now that's party discipline

I'm still working on an analysis of last tuesday. Suffice it to say, I am elated but cautious.

Other news is pressing however, and provides food for thought on our own predicament. South Africa's parliament, thanks to a party-line vote by the ruling African National Congress, has legalized gay marriage. The move was prompted by a high court decision stating that the constitution, perhaps the world's most progressive, demanded equal rights for gay couples.

The majority of South Africans, black, white and "colored" oppose gay marriage. In fact, it is likely that had the ANC allowed its members to vote independently, the vote would have gone quite differently. Most of the opposition parties voted against the new law, including the Pan African Congress and the Inkhata Freedom Party, two of the ANC's rivals among black South Africans.

Traditionalists in the ANC and elsewhere in South African civil society are furious, claiming, as one would expect, that the move would usher in a moral downfall for the continent. Others claimed that the move toward gay rights follows from "foriegn" or "eurocentric" political doctrine.

In fact, the ANC's action was further testament to the notion that, however shaky or imperfect, South African political leadership is deeply committed to the principles of equality. The ANC has strong enough support among its base that it can make risky moves in devense of those principles.

Here's Vytjie Mentor, the ANC leader in Parliament, as quoted in the NYT:

There is “no such thing as a free vote or a vote of conscience,” he said. “How do you give someone permission to discriminate in the name of the A.N.C.? How do you allow for someone to vote against the constitution and the policies of the A.N.C., which is antidiscrimination?”

We have seen this dynamic in South Africa before, with the ANC pushing a line of truth and reconcilliation over revenge after coming to power, as well as their insistance on including women's rights in the new constitution. That document, along with the ANC's own statement of principels includes a radical commitment to social, gender and economic equality, as well as environmental sustainability and protection.

So, can a party win and govern when part of its base is not on board with an ambitious progressive agenda? The ANC demonstrates that it can.

In the US election last week, Democrats pulled significant support from constuencies which are fairly socially conservative. Blacks, latinos and white, male union members all turned further toward the Democratic coalition. Latinos swung a full 30% toward Democrats in comparison to the last election, and blacks remained at their current level: 90% support for Dems. Blacks held firm even as Republicans courted black clergy, offered up socially conservative black candidates, engaged in vote supression and bombarded black neighborhoods with radio ads calling Democrats "the party of slavery". None of it worked, and that's good.

While running socially conservative candidates may have helped in courting white evangelicals and some white males, conservative pundits are grossly overemphasizing this factor. Less reported is the fact that economic populism, minimum wage campaigns and a more critical pose toward trade all helped us win back the parts of our base that Republicans have been chipping away at for decades.

The Democrats are not the ANC. We don't have a parliamentary system or a political culture that even allows the sort of party discipline on display in South Africa. However, what we can learn is that standing up for minorities' rights doesn't have to cost you a majority if you really give people a reason to vote for you.