A political party whose vision for South Africa’s future is one where its sovereignty is free from the economic influence of the west. The ATM believes that the true thus sustainable prosperity of South Africans will be ushered in only when its internal economic activities are aimed, first-and-foremost, at benefiting them and not international economic and commercial interests. Until this takes place, it deems our country as held prisoner, like a serf, in a modernized version of the feudal system, with the west as our Lord. Freeing our economy from this one-sided relationship will entail a process, encapsulated by its manifesto thus program of action, it calls decolonization. As such, decolonization, in this case, is simply the economic transformation of South Africa, in my opinion, according to nationalistic principles.
Like the Al Jamah-ah party, the ATM is faith-based but unlike it, it does not disclose its faith as a Christian movement backed by the South African Council of Messianic Christian Churches (SACMCC), simply stating that it is a faith-based party. This is even more troubling because, at least Al Jamah-ah makes plain its position, so voters manage their expectations; as I have already noted when reporting on Al Jamah-ah, the convergence of state and religion inevitably presents with religious persecution even in matters related to land ownership – ATM’s ambiguous manner in this sense is somewhat misleading. Considering itself the alternative to the current ANC government for all South Africans…
“Irrespective of their colour, creed, race, ethnicity, culture, economic status or religion”
– ATM 2019 Manifesto
… the party goes on to state that, the philosophical underpinning of its African Humanism approach is that…
“There is only one God and only one race, the human race”
– ATM 2019 Manifesto
On the one hand, it openly claims its belief in only one God; on the other, it claims to serve the interests also of those who may believe in other Gods or more than one God. I stress this point as I feel that, should the party take power, its religious bias may influence the implementation of its landownership policies in general and those on land reform in particular.
The party’s political beats on land reform have been heard before: it supports expropriation without compensation but without further explaining the form or manner of execution of this policy it specifically supports. Reading it as it is written in its manifesto:
“ATM believes in Expropriation Without Compensation for public good, including restitution, redistribution …”
– ATM 2019 Manifesto
It seems to me that the party may view this policy as an only resort: the only way in which land should be reinstated and redistributed.
The ATM promises a South Africa in which mineworkers are co-owners of the mines on which they work; this seems to me a mutation of the current BEE system. In this sense, I imagine this entails mineworkers being also shareholders of the corporations that run the mines. I support this vision as it amounts to a way of thinking cognizant of the systemic and systematic roots of economic inequality in our country. A step in the right direction toward a more equitable redistribution of wealth. Considering that most mineworkers are currently represented by unions, I would expect that negotiations around the shares to be allocated to mineworkers be centred around the interaction of management and union leadership. My caution, here, would be that union leaders be co-opted and used as symbols of economic transformation within these corporations while their constituencies remain in economic situations largely unchanged. Considering what has taken place under the ANC government where political leaders: leaders of a union of democratic citizens, have so been corrupted to serve those on the other end of the political table instead of those they were elected to represent at that table – it is not far-fetched to predict a similar outcome, economically, under the ATM government. The party, itself, acknowledges that our country suffers not from a lack of well-developed policies but, instead, their effective/efficient execution.
Despite the clear conflict of interest in traditional leadership land-custodianship as explored in my DA party report, the ATM still believes in a landownership model which places traditional leaders in charge of rural communal land. A fact that tells me that under their government, the more things will stay the same concerning the land tenure rights of dwellers on rural tribal land. This goes against their intention to improve rural institutions and systems as part of their rural development strategy to decolonize rural areas by growing their economic activity on the back of the expansion of rural infrastructure, at least in any way beneficial to their everyday dweller. I do not see how they will modernize rural areas by bringing their dwellers into the economic fold while keeping them firmly nested under traditional leaders’ wings. Increasing rural economic activity will require empowering their individuals economically, e.g. In securing legal protection of their land tenure, by enabling their efficient utilization of their access to financial services to be provided for, at first, by the State Bank in cooperation with the Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA). Securing individual land tenure is crucial if the ATM is to achieve, arguably, sustainable long-term rural economic development; an achievement that requires that traditional norms be undermined as outdated for the modern economy. That is unless they intend to ‘develop’ rural areas through property development deals that benefit only their party representatives and traditional leadership, leaving the everyday citizen (in this case, subject) in the lurch.
As can be seen: the co-opting strategy I have alluded to concerning a mineworker-union leadership and mine-management relationship with similarities to the current BEE system. The further on I read into this manifesto, the greater my feeling that this party may have vertically integrated corruption into their governance proposals; what I see is a party willing to come to power by offering, in a round-about-way, a handshake of collaboration with various socio-economic leadership structures thereby assuring them that their positions of power thus the status quo will remain protected against much-needed transformation. A party that promises the public African transformation by assuring the powers that preside over a situation which, for the public good, requires much change – that things won’t change at all; how do you decolonize an economy by collaborating with those who have colonized it?
Of significant importance to the party and like the DA’s initial approach to land reform is rural food security. Although acknowledging that land reform be not only about agriculture, but its rural development aspirations also lean too heavily on it. Its poverty eradication strategy centres upon supporting agriculture-based entrepreneurship and establishing agricultural colleges to popularize farming as a career choice for the youth. This, alongside what I’d call a government dependency program in which all community infrastructure is provided for by its government.
Together with most of the other parties already discussed, the ATM aims to be the sole proprietor of low-cost housing in the country, another method aimed at keeping the populace dependent and meek. Espousing section 26 of the constitution dealing with everyone’s right to adequate housing, it vows to use the resources and legislature powers at its disposal to somehow realize this right. This, I regard as a ploy masked as a justification for the abovementioned monopolization of the housing market. The right to adequate housing is already realized; this, in the fact that it is written as a right in the constitution and implemented in the varying financial services available to those seeking to own property. Government should not be providing people with free housing as that undermines our economic infrastructure which requires one to work hard for eligibility to access said financial services and earn the ability to finance a house. Enabling consumers to circumvent these processes by simply applying for a house from the government effectively disempowers them in the long term, creating a class of nipple-sucklers whose economic experience is stunted by short-term, instant gratification-driven solutions provided by government programs.
“The demand for housing in South Africa requires a high level of government intervention and investment.”
– ATM 2019 Manifesto
No, the high demand for housing requires the decentralization of public services into the hands of communities at a local level. Communities taking care of themselves will instil in them a culture of member cooperation through which they can learn to find solutions to their local problems. One such problem, as the root cause of the high housing demand, is the financial unfitness of those currently excluded from participating, meaningfully, in the overall economy. Family members must come together to empower one another for eligibility to participate economically; families must cooperate to empower their communities economically. This is people using their initiative, exercising their freedom and expressing their citizenry through the bonds that have made them overcome their daily challenges. The centralization of public services, however, has encouraged, and to some extent enforced, a culture of dependence and self-perceived impotence primarily amongst the most impoverished. Some have noted the political benefits this ignorance-driven dependency has to those currently governing; granting them a perpetual source of votes to solve problems solvable only by the voters themselves – talk about a gravy train.
With that said, consider that their idea of a comprehensive plan for sustainable housing development is, effectively, the nationalization of the residential market. From the form-design of the houses to the placement of human settlements, the creation of state-owned property development, real estate investment and other entities relevant to the real estate market machine – all of it, as one government land reform program. Even in describing what I think they intend to do, I imagine the sheer size of such a behemoth – and the drawbacks, which will outweigh the benefits for the average citizen, that will accompany it. An entire market sector monopolized by the government, another piece of the private-sector pie taken by public officials “all for the public good”; greater dependency by us thus more power for them; less freedom both politically and economically for you and me. A populace consisting of members divided by a capitalist culture of individuality and egocentrism would be easily distracted from this ploy by the party’s offer of a larger stand per free low-cost house given and the availability of said house in more ‘flavours. These benefits are nothing, in value, compared to the liberties we give up receiving them; they are as treats used to divert our attention from the fact that they are training us to become fearful beings. Fearful primarily not of them but one another and them by extension. This fear will keep us from recognizing that the many problems we face as individuals day-to-day are communal and solvable by local community members only when cooperating in unison. Our egocentric social conditioning, which is the basis upon which we believe an individual can solve communal problems, will keep driving our misdirected need for ‘leaders’ with lofty promises. A social system based on a communal need for leaders to solve problems they cannot, in accordance to the law of nature, solve while they reap the benefits of power; this is a scam which, to me, feels like the actual “greatest trick the devil ever pulled”.
Good Party Report
African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) Report
