The debate has opened in South Africa and a beginning has been made to establish a united front, with talk of the move toward a “socialist movement”. This is a contribution to the debate.
Strategically, and from a democratic viewpoint, principled unity is the only unity that should matter. It may be tactically advisable for any principled group to unite with others on a single, common issue, but only if principle is not forsaken. So a truly egalitarian and socialist group could — and should — join, for example, an anti-racist campaign that may even include homophobes, sexists and those opposing a woman’s right to choose whether or not to continue with a pregnancy.
At the same time, should such issues arise during the single issue campaign the arguments should be joined. Those who plead for unity “on the basis of what unites us” while burying those often crucial issues that divide groups and individuals, create, in their supposed unity, an intellectual and ideological swamp in which principles putrefy.
What is required in a principled united front is clarity of purpose. This means knowing what the front is for and that should define what it is against. Groups and individuals that submerge themselves in a united front only on the basis of broad-based opposition, contribute to the creation of an ideological sludge that can readily be stirred and manipulated, but which remains fundamentally stagnant and directionless. And when the tenuous walls of unprincipled unity crack or collapse, the groups forming this swamp tend to spill forth and dissipate.
Unfortunately, in the absence of any principled alternative that advocates a clear, broadly-based programme in which contending tactical considerations can compete, a swamp will emerge. The question then arises: does such a programme exist to provide the basis for a principled, democratically organised united front?
It does, in the Bill of Rights. This egalitarian document can be summarised as advocating that every individual should have the right to do exactly as they please provided that, in the exercise of that right, they do not impinge on the rights of anyone else. Here is the basis for a true united front that would, of course, exclude those who do not agree with this fundamental, democratic principle.
Adherence to such a programme means that it is not possible to remain part of such a front while campaigning for sexism, for homo and xeno phobia or while supporting the death penalty or opposing the right of women to choose regarding pregnancy. Such a programme proposes, in broad terms, what the united front is for and that, in turn, makes it evident what it is, again in broad terms, against.
Of course, there will be many differing views about how best to achieve the various goals necessary to attain a truly egalitarian and democratic society. So such debates must be as widespread and democratic as possible. This means avoiding one of the fundamental problems of the United Democratic Front (UDF) of the 1980s where membership — and voting power — was given to organisations. So a cultural club with 100 members, for example, would be on the same footing as a trade union with 10 000 members. This is clearly undemocratic and also encourages groups to set up front organisations to increase their voting power.
Thirty or so years ago, such a structure might have been necessary. It no longer is. Courtesy of modern communications technology — notably the cell phone, but also internet connectivity — it is possible to communicate instantly with individuals and groups almost everywhere. United Front units formed in factories, neighbourhoods, streets and elsewhere could register their memberships, using ID numbers. This means that a UF member registered in a factory unit, for example, could not vote again in another unit.
Within such an environment various political strands, traditions and political ideas should flourish, framed by the egalitarian principles of the Bill of Rights. Units, coming together perhaps on a constituency or ward basis, could elect representatives who would be wholly answerable to, and recallable by, their electors. Such a development would be a real alternative and not just another repetition of the same, stale processes of the past.
Cape Town, South Africa-based journalist commentator and author specialising in political and economic analysis and labour matters. 
Terry Bell Writes 
Terry Bell
January 2, 2015
This comment came to me via email and adds to the debate, so I am posting it (minus some attachments also sent):
I agree with that principled unity should be the basis of this United Front (UF) and that the Bill of rights can go a long way to serve as a starting point. I must admit that I had to go through the Bill of Rights and am generally happy with it except for clause 25 dealing with property, which I believe perpetuates the historical legacy of Apartheid and redistribution on the basis of willing seller and buyer principle.
As socialists we need to reject the adoption of the Freedom Charter as it has historically been a divisive document and its vagueness has led it to be interpreted in different ways by various groups within and outside the ruling ANC-led alliance. Also, the UF does not have to be a socialist organisation or a shortcut to such type of organisation. It is for the March Numsa sponsored socialist conference that needs to take up the issue of building a socialist party, which can be part of the UF.
One of the key issues on which we need further elaboration is democratic debate and practice. One of the fundamental issues that needs discussion is democratic centralism. I have perused the Net and believe it is important to learn from other international groups especially on the issue of democratic practice. We are not the only ones grappling with the challenge of building a democratic organisation. Here are a few points below, which I must admit are not mine, but can help in the process of developing democratic practice.
My starting point is that a UF should accept the existence of open disclosed factions, tendencies or currents. I like to quote from the Socialist Humanist Initiative (Section F, Clause 1) documents which states that majority rule is illegitimate and not democratic unless the minority has a genuine opportunity to become a majority itself. A minority is not obliged to accept the majority if it lacks that opportunity. This does not mean I reject majority rule, which should be basis on which decisions are made once debate has been exhausted. However, Factions or minorities should have the right to be published in UF’s publications and on websites to ensure maximum debate not only pre-conference, but throughout the year.
For me democratic centralism, should not mean unity of thought. In addition, if a tendency or various members do not really agree with any particular tactic, they are not expected to lead the organisation’s work on it or speak publicly to promote it.
Further, although members are expected not to campaign in public against something the group has decided to do, they are not excluded from discussing it with non-members.
One the central thrusts of the UF should be to ensure the democratic control of the organisation and its leaders by its members. Thus, we must reject as undemocratic the notion that decisions taken in higher structures should bind lower structures. As you have mentioned, we have benefits of information technology to ensure robust and continuous debate without giving this power to some leaders sitting in a CEC, PEC or BEC. The UF should be member driven organisation, ensuring that none of the distortions of the UDF are repeated again.
Yours in struggle for democratic control from below.
Ronald Wesso
January 3, 2015
Seems to me your proposal makes the same error of being an unprincipled sludge that you speak against. The Bill of Rights is a liberal document. I don’t see how for example socialists can be principled and agree on a basis for unity that recognises employers’ rights, private capitalist property and the powers of the capitalist state. We can use some provisions but to accept the document as a whole would be unprincipled – the Bill of Rights is anti-socialist after all.
An effective united front, in my opinion, should not be based on ideologically loaded documents, whether its the Freedom Charter, the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of the United Front Assembly organised by NUMSA. It should be based on on-going social struggles such as the struggles around sanitation in Cape Town or the struggles of farm workers. The objectives of the front should not be drawn from pre-existing documents but should be worked out within those struggles. Tellingly both these struggles unite the battles of employees and residential communities against the united capitalists and their state.
Terry Bell
January 3, 2015
I think, Ronald, that you make the fundamental error confusing tctics with strategy by assuming that the mosty often fragmented individual struggles should not be waged within a broader, democratic framework. You decry the Bill of Rights as “a liberal document”. It may be, but it is, above all, a document that promotes an egalitarian society and that, by its mere definition, makes it anti-exploitation and, therefore, anti-capitalist. Most of the struggles you mention are, by their nature, reformist, seeking to improve the lot of working people within the framework of the existing order. The object, that I assume you share, is to change that order. To do so requires creating an environment of maximum democracy in order that the various necessary struggles become co-ordinated and, in the process of struggle, perhaps reach a concensus on the need to attain the strategic goal of real economic and social democracy.
Ronald Wesso
January 4, 2015
The Bill of Rights is not anti-capitalist; it is not even anti-neoliberal. If we had a right to access to housing such as written in the Bill of Rights it would be anti-capitalist in South Africa’s context. But the people who wrote the Bill of Rights and the constitution made sure to put in enough escape clauses to neutralise the anti-capitalist potential of the Bill of Rights. This has been confirmed from the beginning and very consistently by the Constitutional Court.
The struggles you decry as reformist have a much greater potential to change the existing order than a front based on the Bill of Rights because the framework of the existing order – of which the Bill of Rights forms part – are shaken whenever a significant group of working class people fight uncompromisingly for their immediate needs. The struggles of the platinum workers are the most visible example of that.
Terry Bell
January 4, 2015
In the first place, Ronald, this is not an “either-or” discussion: either an agreed, broad democratic programme or individual struggles on the ground. So I did not “decry” reformist actions. Every improvement in the lot of the oppressed and exploited must be fought for and supported. Perhaps I was not clear enough in my response (above) in that my argument is simply that it is best to have a coherent programme that encompasses all these demands as a way toward what the Bill of Rights in its first paragraph calls “the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom”.
Even the property clause (25) in the Bill of Rights has been (deliberately?) misinterpreted by government ministers and others as supporting the “willing buyer, willing seller” policy. It does nothing of the sort and also does not allow “loopholes”. Of course, if we do not challenge such misconceptions, it is we and not the sentiments in the document that are to blame. If you are going to criticise the Bill of Rights as being “not even anti-neo-liberal” (and therefore, what? pro-capitalist? neo-fascist?), please make an argument and tell us what you think it is — and why.
All I am saying is that we should endeavour to create the broadest possible democratic consensus, an environment in which a unity of purpose could be forged and from which maximum support could be given to all the struggles toward the goal of an egalitarian society. The various strands, tendencies, individuals and groups would be better placed in such an environment to debate and decide on tactics and priorities — and act in unity.
Such principled unity around the goal of true democracy, will undoubtedly by opposed by the existing establishment and the Right. But there will also be opposition to from among some Left fragments and sects, that tend to see themselves as vanguards of their dreamed of revolution. Like the Right, they probably belong in the dustbin of history.