By Moeletsi Mbeki
The trouble with the world is that it is forever changing. So it is a legitimate question to ask how long the ANC can expect to rule. An equally important question is, what will follow it?
Where John Carlin goes wrong is to look for comparisons in faraway Mexico. A more appropriate example is here at home and the now defunct National Party that ruled South Africa with an iron fist for 46 consecutive years.
Carlin overlooks one key element of Mexico's politics - the great influence of its neighbour the United States of America.
The rulers of Mexico, especially those in the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), had long resigned themselves to dancing to the tunes of the US. In return, Mexico's rulers knew that their country would be bailed out by the US in times of trouble.
So, while the PRI is, or was, corrupt and, indeed, probably invented the dubious art of election rigging, this was not what kept it in power. Rather it was the fear of Mexicans - all Mexicans - of what would happen to them if they defied their neighbour. A Mexican president once lamented the fate of his country as being very far from God but, unfortunately, so near to the US!
So what does the ANC have to learn about regime longevity from Afrikaner nationalism, and specifically from the National Party? Plenty, is the answer. In fact, the National Party was in power for more than 46 years. It first came to power in 1924 in partnership with a minor party that delivered the votes of the English-speaking white workers to the National Party.
Afrikaner nationalism's main adversary for decades was British imperialism, which controlled South Africa from 1806 until Union in 1910. Afrikaner nationalists had many grievances against the British, from freeing their slaves in 1834 to hanging Afrikaner rebels at Slagter's Nek to taking away what the Afrikaners believed were their gold and diamonds. And the British crushed the Afrikaner republics of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.
Yet, given the superior military and economic might of the British, Afrikaner leaders were faced with two choices, either to accommodate them and live more or less according to their prescriptions, or to fight to the end.
After the South African War (1899-1902) and especially after Union, Afrikaner nationalism developed two schools: the accommodationist school led by Louis Botha and Jan Smuts, and the oppositionist school led by General JBM Hertzog, who created the National Party in 1914. South Africa under Smuts, rather like Mexico under the PRI, danced to every British tune, from fighting against the Germans during the world wars to forcing white and black workers at gunpoint to bow to the wishes of the Randlords financed by the City of London.
For his efforts, Smuts was placed in the inner circles of the British Empire and of its war machine. The British went so far as to erect his statue at Westminster Square facing their houses of parliament.
Smuts's accommodation of the British did not, however, endear him or his party to the Afrikaner people. They voted against him repeatedly in the 1920s and 1940s. His party eventually died a natural death. The oppositionist wing of Afrikaner nationalism, on the other hand, took a very different approach in its relations with the British and with the Afrikaner people. The radical Afrikaner nationalists of the National Party set out to wrestle economic power from the British and to advance the empowerment of Afrikaner middle and working classes and farmers. To achieve this, the National Party developed a three-pronged strategy designed to drive South Africa's industrial revolution.
The first was to tax the profits of British investors, especially investors in gold and diamond mining. The proceeds were invested in transport and communication infrastructure, in particular in expanding South African Railways and Harbours Corporation, today's Transnet. They went further and invested in schools, hospitals and clinics, and established giant state-owned companies that produced steel, chemicals, fertilisers and armaments, which provided sheltered employment and training for Afrikaners.
The second was to deliver cheap black labour to private and public corporations that were placed under the supervision of largely Afrikaner managers. By thus suppressing black consumption, the National Party, in effect, created another set of savings that went to fund white consumption and contributed to building the country's infrastructure. The third was to drive the educational, health and general welfare and housing development for Afrikaners, in particular, and whites in general. It was the success of these strategies that accounted for the longevity of the National Party for 70 years, from 1924 to 1994.
There are thus plenty of lessons for the ANC to learn from the experience of Afrikaner nationalism if the comrades want to stay in power for decades to come. The main lesson is that it is the interests of its constituencies that must come first, not those of the party or its leaders.
Within two years of getting to power, the ANC adopted economic policies - Gear - that not only alienated a key constituency, black organised labour, but also white industrialists. These are groups not to be trifled with if a party wants to stay in power for a long time..
Could it be that the ANC will go the way of Smuts? Seen from this perspective, Nelson Mandela's new statue at Westminster Square could be more of a curse than a blessing.