I had approached this article intending to use Zackie Achmat’s policies as a site to discuss how language is formulated in these stances, and what the implication of this is in South African society. I find myself writing a very different article, one which outlines Zackie Achmat’s manifesto as a whole. As a disclaimer, I like what Zackie Achmat has to say, and any notes of endorsement through this piece are as a result of that.
On Tuesday the 20th of March from 6:30 pm to 8 pm, I attended Zackie Achmat’s event at the Novalis Ubuntu Centre. This event took the form of a Q&A, with some questions from the audience and some designed by his team so that he could explain his manifesto more conversationally. It began with some “election education” about the upcoming three-ballot system. This year, South African registered voters will face three ballots: National, Regional, and Provincial. National pertains only to parties who can “win” seats in the national assembly, Regional pertains to individuals and parties who also serve in the national assembly, and Provincial is much the same as Regional, but these individuals and parties cannot serve in the national assembly. Zackie Achmat’s team is hoping for him to get elected regionally and serve on the national assembly as an independent candidate.
Two things struck me in the first half an hour of the talk. Firstly, Zackie Achmat’s team would refer to his position in parliament as a definite, not a possibility. “When Zackie gets into parliament, he assures us that…” Although this is definitely a tactic, I fell victim to it. I found myself getting excited that I was in the room with one of the future monumental leaders of South Africa. Secondly, Achmat did not have any more speaking time than the rest of his team. He frequently called upon the different mobilisers and organisers within his team to speak about their roles. He did not feel like an independent candidate. Rather, he felt like one person who was part of a broader community intent on “breaking down the doors of parliament”. (Zackie Achmat does not endorse breaking down doors or entering parliament through violent means.) By the time he began answering questions, I felt satisfied that an “anti-individual” individual was definitely going to be in parliament.
Zackie Achmat aims to fix the state, reclaim parliament and build our communities. That is, he aims to address the failures of PRASSA, SASSA, and ESKOM, and create a country where services are delivered and maintained to ensure that poor and marginalised South Africans have access to resources that foster dignity and job creation. As well as this, he is intent on ending corruption and crime within parliament and is focused on creating a country whereby the knowledge of parliament is made accessible to the public and the knowledge of the public is made accessible to the government. He wants to “let us into parliament.” Finally, he is a firm believer in the mobilisation of communities. Achmat wants to devalue the individual and a reliance on the government by giving communities the resources that they need to create a framework of interdependence and unity.
The first question that someone asked was whether he could outline what he believed was so “broken” about our current government that would warrant such a heavy emphasis on “fixing” in his manifesto. He answered by explaining the situation of a South African woman living with disabilities. She is living in an informal settlement and has been since 1985 with this disability. Her legs may have to be amputated, but her promised wheelchair has not been granted to her. As such, she is not able to leave her home. If she were to receive her wheelchair, it may not be able to be used effectively on the roads that surround her. If it were able to be used on the roads around her, she may not have money or access to secure public transport. He uses this example to show how the state is broken at every level. Of course, it is broken by not supplying sufficient healthcare or services, but Zackie Achmat believes that the core thing that is broken is our humanity. He explained that because we dehumanise and are desensitised to this standard of living, we do not feel the need to supply her with the necessary resources. And so, before any services and resources can be delivered, we “write her situation off”. We do not feel the necessary emotion to help a human, because we have lost any sense of what community means. At a state level, it is a de-prioritisation of poor families, Black families, women, and disabled people. His solution is to mobilise communities and create a government that is working for the working class and poor. I think that this answer, his answer to the first question, succinctly encapsulates what he stands for. Thirty years after the supposed “end” of Apartheid, we are still not working in the interest of the marginalised.
When asked how an individual running for parliament can de-prioritise individualism, one of his organisers came up onto the stage. “I have never seen Zackie as a parliamentarian,” they answered. They went on to explain how they have been working with Zackie Achmat since 2008 and how he has been solely focused on community efforts. In fact, it was almost a last resort to run in these elections, and if - sorry - when he gets a seat in the national assembly, the seat will be shared amongst all communities. This is where he emphasises participatory politics instead of representative politics. He cannot be the representative for all, but he can open the door so that the people who are experiencing injustice firsthand can demand change through Zackie Achmat, the “individual”. They finished by explaining that Zackie Achmat will not come into parliament with intentions of what he will do, but instead with what he has already done. He will bring with him decades of community work. His only caveat is that he will not promise anything. He will not make statements that guarantee a solution, because the problems are often too traumatic and deep in South Africa. Instead, he will create relationships whereby problems are solved holistically using the resources he has access to in parliament. He has signed an accountability contract that outlines his manifesto and says that if he does not deliver on a promise he has made, we can demand his resignation immediately without pay. Assuming, of course, that we keep up our end of the contract by being active mobilisers in our communities. I must admit, I am a huge fan of this. I think that his policies of devaluing a hierarchical government system and instead making it an outlet for communities is a giant leap forward.
I have not done his policies justice. He speaks in length about the queer community, HIV and AIDS, climate justice, poverty reduction and so forth. Most importantly, he speaks about them better than I can and in more detail, and so I command (gently) that you look at his website. I have written another article which outlines how UCT students are feeling about voting. The conclusion was: disheartened. However, most students wanted to vote for smaller parties this election, so I have given you an individual (but actually a community) to look into. You do not have to vote for Zackie Achmat after reading his manifesto, but what you do have to do is stop thinking individually! Here is a not-so-gentle demand: start realising that the colonial, capitalist mindset of individualism is tearing us apart, and start thinking about community, interdependence, and what we owe to one another.