The ANCYL Presidential Wall: 𝐀 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 The ANCYL Presidential Wall in my zero opinion should, above everything else, be about institutional memory and preserving the history of young leadership in the movement, irrespective of the political realities or politics of the day; the good and bad. That is why the apparent petty jab contained in the biography under Julius Malema is rather unfortunate. Whether one agrees with Malema politically today or not is almost beside the point. His two terms as ANCYL President are part of the organisation's history and, for better or worse, formed an important chapter in the political development of a particular generation of young activists and leaders. History should record that period with enough substance and context to allow future generations to understand it, rather than reducing it to a political punchline. It reminds me, in a rather ironic way, of what Donald Trump has done with the Presidential Walk of Fame at the White House, particularly the treatment of former President Joe Biden. Instead of simply preserving the historical record of a former President, the presentation has been used to insert a distinctly political interpretation of his presidency, including the use of an autopen image and commentary reflecting Trump's own account of the Biden years or politics. The White House itself now presents the Walk of Fame as a historical sequence of presidential portraits and inscriptions. That is where I think we need to be careful. There is a difference between recording history honestly, critically and comprehensively, and using an institutional historical record to settle contemporary political scores. Leaders come and go, political fortunes change and today's dominant faction will eventually become part of yesterday's history. The ANCYL Presidential Wall belongs to the institution or organization, not to whoever happens to be politically dominant at a particular moment or be an incumbent. You can disagree profoundly with a former leader, critique their record and even document their failures or reference to their political divorce with the organization. But do it properly. Give the historical record the dignity and context it deserves. Because once political theatrics and political expediency start replacing institutional memory, we are no longer preserving history at all rather we are editing it for the politics of the moment. And that, in my view, is unbecoming when dealing with the historical record of an organisation as significant as the ANCYL. – at Milnerton, South Africa