Gordhan and Gungubele currently face no action at all. Hanekom is not being disciplined, but being removed from his position because his neutrality is being called into question. And while Khoza is probably being punished for what she has done, she is not actually being formally disciplined by the national ANC for voting against Zuma, or saying that she would.

Why not? To not take some action against these MPs surely indicates weakness, an unwillingness to grasp a nettle that threatens the survival of the ANC as a political party. It might just be a matter of time. Or it might be that any case against them could turn out to be quite weak, in that there is no proof of what they are accused of doing or that was inherently wrong. Never mind that the divisions in the ANC would surely be deepened were action to actually be taken against them in this way.

Then there is the question of what would happen if Hanekom were actually to be removed from his position. The fact that so many people in the ANC have spoken out against its leadership and no action has been taken against them may well have something to do with the fact that his sympathies are with them. Deciding on formal disciplinary action in the ANC is a complex legal and political task, so it could also just be that no one has dared to move against these critics. But if he were removed, the political calculations involved could change. In other words, it might be easier for Zuma to move against his opponents if Hanekom were removed.

Key to this would be who would take over. At the moment, the National Disciplinary Panel only has four members, it could be any of them, or someone else. But this is also complicated. Surely there are no neutral people left in the NEC right now? Which means that no one is going to have the neutrality that Mantashe complains Hanekom is so lacking. And the fight to replace Hanekom could trigger even deeper divisions.

And the prize is actually quite a limited one. Time is marching on, the ANC’s leadership contest, which will also see the membership of the NEC change, is due to occur in December. If Hanekom does leave the post, that is still unlikely to happen until September at the earliest. Which leaves only around three months for the disciplinary machinery to be used as a political weapon.

When one considers the situation in the ANC, you can imagine that Mantashe is faced with a difficult situation. As secretary general it is up to him to keep the ANC as unified as possible. He could well be accused of dereliction of duty if he did not act against someone who held a senior position and yet was acting in a way that brought that position into disrepute. So, politically he may have felt he had to act, he has to follow the rulebook. Morally of course, there is a different question. And it would have to be this: Is it right to act against Hanekom and not against the person who has caused so much of the trouble in the first place? DM

Photo: The chairman of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) national disciplinary committee Derek Hanekom addresses a press conference at the party’s headquarters in Johanesburg, South Africa, 10 November 2011. EPA/JON HRUSA

Gallery

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

X

This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don’t force you to pay to read the news but we do need your email address to make your experience better.


Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Become a Maverick Insider

This could have been a paywall

On another site this would have been a paywall. Maverick Insider keeps our content free for all.

Become an Insider

Every seed of hope will one day sprout.

South African citizens throughout the country are standing up for our human rights. Stay informed, connected and inspired by our weekly FREE Maverick Citizen newsletter.