I found Mr Stanley Uys' article interesting, very interesting in fact so much so that I read it twice in order to figure out his state of mind and be sure that I didn't misinterpret it. I am referring here to an article that Mr Uys wrote in which he predicts the death of the ANC (see here). I didn't re-read it because I liked it or agreed with the content thereof though, instead I merely wanted to be sure that I understood where he was coming from.

I must further admit that in the end I battled to understand his logic or rationale for surmising that the ascendancy of the labour movement (COSATU) and the communists (SACP) under Zuma's administration spells the death of the oldest liberation movement in the continent (if not in the whole world even).

What death of the ANC though? This piece by Mr Uys, which was hidden with innuendo mirrors another similarly very alarmist article by Mr Paul Trewhela. Both these esteemed gentlemen show a serious lack of insight into the mechanics of the tripartite Alliance.

There is of course the possibility that both gentlemen already understand the uniqueness of the Alliance but they are consumed by wishful thinking, in which case I would say dream on Sirs! After Mr Nelson Mandela met the late PW Botha on the 5th July 1989, he had profound words to say in reference to the ANC's Alliance with the SACP.

Mr Mandela declared thus to the late Mr OR Tambo, "No dedicated ANC member will ever heed the call to break with the SACP. We regard such a demand as a purely divisive government strategy. It is in fact a call on us to commit suicide. Which man or woman of honour will ever desert a life-long friend among his/her people? Which opponent will ever trust such a treacherous freedom fighter? Yet this is exactly what the government is in effect asking us to do".

The Alliance is therefore hugely distorted by these fine writers and I initially thought that it was a joke but their persistence tells me that they are serious. Is it a case of, "the more you repeat a lie, it is the more people will believe that it is the solemn truth"?

Some might call this response an ad hominem attack on both Mr Stanley Uys and Paul Trewhela for I seem to be calling them liars. It is however not the case, instead it is a reality check for the alarmist assumptions they make. I am, in essence, not playing these men in person but I am rather playing the game the best way tradition has taught me over the years. The tripartite Alliance is here to stay and proof is in the fact that it has weathered storms for over 8 decades already.

Even after intense attempts to dismantle both the ANC and the Alliance, both managed to remain intact, therefore one wonders as to why Mr Uys is so concerned about the supposed but non-existent imminent death of the ANC.

What's in it for him and why do they worry so much that the perceived elevation of the SACP in particular and the COSATU as co leaders of the Tripartite Alliance signals the death of the ANC? Mr Uys makes some very interesting observations and only a sangoma would make such bold predictions. I am not one to dismiss his article as entirely untrue for there is some semblance of truth but he carefully intertwined it with fabrication.

I will admit yet again too that he has presented a lot of invaluable information and so did Mr Trewhela in his own articles. The only difference is that it is not a view from the majority of ANC members but rather a view from the opposition and those internally who are still bleeding and licking their wounds after the historic Polokwane events.

It is clear and understandable that not everyone is happy about the new found status of the ANC's Alliance partners, not only outside the ANC but also within its structures as well. This is also why in his article Mr Trewhela quotes a member of the NEC to corroborate his sentiments. Whilst the ANC utilises a bottom up approach where 90% of delegates who attend conferences must come from branches, I am not convinced that the said NEC member's views are popular.

It is safe to say that this is in fact a minority view which was lent credence by being published in a newspaper. The days when the leadership simply dictated the direction of the movement and where the membership simply toed the line without questioning were ended at Polokwane.

At the 52nd National Conference, a new wave of brave branch leaders was born where branches can now no longer be taken for granted as willing stooges of the elected national leadership. Branches need to be convinced as to why a certain policy position or principled direction should be adopted. If people want to see to both COSATU and the SACP being relegated to the doldrums as was the case under Mr Mbeki, they therefore need to convince the branch membership.

Simply going to the newspapers is unfortunately not enough or not the correct methodology, instead the opposite will happen (i.e. it might lead to feelings of resentment towards that NEC member). This uncomradely tendency and behaviour of rushing to newspapers at the slightest point of disagreement is both divisive and shows a lack of discipline on the part of the aggrieved member.

The question is, who are they talking to when they run to newspapers because most party members don't take these newspapers seriously anymore? Why are they playing to the public gallery by exposing internal party processes to the media, an institution which can't partake in ANC conferences in any case? Is it not better for them to canvass and lobby their ideas within party structures?

Where there are disagreements, they should rather exhaustively engage each other until there is a meeting of minds rather than taking it to the media? What example are they setting for the general membership and/or what image are they portraying about the party?

The circus that plays itself out on a daily basis is both distasteful and amateurish, not worthy of occupying an NEC position in my view. Surely these are seasoned cadres who understand democratic centralism so why do they still feel the urge to tell their side of the story through newspapers or vent their frustrations there? Do they not realise that where COSATU is concerned, for instance, simple mathematics deduces that if the bulk of ANC members are workers and it is mostly they who occupy executive positions in branches, therefore such a wish (by the likes of Masetlha to see them exert less influence) won't fly.

It must be borne in mind that the branch leaders understand trench warfare and they have all the time to canvass or lobby their branch members. Branch members don't sit in expensive hotels, smoke cigars and drink whisky when they discuss or caucus ANC matters. They instead go to where it matters most and that is none other than the Branch General Meeting.

Another reality is that branches now realise that the high ranking position a cadre occupies either in government or ANC leadership is secured because they were deployed there by the very members. Therefore they know very well the kind of power they wield and they are no longer casual about it. This was perhaps the case before. Members used to think that the leadership was always right and that it had their best or the party's interest at heart. After some national leaders became power drunk and abused their privilege, the membership woke up.

The ANC leads and I think that there is an appreciation of that fact by both COSATU and the SACP. My understanding is that the Alliance partners want to be able to influence the policy direction and have a say in the deployment of cadres in government, which is a reasonable expectation by any accounts given the colossal work they do to canvass votes for the ANC during elections.

Why then, does this bother the duo so much that they can write so many articles on this subject? It is indeed always laughable therefore when a journalist who doesn't attend ANC meetings nor attends conference as a delegate/member thereof, nor participates in commissions, nor been elected as a branch office bearer, nor occupied any leadership position in the ANC, wants to speak and write with authority on ANC matters.

Both Mr Uys, a former political editor of the Sunday Times, and Mr Trewhela, a former editor of Freedom Fighter, for those who don't know them, are not experts on ANC matters. And yet if you read their opinion articles, you could swear that they are.

They seem to be the voices of the voiceless and the defenders of the defenseless but who are these people that they are purportedly representing? Why is it that we don't hear these people speak up in numbers during branch meetings or is it because they are so few that their voices would be swallowed by the majority or they simply only exist in their heads? I rest my case. But you can be the judge on who has more insight between Uys, Trewhela and Xulu!

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter