[Debate] Towards a Truly Democratic Left: An Anarchist Assessment of the DLF at COP17

[Riaz K Tayob]

[Thoughts]

*Towards a Truly Democratic Left: An Anarchist Assessment of the DLF at 
COP17*

*http://zabnew.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/durban-cop17-social-movement-march.jpg?w=270&h=184* 
<http://zabnew.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/durban-cop17-social-movement-march.jpg>

/by Jonathan Payn (ZACF)/

*Failures of democracy have been a big part of the history of the DLF. 
We in the Zabalaza Anarchist Communist Front (ZACF) have had to raise 
such challenges several times (see "DLF structure: concerns and 
proposals" by ZACF). We have long been troubled by the lack of proper 
democratic structures, by a leadership that consists far more of 
middle-class intellectuals than of grassroots militants, and by a 
programme that seems to be determined in advance by the academic and NGO 
interests of these intellectuals instead of by the immediate needs of 
the workers and the poor.*

The recent gathering of DLF comrades for the Durban COP17 protests was 
at once a step forward for working class unity within the DLF -- and a 
tale of what has gone wrong with the DLF and its leadership structure. 
On the one hand, for almost a week we as social movements activists from 
different parts of the country toyi-toyed and struggled together, 
shoulder-to-shoulder on the streets of Durban and at The People's Space, 
and tried to defend ourselves against the ANC's hired thugs. On the 
other hand, sad to say, the leadership left comrades feeling that they 
were being herded like cattle from one place to another and used as a 
rent-a-crowd to impress the organisers' donors and international 
contacts. Questions from food and accommodation to what was talked about 
in the programme were set in advance by the leaders with little regard 
to the wishes of the masses. Even in the street clash with the ANC's 
"Green Bombers", leaders of the DLF acted directly against mandates by 
trying to stop comrades from defending themselves. And after all this, 
these same leaders -- mostly intellectuals with no base in struggling 
working class communities -- announced unilaterally, without a mandate, 
that they would be extending their term of office until December 2012. 
How can it be that the steering committee's first mandate coming out of 
the DLF founding conference in January 2011, to have elections for 
leadership in the respective provinces, can take nearly two years to 
implement? This should not be permitted.

*Some failures of democracy at the COP17 protests*

Perhaps the leaders think food is just a small matter -- but if they are 
serious about being democratic, they could have taken the trouble to 
find out in advance what people want to eat. Not that it is so much 
trouble to find out. Anybody who has worked on the ground with black 
working class communities in South Africa should know that very spicy 
foods are far from popular, and that people are accustomed to eating 
mielie pap as opposed to things like rotis and rice. As people who are 
supposed to be able to articulate the needs and desires of our people, 
the so-called leaders should at least find out what food we eat and what 
our expectations are. In practice, it was only when grassroots comrades 
demanded to get involved in these decisions that the food and catering 
committee stepped in to improve the situation.

And the whole programme was the same story: leaders deciding without 
considering what the masses want. From the moment we arrived we were 
herded from one place to another. We were told what the programme was 
and where to be when, but we were not consulted or involved in 
determining the programme in the first place. Of course, they will tell 
us that we could have been involved in developing the programme had we 
attended and been involved in the COP17 civil society planning meetings 
prior to going to Durban, but how many people from the townships could 
get to Johannesburg for these? By opening these meetings to us, while 
knowing very well that very few working class comrades would be able to 
attend regularly, they only pay lip service to the democratic 
development of the political programme.

We carried out an illegal march, but many of the people that marched 
seemed not to be aware at the time that the march was illegal and that 
they could therefore have faced arrest. This is authoritarian and 
undemocratic, as the members themselves -- the ones who could have been 
arrested for marching illegally -- should have been involved in 
deliberating and deciding whether or not to march. It is not democratic 
for the leaders to put us at risk of facing arrest and then only tell us 
afterwards, or as an aside, that it was an illegal march.

We were told that we would be delivering a memorandum. By the time we 
left Durban many comrades were still unsure as to whether or not the 
memorandum had been delivered and, if so, who received it. We were not 
consulted or involved in drafting the memorandum and, perhaps worse, it 
was not even read to us for our approval prior to it being delivered.

When grassroots comrades expressed that they were tired of the programme 
and wanted to go to the beach they were sent from pillar to post. First 
we were supposed to go to the beach after the march, then we were told 
we were going the next morning, then the next afternoon. In the end 
comrades got so frustrated they simply walked out of the programme and 
went to the beach. All the indecision and going backwards and forwards 
between the leadership left many comrades feeling frustrated, and this 
was sometimes taken out on the marshals -- causing friction within the 
grassroots organisations that make up the base of the DLF.

And perhaps the worst display of authoritarian leadership occurred at 
the march on the international day of action. The night before the march 
we as the DLF had unanimously decided to march peacefully, but that if 
attacked we would defend ourselves. When we were attacked by ANC thugs 
on the day of the march DLF leaders actively disarmed activists by 
taking away the flag-poles they were using to defend themselves. A short 
while later DLF leadership asked the police to stand between us and the 
"Green Bombers". This was in blatant disregard of the decision, taken 
the previous night, by the entire DLF membership to defend ourselves 
from attack. It was also a betrayal of our class to call in the class 
enemy to defend us in such a minor altercation. One last example of how 
the leadership places more importance on their political programme than 
the will of the people came on the last day, when leaders pleaded with 
us to stay an extra two hours for the Climate Jobs booklet launch, so 
that they could impress their funders and international contacts. The 
result of this, however, is that comrades were almost left stranded at 
night in Johannesburg and had to make last minute arrangements to be 
accommodated by other comrades as it was too late for them to catch 
connecting buses and taxis to their final destinations. That this would 
be a problem if we stayed longer in Durban was raised with the 
leadership, but our concerns fell on deaf ears.

*Democracy versus authoritarianism: behind the failures*

Unfortunately, all these and many other failures of democracy have been 
a big part of the history of the DLF. We in the Zabalaza Anarchist 
Communist Front (ZACF) have had to raise such challenges several times 
(see "DLF structure: concerns and proposals" by ZACF). We have long been 
troubled by the lack of proper democratic structures, by a leadership 
that consists far more of middle-class intellectuals than of grassroots 
militants, and by a programme that seems to be determined in advance by 
the academic and NGO interests of these intellectuals instead of by the 
immediate needs of the workers and the poor. I could not be very 
surprised when a comrade told me in Durban: "This has been a terrible 
f**cking experience, to come here and be told what to do by a white 
messiah." Not that race is the only issue here -- there are many black 
comrades in DLF leadership -- but irrespective of race, the leaders have 
shown that they are detached from the ground. This, too, shows up in the 
most obvious ways. I didn't once see any of the DLF leadership eating 
with us or travelling on the buses with us, and not once did I see any 
of them visiting our accommodation to see exactly what comrades had been 
complaining about. I don't know where exactly the leadership stayed nor 
who paid for it (although rumours are that they stayed in hotel rooms in 
the city centre), but I think it is a concern for them not to have been 
with the majority of members, sharing in our trials and tribulations.

Of even more concern than the lack of democracy and participation, 
however, is the fact that the style of leadership of the current leaders 
actually threatened to cause division within the working class and 
community organisations. This is because of the top-down leadership 
style that was practised. Because the marshals -- who represented a much 
more legitimate leadership than the official leadership -- were the only 
point of contact between the leaders and the masses, they came under 
criticism from the base every time the leadership messed us around by 
making and changing decisions without our participation, and then having 
them transmitted to us by the marshals, who were often not involved in 
making decisions either.

We have to ask ourselves then, comrades, if this is the DLF we want to 
build? A DLF where the leadership makes all the political decisions and 
the members are just expected to follow them. A DLF where the leaders 
eat different food and stay in different accommodation to the majority. 
A DLF where the leadership can get away with going against the decisions 
of the people. If that is the DLF we are building, what will the 
socialism we are fighting for look like?

Having lived and struggled with comrades on the ground for almost a 
week, having experienced the same challenges and disappointments and 
listened to comrades grievances and desires, I think I can say that this 
is not the kind of DLF we want to build.

We do not want a DLF where the leadership is removed from the base, a 
DLF where decisions are taken from above. We do not want a socialism 
where the leadership eat different food and stay in different 
accommodation to the masses. Socialism means that we are all leaders, 
and that we all therefore share in the burden and the fruits of struggle 
together, side-by-side.

The problem here is not that the current DLF leadership are bad people, 
or that they intentionally put people in poor accommodation and gave 
them food that was not to their liking. Neither do I think that the 
political programme was made to bore and confuse people. And we all have 
reason to welcome the opportunities that COP17 gave us to come together, 
to share our experiences and ideas. I must be clear that my criticisms 
are political. The gap between the DLF leadership and the grassroots 
comrades is the result of a particular approach to viewing and 
organising movements. A view that suggests that a minority of 
intellectuals have all the right strategies and answers, and the working 
class constituents must just follow along. Rather than being 
collectively deliberated and determined at the grassroots, the political 
programme of the DLF has by-and-large been decided by the leadership, 
who have then sought 'mass' support for it through mobilisation and 
organising on the ground. This has to some extent been successful and 
the fact that the DLF was able to mobilise around 500 people from across 
the country for COP17 suggests that this campaign really does speak to 
the needs and struggles on the ground. However, despite finding a lot of 
support from below, planning and mobilising for COP17 was largely done 
in a centralised and top-down manner by a relatively small group of 
intellectuals and academics. It was because of this that the political 
programme did not really meet the majority of people's expectations and, 
as such, it is because of this that the grassroots militants of the DLF 
were less engaged than they could have been and, indeed, assumed 
relatively little responsibility over driving the entire process. This 
needs to change. In order to safeguard against too much power and 
responsibility being invested in just a few people, thus leading to 
undemocratic practices, we need to ensure that our political programmes 
are collectively determined at a grassroots level by the activists that 
make up the base of the DLF, and not by an intellectual minority. In so 
doing, comrades will be encouraged to assume greater responsibility over 
collectively driving the process of building the DLF.

*Conclusion: towards a truly democratic left*

In going forward we need to build on the good work that was done in 
bringing us to Durban, on the networks built and experience gained while 
we were there, struggling for a better future. But, in so doing we need 
to be careful to avoid the pitfalls and failures that became apparent in 
Durban. We need to focus on building the organisations and movements 
that make up the DLF in our communities. We need to ensure that these 
movements represent the will and the needs of their members, that they 
are truly democratic and that the people that are elected into positions 
of leadership are accountable to the members, and that they truly 
represent our interests. If we can do this, then building a truly 
democratic and effective DLF will be easy, provided we also work to 
ensure that the DLF is driven from below, and that its campaigns come 
from below and truly express the will of the people. We need to be very 
careful of and question the role and motives of NGOs when involving them 
in our struggles. If they want to be involved in building a truly 
democratic DLF, the intellectuals and NGOs must put their resources, 
knowledge and skills at the service of the working class organisations 
and movements that make up its base, and not use these to advance their 
own academic and political agendas. The DLF's campaigns must come from 
the grassroots, must be formulated in affiliates, in local branches, and 
in facilitation committees controlled by these affiliates and local 
branches. And however noble their intentions may be, the DLF's leaders 
cannot be permitted to postpone elections and perpetuate their term of 
office without a mandate.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20120110/f949217a/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 21877 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20120110/f949217a/attachment-0001.jpeg