Generally speaking, all political parties like to keep disputes between their members in-house. It never looks good when party members contradict each other in public. Doing so creates the impression that they can’t stand each other, but profess unity, and do not really know what they stand for.

The political parties are ideally made up of people who should have the same, or very similar, beliefs and want the same governance outcomes; in an election phase not speaking in one voice is even more damaging, leaving potential voters unsure who to vote for, and what a particular party really stands for.

Business people and investors, as we have been reminded again and again, crave stability and predictability, not schizophrenic messages. They will put their money (usually someone else’s pension fund) into a place where they can predict what will happen in the future. Shocks are bad — disputes where it is impossible to predict the victors are even worse.

And yet, just 10 days ago, two senior members of the ANC — members of the national executive committee (NEC) — had such a dispute over an issue likely to concern those investors.

It started when Ekurhuleni Mayor Mzwandile Masina tweeted about his belief that the Reserve Bank should be nationalised. It’s a belief that is clearly sincerely held, and Masina is not alone in the ANC, or even in the NEC, to hold such a view. Finance Minister, Tito Mboweni’s response was brusque and rude, “Here is the simplified Mboweni idiom”, he tweeted, “OPEN YOUR BRAIN FIRST BEFORE OPENING YOUR MOUTH. This means, for example, don’t say things about the SA Reserve Bank before you know what the bank does. Ok. Helpful? See you at the NEC lekgotla.”

Imagine, for a moment, that this had been a verbal conversation, happening live, on talk radio.

The use of capital letters denotes shouting — Mboweni raising his voice. If such a conversation had been conducted verbally, the phrase “see you at the NEC lekgotla” could almost have been taken as a threat. Masina’s response was a long series of tweets explaining his position, and why he believed the bank’s standing should change.

When we are told, consistently and repeatedly, that the party is striving for “unity”, this is surely two senior members of the NEC of the governing party literally shouting at each other over policy.

It does not end there.

This past weekend, former President Jacob Zuma tweeted that he was at the Try Again Sports Ground in Limpopo for an event to honour the memory of Kgosi Mampuru II. ANC elections head Fikile Mbalula publicly upbraided him, on Twitter asking:

“But cde President, is this the right thing to do, unless u are delegated Msholozi? U were a President bfo is this the right protocol? To go around addressing events that should b addressed by a seating President?” (sic, sic, sic, sic, sic, sic…)

Again, imagine the real-world example. In any situation where the two were face-to-face, is it possible to imagine Mbalula actually publicly telling off a former president to his face?

Zuma responded, saying:

“Comrade Mbalula, I am certain that you are not supposed to ask me such a question through twitter as you are inviting me to ask you questions on your question. This would lead to a conversation between you and I, either you educating me on ANC policy or vice versa.”

It was the first in a series of three tweets, and the conversation between them appeared to end there. Of course, a number of other people jumped in, some displaying sheer delight.

There have been several other situations in which senior ANC leaders have appeared to publicly criticise party policy.

A few weeks ago, the party’s acting national spokersperson, Zizi Kodwa, was doing his usual spin at the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture. Andile Lungisa, who continues to represent the ANC on the mayoral committee of Nelson Mandela Bay despite being instructed to resign by the NEC, then said:

“Zizi views which are expressed in the Zondo Commission are not organizational positions. The organizational position is the establishment of the Commission only not abantu ababhudayo in that commission…” (sic, sic, sic…)

Another ANC veteran of the Twitter streets, NEC member Tony Yengeni, asked on Twitter:

“Zizi is speaking on whose behalf” (sic)

Imagine you are Kodwa attempting to control the damage to the ANC brand coming out of the Zondo Commission, but there are two senior members of your party actually criticising you for doing that. It did not help Kodwa’s efforts.

Lungisa and Yengeni, of course, are serial offenders when it comes to Twitter. Lungisa last week tweeted that it might be time to close down social media networks, as they do in China. Ironically, that may have been in a bid to stop online spats like that between Masina and Mboweni. But then Lungisa has also tweeted that if Mboweni were retained as Finance Minister after the elections, “it would be the biggest mistake ever” for the movement. So, essentially, a member of the ANC, who holds office on its behalf, is publicly trying to prevent someone from keeping their office.

All of this points to several issues around the nature of Twitter, and the nature of the ANC.

It is often claimed that people will say things to each on Twitter that they would never say in public. The words used are more vicious and more personal. In person, Mboweni is usually urbane and charming, on Twitter he shouted, in capital letters, at Masina.

Suggesting, in a public meeting, that Twitter should be closed down as Lungisa did, would probably look a little silly. But somehow people feel they can say and do things on Twitter they cannot do in public, or in other forums. Certainly, it’s hard to imagine any of these people saying these things on, for example, talk radio and with the same kind of audience figures.

But even though the comments were made on social media and not in person and verbally, the damage is done. The in-fighting in the ANC is not necessarily happening behind closed doors, but in specific cases, on Twitter.

If people who belong to the top bodies of a party as big as the ANC cannot contain themselves on Twitter, one has to ask how they are able to contain themselves in meetings. To put it another way, if the party’s leaders cannot at least keep up a façade of unity, how bad must things be?

There are other issues around the current nature of the ANC that also deserve examination.

The party said at its Nasrec conference that a policy must be developed to “guide the conduct of ANC structures and members on social media. This policy, once adopted, must bind all ANC structures and members”. In November 2018, the NEC resolved, in a public statement, that “noting the impact of social media, reiterated the importance of enforcing the ANC Communications Protocol as affirmed by the 54th National Conference”. It also said that ANC officials at national and provincial level must “take a lead in the above, through the power of their own example and by engaging with others”.

The fact that these requests, or instructions, are being ignored, says much about the problems within the movement. Ramaphosa may not want to take action against Mboweni, because he needs him as Finance Minister. That means action cannot be taken against Masina. Yengeni, many may agree, has always been ungovernable, and yet is voted back into the NEC without fail at conference after conference. Lungisa has refused to accept instructions to give up his mayoral committee seat — telling him to stop tweeting is unlikely to have a different result.

Of course, the ANC is not the only party whose leadership has this problem. The DA’s Mmusi Maimane may well open Western Cape Premier Helen Zille’s Twitter feed every time with a particular churning in his gut. Whether she is talking about colonialism or tax revolts, it is unlikely to make his day easier. The difference, of course, is that barring the Western Cape, he does not lead the governing party.

At some point, those who lead the ANC may have to decide whether they will simply have to live with the “ungovernable” nature of Twitter, and some of its leaders who are on it or attempt to make an example of someone who contradicts the party line. Considering the factionalised nature of the party at the moment, it seems more likely that Twitter clashes will simply continue. And the image of the party may continue to suffer. DM