How sycophancy harms the ANC and ANCYL: The need for authentic leadership
. The phenomenon of "bootlickers"—those individuals who gain favour not through merit but through excessive sycophancy—poses a significant risk to the core values and effectiveness of these vital political movements.
Image: Independent Media/ RON AI
The struggle between genuine leadership and subservient behaviour can be starkly contrasted in any organisation. Within the African National Congress (ANC) and its youth league, the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL), this dynamic plays a critical role in shaping the political landscape of South Africa.
The phenomenon of "bootlickers"—those individuals who gain favour not through merit but through excessive sycophancy—poses a significant risk to the core values and effectiveness of these vital political movements. Bootlickers thrive in environments where loyalty is prioritised over competence. They rise through the ranks not because they possess innovative ideas or the courage to challenge flawed policies, but because they know how to ingratiate themselves with those in power.
This behaviour, more than mere opportunism, is detrimental to the health of any organisation and, more broadly, to the movement for social and economic justice that the ANC and ANCYL were born to champion. One of the most alarming effects of this culture is the stifling of innovation. Bootlickers, in their quest to align their opinions with those of their superiors, create an echo chamber where new ideas are dismissed, and risk-taking is minimized. True progress requires a continuous influx of fresh perspectives and constructive criticism. Without these critical elements, organizations stagnate, eventually becoming irrelevant in an ever-changing political landscape.
Furthermore, bootlickers contribute to the suppression of honest voices. Those who dare to question the status quo, to speak truth to power, or to point out inconsistencies in policies may find themselves ostracised or marginalised. This demoralises vocal dissenters and discourages others from expressing their concerns, leading to a lack of accountability. Having hard conversations—about mismanagement, corruption, or ethical failings— is essential for an organisation that aspires to be an agent of change. When dissenting voices are silenced, the movement becomes increasingly vulnerable to internal decay and the erosion of public trust. Moreover, bootlicking breeds mediocrity. When the individuals closest to power lack the skill, vision, or drive to advance the organisation's goals, the consequences ripple throughout the institution.
Mediocre leadership cannot inspire greatness; it can only maintain the status quo. This lack of dynamism within the ANC and ANCYL jeopardises the movement's ability to respond promptly and effectively to pressing societal issues. South Africans today are not just looking for leaders who can echo party lines; they need visionaries willing to think critically and ambitiously about the future.
The toxic environments cultivated by bootlickers can impact morale and productivity as well. When a culture prioritises sycophancy over authenticity, ordinary members often feel undervalued and unsupported. They may become disillusioned or lose their sense of purpose, viewing the organisation as a place of favouritism rather than meritocracy. Such discontent can lead to high service delivery, resourcing issues, and diminished organisational performance.
Authentic leadership thrives on honesty, critical feedback, and respectful dissent. Great leaders do not seek praise singers; they crave truth tellers who challenge their thinking, present new ideas, and spark meaningful discussions. Leaders should not only tolerate dissent but actively encourage it, recognising that robust debate ultimately leads to better decision-making and a more resilient organisation.
The best leaders empower their team members to voice differing opinions; they foster a culture where healthy discourse is valued, and varied perspectives are sought out. Service delivery usually arises from uncomfortable conversations and the courage to confront inconvenient truths. By dismantling the toxic culture of bootlicking within the ANC and ANCYL, leaders can unlock the creativity and potential of their members. Encouraging ranks to engage with difficult questions and strive for excellence can transform the organization's landscape and galvanize it toward its foundational mission.
The peril of bootlicking within the ANC and ANCYL cannot be overstated. This culture is a barrier to innovation, accountability, and excellence. The ANC and ANCYL must prioritize building a climate of openness and meritocracy—one that fosters, rather than stifles, creativity and critical thinking. As we reflect on the legacy of those who fought for freedom and justice, let us strive to honor their values by embracing honest dialogue and encouraging brave leadership. Only then can the ANC and ANCYL align with their core mission: to combat inequality and uplift the voices of all South Africans. The time to reclaim the essence of these movements is now; let us reject bootlicking and embrace a future shaped by visionary leadership and authentic engagement.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
6 minutes ago
- Daily Maverick
School's decision to change name from ‘disgraced' DF Malan to DF Akademie ‘undeniably rational'
The Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld a Bellville school's decision to change its name from DF Malan High School to DF Akademie to distance itself from its apartheid past, despite objections from some parents. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed a review application by four parents and found the school governing body (SGB) of DF Malan High School in Bellville, Western Cape, acted within its powers to rename the school in line with its values of inclusivity and academic excellence. This means the Afrikaans-medium school's name can be changed to DF Akademie, as suggested in May 2021. The voting for a new name took place in October 2021. Of the 3,466 votes received, the overwhelming majority, namely 85%, proposed DF Akademie. The litigation stems from Barend Rautenbach, Johan Smit, Francois Malan and Barend de Klerk taking umbrage against the SGB's decision after a consultative process in May 2021, to change the name of the school. In essence, they requested that the SCA review and set aside the decision of Western Cape Division of the High Court Judge Robert Henney, who dismissed the appellants' application to maintain the name DF Malan, the prime minister from 1948 to 195, who is considered to be one of the architects of apartheid. In his ruling, Henney said, 'The glorification of his name by an insistence that a school be named after him in post-apartheid South Africa where young people have to embrace a culture based on the values of our Constitution is an insult not only to them, but to the millions of South Africans who suffered at the hands of the apartheid regime.' The SCA judgment, penned by acting Judge John Smith, found the SGB's consultation process was comprehensive, fair and rational. 'The name of Dr Malan harks back to the apartheid era, an association that is fundamentally at odds with the school's ethos of inclusivity and transformation. The governing body's decision to purge the school of this unfortunate association with a disgraced legacy is thus undeniably rational and in the best interest of the school and all its stakeholders,' he stated. The ruling further stated that, while the school took pride in its academic success culture and inclusive policies, its controversial name had been an albatross around its neck. Stigma of name and call for change The school was established in 1954. Shortly after its establishment, the school obtained the permission of the then prime minister to name the school after him. In 2018, an alumnus wrote to the governing body, describing the name as 'insensitive and inappropriate' and demanded that the school begin a process to change its name. In September 2019, the school received similar letters from a parent of two learners. The pressure on the SGB to reconsider the school's name intensified during June 2020 when a group of alumni calling themselves 'DF Malan Must Fall' joined the fray. Their stated objective was to agitate for a name change and to address the 'institutional racism' at the school. In June 2020, the SGB began a process that would allow it to determine if the school's symbols, including its anthem and name, should be changed, as well as the cost implications thereof. Since the Schools Act does not prescribe a procedure for the changing of a school's name, the governing body was at sea concerning the issue and had to do its best to devise a fair process to enable consultation with stakeholders. All it had to rely on were circulars from the Department of Education and the Federation of Governing Bodies for South African Schools (Fedsas). Significantly, both circulars presumed that the governing body had the authority to change the school's name. A departmental circular, while instructing governing bodies to submit names to the provincial education department to enable it to check whether other schools bore the same name, expressly stated that a governing body's authority to change a school's name was beyond question. The Fedsas circular reminded governing bodies that changing a school's name was a sensitive matter and cautioned that wide consultation with all stakeholders, including parents, teachers, learners and the broader community, had to inform any decisions regarding a school's symbols, including its name, motto or emblem. Varied responses It was then suggested that the governing body create an ad hoc steering committee to oversee the consultation process and advise on potential new names or symbols. On 22 June 2020, the governing body wrote to all parents, students, alumni, and school staff on its database, informing them of its decision to begin a process to reconsider the school's name and symbols. The letter elicited a variety of responses, with some expressing misgivings about a name change, others supporting it and some making suggestions about the process that should be followed. The SGB then appointed an independent facilitator, Dr Jan Frederick Marais, a theologian of the Ecumenical Board of Stellenbosch University's Theology Faculty, and a renowned mediation expert, and thereafter a steering committee. Chairperson of the governing body Andre Roux asserted that although the steering committee members were advised to focus discussions on the school's symbols and identity, they were not instructed to prohibit discussions on the school's name. A draft report was eventually compiled and while everybody agreed with the school's core values as formulated by Dr Marais, three steering committee members disagreed with the decision to change the school's name. They were Veronica van Zyl, Mette Warnich – who also filed affidavits in support of the appeal application – and Gert Visser. On Marais's advice, a new task team was thereafter formed to advise the governing body on the formulation of a consultative process with stakeholders; criteria against which proposed new names could be evaluated; and the financial implications of a name change. The task team decided that invitations should be sent to all persons on the school's database to propose new names. After the invitations to comment were sent in April 2021, 626 of the recipients responded – 301 proposing that the name DF Malan be retained and 325 suggesting new names. However, the SGB decided that only two of the four names submitted by the task team were acceptable, namely Protea Akademie and DF Akademie. In a vote, DF Akademie won 85%. The appellants in the case took issue with several points. They claimed SGBs did not have the authority to change a school's name, that the SGB departed from the procedure it originally shared with the school community, stifled debate and failed to properly consult on the name change. The SCA judgment dismissed the complaints. 'I find that in changing the school's name, the governing body was acting within the ambit of its implied powers in terms of the Schools Act; that the procedure it adopted to consult interested parties was comprehensive, fair and rational; and that the decision to change the school's name was taken with due regard to, and rationally connected to the information before it. The appeal must therefore fail,' it read. DM
The South African
2 hours ago
- The South African
Minister Nkabane responds after chewing gum backlash
Minister of Higher Education and Training Dr Nobuhle Nkabane has come under fire for chewing bubble gum during a tense Portfolio Committee session last week. In a statement released and quickly deleted on the Department of Higher Education and Training's Facebook page, Nkabane responded to mounting criticism over her conduct. The incident took place during the 30 May 2025 committee meeting. Observers and MPs accused Nkabane of acting with 'disrespect' and showing a 'lack of seriousness' while addressing Parliament. 'I acknowledge that the situation could have been handled differently,' said Nkabane. She added that she had taken note of concerns raised by several stakeholders, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, who issued a public statement earlier on Wednesday. Critics singled out her behaviour during the meeting, particularly the moment she visibly chewed gum while speaking, as a symbol of disregard for parliamentary decorum. The backlash prompted growing calls for accountability and professionalism. Nkabane said she now wants to rebuild trust with Parliament. 'I intend to maintain a constructive, respectful, and professional working relationship with all Members of Parliament,' she said. She insisted she did not mean to 'evade accountability or undermine the decorum of Parliament.' She vowed to strengthen the relationship between her Ministry, the Department, and the Portfolio Committee. 'I will continue to lead with humility. I value the critical role of Parliament in providing oversight to ensure our sector delivers effectively for all South Africans,' she said Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
TimesLIVE
2 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
'It was never my intention to evade accountability or undermine parliament — Nkabane
Higher education minister Nobuhle Nkabane has accepted that her conduct was wrong when she appeared before a portfolio committee in parliament this week. TimesLIVE on Thursday reported that President Cyril Ramaphosa had asked Nkabane to write him a report on her conduct when she appeared in parliament and refused to answer questions relating to the process she followed on the appointment of chairs of sector education and training authorities (Setas). Ramaphosa's spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, on Thursday revealed that Nkabane had been requested to submit a detailed report on the appointment process, as well as an explanation of her conduct before the portfolio committee. Nkabane's demeanour was deemed disrespectful when she refused to answer questions and referred the chair of the committee to Google for answers to a question she was asked. Nkabane was criticised for appearing to be nonchalant and seemingly chewing gum the entire time she was before the committee. 'Upon reflection, and having considered the feedback received from various stakeholders, I acknowledge that the situation could have been handled differently. I take this opportunity to express my commitment to strengthening the relationship between the ministry, the department, and the portfolio committee,' said Nkabane in a statement released by her department. Ramaphosa had taken issue with Nkabane's behaviour and wanted her to explain herself as he believed government officials should always uphold standards when appearing before structures such as parliament. Magwenya said Ramaphosa expected ministers, deputy ministers and senior executives in the public sector to conduct themselves professionally, transparently and cordially in engaging parliament and other accountability structures. In her statement, Nkabane said she had intended to maintain what she said was a 'constructive, respectful and professional' working relationship with parliament. 'I remain committed to the principles of accountability, good governance and co-operative governance as outlined in our constitution and parliamentary protocols,' she said. 'It was never my intention to evade accountability or undermine the decorum of parliament. I will continue to lead with humility, and I value the critical role of parliament in providing oversight to ensure our sector delivers effectively for the benefit of all South Africans.'
