Two centres of power not in national interest

WE would concur with those, including the ANC Youth League, who argue against the notion of “two centres of power” – that the position of president of the organisation should be separated from that of head of state – because we believe this would be a formula for conflict that would impact negatively on government.

While the ANC has made it clear in the past that position within the party should not be equated with that in government, the reality is that in those provinces where, for example, the role of provincial chairman has been divorced from that of premier, the result has all too often been considerable instability. The Free State is one classic example of this.

The question of the “two centres of power” has been brought into focus ahead of the ANC‘s national conference at the end of the year. President Thabo Mbeki has said he will consider re-election as head of the organisation but is constitutionally not eligible for a third term as head of state.

Essentially, those advocating a third term for Mbeki endorse the concept of the “two centres of power” while those opposed to this reject the notion. Left out of the debate are two issues. The first is whether it is in the national interest for the two positions to be divorced. We would contend that it is clearly not because of the inherent potential for tension and factionalism.

The second is that given the reaffirmation in the Organisational Review document to be debated at the end of next month that the ANC must be the “ultimate strategic centre of power”, if Mbeki secures a third term he will essentially hold the reins of power both outside and inside government, possibly even to the extent of deploying people to serve in the post-2009 cabinet.

That would be little other than a circumvention of the Constitution and mean that while the ANC had not followed other African nations in amending the provisions of the constitution to allow for a third term, it would have achieved the same goal by more subtle and devious means.

Chinese aid a double-edged sword

THE commitment by China to provide increased aid for Africa is a two-edged sword because the distribution of that country‘s largesse will not be influenced in any way by issues of good and clean governance and commitment to the rule of law.

The annual meeting of the African Development Bank in Shanghai – for the first time in Asia – has been preceded by several promises of increased aid and investment and, as has been the case in the past, there will be no conditions attached.

While we welcome development aid and the transfer of skills and technology we are concerned that unless donor nations select both the countries and projects with considerable care, the result can be that corrupt and brutal regimes are propped up and funds that should be used to improve the lives of people and empower them are looted by corrupt governments.

We would point specifically to countries such as Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe as examples of nations that have received significant assistance from China, despite the fact that the regimes that hold sway have scant respect for democratic principles and the rule of law.

The result is that corrupt and undemocratic regimes are supported, there is little or no incentive to change, and the people of those countries continue to languish in the same miserable state marked by hunger and deprivation.