The ANC is the new IFP

Is the ANC the new IFP?

The National Chamber of Provinces recently concluded public hearing on the Traditional Courts Bill. This bill seeks to give traditional leaders the power to preside over certain civil disputes and criminal offences in the areas under their jurisdiction. The public hearings were an opportunity for those affected by the proposed legislation to voice their concerns about its impact. It was also an opportunity for the provincial legislatures to claim they had consulted affected communities before they endorsed the legislation.

Not surprisingly the bill was met with a great deal of resistance by civil society and community members. It is clear from the public hearings that community members are concerned that traditional leaders, some of whom are corrupt, ineffectual or partisan, are formally being given greater powers. Civil societies' objections centred on the negative impact the bill, if passed, will have on women's rights. The general thrust of criticism is that hereditary leadership in a highly patriarchal and authoritarian social setting undermines the rights of all commoners, particularly women, and is in clear conflict with the constitutions core premise of "equality". Essentially the bill entrenches the right,by birth, of some to judge and govern and the obligation  of all others, by virtue of where they live, to be judged and ruled.

The hearings in kwaZulu-Natal were particularly enlightening. They showed unequivocal support among traditional leaders for the bill. The reason for this consensus is clear as senior traditional leaders are all set to benefit from this and other proposed changes. However the most remarkable part of the hearings  was the absence of the antipathy between the ANC and the IFP that has long marked politics in kaZulu-Natal  - particularly when traditional rights and culture were concerned. There was no sign of dissent between chiefs aligned to different parties or between the chiefs and the sponsors of the bill i.e. Luthuli House.

This consensus highlights the extent to which the political landscape in kwaZulu-Natal has changed.  Those seeking to preserve traditional African culture, hereditary rights or general social conservatism in kwaZulu-Natal can now identify with the ruling party rather than with the IFP whose influence  has been waning since 1994. The ANC has managed to appropriate a rich political terrain once monopolised by the IFP.  Understanding how much the terrain has changed rests on acknowledgment of the extent to which the ANC has moved to the IFP's value system rather than through the political evolution of Zululand residents. It is this change in the ANC that invites the perspective that the ANC is the new IFP. It is the ANC that now promises to preserve hereditary rights, traditional values and promote the associated social conservatism.

The reason for the shift in the ANC is clear. In 2009 the ANC was returned to power with votes just shy of a two thirds majority. When compared to the previous national election (in 2004) voters gave the ANC an additional 1.2 million votes. This increase in votes was widely seen as an endorsement of the ANC under Zuma's leadership. However the addition votes were garnered not, as the political pundits claimed, from the left, the unions or from the youth. The increase in votes were almost entirely from traditional areas in kwaZulu-Natal and other provinces.  As people living in other provinces on "traditional" land had largely thrown their lot in with the ANC already their contribution to the increased ANC vote was less pronounced. 

Traditional leaders are key to the continued support of any political party in what was previously referred to as "tribal areas". The chiefs exert tremendous influence on whether or not people vote and on whom they vote for. For example in the 2009 election the IFP still managed to get 800 000 votes and these votes are now, in a very real sense, there for the taking. Given the changing political landscape there is little reason to suggest that the chiefs will take them to the new National Freedom Party or keep them with the IFP.

Inevitably there is a qui pro quo for this support. The first sign of the quid pro quo was the establishment of a Department of Rural Development and Land Reform within a month of the election. This was followed by the re-invigoration of traditional councils and , belatedly, the holding of traditional council elections. Reviving the Traditional Courts Bill (which had stalled in 2008) followed.  Still to come is the  National Traditional Affairs Bill which may well extend local government powers to traditional leaders.

All this bodes poorly for the IFP as traditional leaders no longer have to look to the IFP to advance their interests and traditional rights in general. The ANC is now happily fulfilling this role - even at the expense of the core values of the constitution and what the ANC's has been describing as its own political heritage. This said, the support that the traditional leaders bring will inevitably be at the cost of some of support it currently enjoys from what the ANC itself terms "progressives". For example, although the Womens League has been silent about the promotion of the Traditional Courts bill their complicity in the promotion of such patriarchal systems can not continue indefinitely. Until then the extent to which  ANC support is derived from traditional leaders is the extent to which Zuma's position will be secure relative to the "progressives".