More than 114 organisations took part in South Africa’s Conference of the Left at Birchwood from 29 to 31 May 2026. The turnout was much broader than the early picture of two parties trying to repair relations and coordinate around a shared political programme.
The March EFF and SACP planning talks Pillar article shows how narrow the project still looked at that stage. By the time the conference took place, the room included political parties, trade unions, community movements, student and youth formations, faith-based groups, traditional leadership structures, co-operatives, intellectuals and international solidarity organisations.
The meaning of the Conference of the Left becomes clearer once you look at that mix. It was not presented as a merger, a replacement political party or a single electoral slate. A later SACP account put the total above 114 organisations, spanning parties, unions, community groups, students, faith organisations and other formations.
Those names also explain why treating the gathering as a simple SACP-EFF alliance misses its actual shape. MKP, PAC, AZAPO and smaller socialist or Pan-Africanist formations arrived with different histories, structures and political programs. Their presence did not mean they agreed on everything.
SACP’s role in the Conference of the Left was still central. It was the most visible convening force, while a steering committee handled the wider organising process. Solly Mapaila chaired proceedings, and Julius Malema was among the political figures who addressed the gathering.
The conference took place at the Birchwood Hotel and Conference Centre in Boksburg over three days. Anyone trying to pin down where and when the gathering happened can separate the late-May conference itself from the months of bilateral meetings, invitations and steering-committee work that came before it.
The published Conference of the Left programme also matters because an invitation was not the same thing as participation. The ANC was invited but chose not to attend. Abahlali baseMjondolo publicly rejected its inclusion in conference material, and the Treatment Action Campaign also said it would not attend after its name appeared among participating organisations.
SAFTU decided not to participate as a federation. NUMSA, however, is a SAFTU affiliate and appears on the published participant list. Small detail, big distinction. A federation-level decision did not automatically determine what every affiliated union did.
South African labour politics has long crossed the boundary between workplace organisation and wider political struggle. The academic idea of social movement unionism academic paper, describes unions acting through community and political alliances as well as shop-floor structures, which helps explain why labour organisations mattered to a conference built around broader working-class coordination.
Civil society participation had similar shades of grey. The Institute for Economic Justice attended as an observer rather than presenting itself as one of the political formations. Observer status matters because it separates being in the room from signing up to every political position adopted there.
The main outcomes of the conference therefore make more sense when read alongside the participant mix. Parties brought electoral machinery, unions brought organised workplace structures, community movements brought local campaigns, and other formations added research, faith, youth, student and solidarity networks.
Differences did not disappear. Some invited organisations stayed away, some attended as observers, and participants themselves came from political traditions that disagree on plenty. The gathering’s practical test was whether those organisations could cooperate on selected campaigns without pretending they had become one organisation.
By August, the Council of the Left had been formally constituted, giving the May gathering a structure intended to continue beyond a three-day event. The lasting organisational decision was therefore not a new party, but a standing mechanism through which participating organisations could keep coordinating after everyone left Birchwood.
The March EFF and SACP planning talks Pillar article shows how narrow the project still looked at that stage. By the time the conference took place, the room included political parties, trade unions, community movements, student and youth formations, faith-based groups, traditional leadership structures, co-operatives, intellectuals and international solidarity organisations.
The meaning of the Conference of the Left becomes clearer once you look at that mix. It was not presented as a merger, a replacement political party or a single electoral slate. A later SACP account put the total above 114 organisations, spanning parties, unions, community groups, students, faith organisations and other formations.
The party lineup was unusually broad
The parties at the Conference of the Left stretched well beyond the SACP and EFF. The published participant record includes the SACP, EFF, Socialist Party of Azania, Pan Africanist Congress of Azania, AZAPO, uMkhonto weSizwe Party, Workers' Socialist Party and several smaller political formations.Those names also explain why treating the gathering as a simple SACP-EFF alliance misses its actual shape. MKP, PAC, AZAPO and smaller socialist or Pan-Africanist formations arrived with different histories, structures and political programs. Their presence did not mean they agreed on everything.
SACP’s role in the Conference of the Left was still central. It was the most visible convening force, while a steering committee handled the wider organising process. Solly Mapaila chaired proceedings, and Julius Malema was among the political figures who addressed the gathering.
The conference took place at the Birchwood Hotel and Conference Centre in Boksburg over three days. Anyone trying to pin down where and when the gathering happened can separate the late-May conference itself from the months of bilateral meetings, invitations and steering-committee work that came before it.
The published Conference of the Left programme also matters because an invitation was not the same thing as participation. The ANC was invited but chose not to attend. Abahlali baseMjondolo publicly rejected its inclusion in conference material, and the Treatment Action Campaign also said it would not attend after its name appeared among participating organisations.
Labour participation had an important wrinkle
Trade unions at the Conference of the Left included NEHAWU, the National Union of Mineworkers, SACCAWU, SAMATU and NUMSA, among others listed with the final declaration. Organised labour was therefore present even though the federation picture was anything but tidy.SAFTU decided not to participate as a federation. NUMSA, however, is a SAFTU affiliate and appears on the published participant list. Small detail, big distinction. A federation-level decision did not automatically determine what every affiliated union did.
South African labour politics has long crossed the boundary between workplace organisation and wider political struggle. The academic idea of social movement unionism academic paper, describes unions acting through community and political alliances as well as shop-floor structures, which helps explain why labour organisations mattered to a conference built around broader working-class coordination.
Civil society participation had similar shades of grey. The Institute for Economic Justice attended as an observer rather than presenting itself as one of the political formations. Observer status matters because it separates being in the room from signing up to every political position adopted there.
The participant list explains the later structure
The Conference of the Left declaration describes a coalition of different organisational types rather than a single unified organisation. Its final resolutions created a Council of the Left meant to coordinate campaigns while leaving participating organisations autonomous.The main outcomes of the conference therefore make more sense when read alongside the participant mix. Parties brought electoral machinery, unions brought organised workplace structures, community movements brought local campaigns, and other formations added research, faith, youth, student and solidarity networks.
Differences did not disappear. Some invited organisations stayed away, some attended as observers, and participants themselves came from political traditions that disagree on plenty. The gathering’s practical test was whether those organisations could cooperate on selected campaigns without pretending they had become one organisation.
By August, the Council of the Left had been formally constituted, giving the May gathering a structure intended to continue beyond a three-day event. The lasting organisational decision was therefore not a new party, but a standing mechanism through which participating organisations could keep coordinating after everyone left Birchwood.
