Event Report: 2009 South African election: is this the end of ANC dominance?

With the people of South Africa just a few hours away from heading to the polls, Tuesday evening saw Progress and ACTSA gather a distinguished panel of speakers to consider whether this national election could spell the end of ANC dominance. Sally Keeble MP, herself a former South African journalist, chaired and first to speak was Peter Hain MP, the former Minister for Africa whose history of campaigning against apartheid required little introduction.

Peter Hain’s assessment started on a positive note, with a reminder of how far South Africa has come in recent years and a round up of key achievements, such as successful macro management of the economy and the creation of a strong constitution. However he also highlighted a number of issues, progress towards resolution of which will form the benchmarks that will be used to judge the success of a Zuma presidency. These include concerns about lack of judicial independence, the need to tackle corruption, the response to HIV/AIDS and problems with foreign policy, particularly in relation to Zimbabwe. Dr Knox Chitiyo, Head of the Africa Programme at RUSI, followed, citing South Africa as a positive example of electoral process and a model for a future Zimbabwe. Whilst acknowledging some of the problems highlighted by Peter Hain, he noted that ANC politics are managerial rather than values based, catering to an electorate who are primarily interested in deliverables. Therefore the ANC will need to downsize their foreign policy and concentrate on delivery on domestic, in particular economic, issues if they are to retain prominence.

Mark Ashurst of the African Research Institute considered some of the wider issues around the shift in leadership from Mbeki to Zuma, identifying a shift in power from the liberal left of the ANC to a more populist leadership. He also described the next phase as the end of the beginning because as one of the last freedom fighters, Zuma’s successor will be the first truly post-apartheid leader. To close, Tony Dykes of ACTSA reminded us that a peaceful election with record voter turnout expected is something to be celebrated.

A lively question and answer session followed, with audience members asking the panel about diverse topics such as land reform and the "brain drain" of skilled white South Africans to other countries. Without skirting these and the many other issues that face the country as it tackles the legacy of apartheid, the overall tone at the end of the debate was a feeling of optimism for the future.

Speechmaking masterclass with Philip Collins

On Monday a small group of Progress supporters were treated to a masterclass in speech writing and delivery by Philip Collins, former speechwriter to Tony Blair.

Philip stressed the importance of making a clear argument in a speech. If in doubt, ask the question 'could I disagree with this?' If the answer is no, then the speech is arguing very little. A good speech needs to be a dialogue, and the opposing view has to characterised in a recognisable way. Characterising your opponent's view in an absurd or overblown way turns people way from your argument.

Despite being maligned by many, the soundbite is still a useful devise. You should be able to encapsulate your argument in a single sentence.

The greatest speeches are delivered on the greatest occasions. More everyday incidences are not suited to 'purple prose', which should be avoided. Clarity and punchiness are preferable to sixth form poetry. The word 'rhetoric' means 'argument', not poetic waffle.

Obama's speeches work because he always confronts the issues. It also helps that his delivery is beautiful, a kind of spoken gospel singing.

Philip's pet hates are over-used words like 'challenging, '21st century', 'agenda' and 'value-added'; and lazy diction like 'quality' to mean good. Good writing should be specific.

Politicians should be brave enough to ask civil servants to rewrite speeches which aren't good enough, and they should consider delivering fewer speeches, limiting them to big occasions. A question and answer session is usually far more illuminating for everyone involved.

It should be obvious that observing the pleasantries and formalities of the occasion is a must, and that magnanimity in victory or defeat is always wise. Being succinct will almost always please your audience.

In response to a question about pacing the speech, Philip advised a gentle start, preferably with some kind of interaction with the person who introduces you. During the speech, the intensity should undulate, with crescendos every few minutes. Ending on a major flourish should generally be avoided - consider instead ending on a diminuendo - but make sure it is clear when you have ended! (That's the end of the report, by the way.)