South Africa's elections 2014 - what next?

-->

Picture: Gisele Wulfsohn, Alexandra, 27th April 1994

Basically the ANC has won the election, albeit with a slightly reduced overall percentage vote.  It is still unassailable as the majority party and will remain so until there is a fundamental realignment and reorganization of the opposition parties.  While the DA states that it is working for such a realignment, the option has been on the table since 2009 and the DA has failed spectacularly to achieve this so far – the very recent failed merger with Agang being the obvious illustration.

At a time when the ANC has potentially been vulnerable (Marikana, Nkandla, EFF etc) the opposition has totally failed to provide any kind of alternative vision for the country that can capture the imagination of the population has a whole.  Ultimately this is a failure of leadership – the country has been failed by leaders of all parties.

The achievement of the (Economic Freedom Fighters) EFF in getting 6%+ of the national vote is also a reflection of leadership failures in the ANC and the DA.  Julius Malema is a dangerous populist.  While some EFF leaders have spouted left-wing rhetoric to appeal to the masses the party is by no means a socialist one.  Their ‘economic policies’ are designed to win broad support, with big increases in social grants etc and no articulation of how they will be funded or how the economy can be stimulated to grow so as to meet the needs of a growing population.  And Malema’s flirtations with reintroducing the death penalty and destroying the e-Toll gantries betray his populist nature.  It will be interesting to see, now that he has some kind of mandate, if he is the first to take the pneumatic drill to the toll roads…

More importantly, we must be aware of the dangers of populism, opportunism and nationalism – ultimately political concepts that do no favours for poor, marginalized people anywhere in the world.

The final results show yet again (see my earlier post after the previous national elections in 2009) that a coherent unified opposition could potentially challenge for around 30% of available votes (leaving aside the millions who are either not registered or do not vote):

DA (22.23%) + IFP (2.4%) + NFP (1.57%) + UDM (1.0%) + VF Plus (0.9%) + COPE (0.67%) + Agang (0.28%) = 29+%

I am assuming that this picture would not include the EFF, ACDP or any of the former liberation parties (PAC or Azapo).

This would require a calculated strategy to unify a range of smaller parties (and egos!) under a single banner, and the DA-Agang debacle shows that this may not be easy, but would make coherent political sense.  The work to do this should start now.  If it can be done, there is a possibility of creating an opposition that from a base of around 30% support could potentially challenge the ANC in a real sense in the next national elections.

Of course this would require some radical shifts in thinking within the DA, which would have to really shake off its image as a white middle-class party, adopt some radical new policies and promote real transformation within its leadership.  It would need particularly to develop economic and social policies (and an associated rhetoric) that have broad appeal to ‘the ordinary South African’ (if this is still possible with the DA’s underlying neo-liberal agenda).

This kind of transformation, coupled with the populist critique from the EFF (now in Parliament), could also force some new thinking within the ANC about what kind of leadership it needs if it is to remain relevant in South Africa in the next 5-10 years.

The DA, fighting apartheid, and reinventing history

-->

I have to admit to some astonishment at the ‘Know Your DA’ campaign, which suggests that the Democratic Alliance (DA) was somehow involved in the struggle against apartheid.

Maybe it is worth repeating that apartheid was declared by the United Nations to be a crime against humanity.  It was not just a mildly aberrant policy that could be changed as a result of white parliamentary opposition.

As such apartheid needed to be fought against.  And not just ‘fought’ by way of a few newspaper articles and some opposing voices raised in the illegitimate parliament of the time, but fought by way of an armed struggle and international isolation and sanctions.

It should not be necessary to repeat what this struggle involved and the huge sacrifices made by people across South Africa.  Many thousands of people were forced into exile and many were away from their homes and families for decades, while some never came home.  Hundreds of others were imprisoned, again many for decades, tortured and killed in the apartheid goal.  Many were detained without trial and held in solitary confinement for long periods.

The ultimate price was paid by people of all races and backgrounds – Bram Fischer, Jeannette Schoon and her daughter Katryn, Ruth First, Solomon Mahlangu, Steve Biko, Neil Aggett, Andrew Zondo, Chris Hani, Phila Ndwandwe, David Webster, Hector Peterson, and many others, including of course people protesting against the pass laws at Sharpeville in 1960, and school children shot by police in 1976.

Many thousands more were forcibly removed from their homes and dumped in so-called homelands – something I covered in an earlier blogpost dealing with De Klerk’s amnesia.

Many organisations struggling against apartheid were banned, as were many individuals.  Generally, people who did not fit under the apartheid classification of ‘white’ were required to carry passes and suffer countless other indignities and bureaucratic abuses simply on the basis of their skin colour.

Now the DA of course was not in existence during the apartheid years.  But it’s ‘predecessor’ organisations were.  Especially the Progressive Federal Party (PFP), with leaders such as Helen Suzman and Colin Elgin.  The PFP opposed apartheid policies in the white’s only parliament of the day, as did the earlier Liberal Party – although the Liberal Party took a decision to disband after the government passed a law disallowing parties from having a multiracial membership and it was not a predecessor of the PFP.  (although I am not sure if the SA Liberal Party actually ever had any MPs - someone may enlighten me...)

Of course, even earlier, the South African Labour Party under the leadership of Alex Hepple, who was an MP in the late 40s and 50s, also spoke out in Parliament against apartheid but failing to win significant white support closed down in the 1950s (and was also not in any sense a predecessor of the PFP).

The fact is that, while there were brave voices who used the white parliament to oppose apartheid, including Helen Suzman, these white voices were most solitary, and attempts to organise across colour lines and to make common cause with organisations like the ANC were mostly doomed. 

It was the fate of many white people and organisations that opposed apartheid to be harassed, imprisoned, banned or driven into exile.  On the liberal side - Peter Brown, of the Liberal Party, was detained for 98 days after the Sharpeville massacre and in 1964 was banned for 5 years under the Suppression of Communism Act.

Peaceful opposition to apartheid did not work and did not bring about the changes desired by the majority of people.  It was this realisation by the PAC and ANC in the late 50s and early 60s that led to the formation of the PAC’s military wing Poqo in 1960, the ANC’s military wing Umkhonto weSizwe in 1961, and Mandela going to Algeria for military training.

Mandela’s words from his speech in the dock:

"At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961 … we said:

'The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom.'”

The Progressive Federal Party was never banned and its members were not imprisoned or driven into exile.  Nor did the PFP align itself with the struggle as defined by Mandela.  While some of its members may have spoken out against aspects of apartheid, it was not involved in the broad sweep of extra-parliamentary struggle against apartheid, nor in the worldwide opposition to the South African regime, which was led by the ANC in exile and numerous banned underground organisations, trade unions and civic organisations inside South Africa.

This is not to minimise the significance of Helen Zille writing with Allistair Sparks about the death in detention of Steve Biko, or her membership of the Black Sash, or the individual efforts of a few other current DA members.

And it is important, now, that the DA plays its role as a leading opposition political party in a free and democratic South Africa.  As the realignment of opposition political formations continues, it may well be that the DA is able to make common cause with others, move beyond its white leadership and support base, and create new formations that will one day allow it to contest realistically for political leadership in this country on the basis of winning mass support.  It is worth recalling the worlds of Aime Cesaire:

“For it is not true that the work of man is finished,
That we have nothing more to do in the world,
That we are just parasites in this world,
That it is enough for us to walk in step with the world,
For the work of man is only just beginning and it remains to conquer all,
The violence entrenched in the recess of his passion,
And no race holds a monopoly of beauty, of intelligence, of strength, and,
There is a place for all at the Rendezvous of Victory.”

And so let us not pretend when it comes to South African history.  The struggle involved killings, torture, detentions, bannings, exile, military training in camps in the frontline states, parcel bombs, cross-border raids by the SADF, proxy wars fought in Mozambique and Angola, international sanctions and boycotts, and much more.  It was an armed struggle that required solidarity.  The DA’s predecessors in parliament were at best minor irritants to the apartheid government and were not involved.  So be it.  And now let us move forward, recognising that there is a place for all.

The Johannesburg Moment – “a fractious and turbulent set of social contestations”

At the recent Mail & Guardian Johannesburg Literary Festival Professor Karl Von Holdt presented an important paper on ‘The Johannesburg Moment’ – a concept for exploration and debate that he is working on and that will form an aspect of a forthcoming book.

What is the ‘Johannesburg moment’? The first idea is that Johannesburg, and indeed South Africa more broadly, can be viewed as a place, in time, that is characterised by a comprehensive contestation of ideas and power for influence and control – over spaces, organisations, institutions and sectors. The contestation can be defined in different ways, and manifests itself in many guises, and impacts on all our lives and forms of organisation in different ways. Perhaps the essence, however, is that previously accepted certainties do not prevail and every issue or idea, large or small, is open for debate, review or conflict.

This can be seen as a wonderful manifestation of a new democratic society, as well as being characterised by what Von Holdt refers to as “a historic rupture, the end of white political domination”. So may sacred cows are upended in such a moment – what are the new ways to organise and run a society as the old order comes to an end and a new one struggles to be born?

Von Holdt argues that the second aspect of the Johannesburg moment is an “intellectual and cultural project” to interrogate and reconstruct the Western lenses through which we understand and make meaning of our situation and context.

Bringing together these two ideas offers the opportunity to create new ideas about how we design and construct our spaces of engagement – not drawing on existing models and frameworks but creating new, socially connected and democratic spaces where work and art can co-exist, where politics and business become integral together to how we think and work, and where new conceptions of society and power can lead to a re-drawing of our idea of ‘organisation’ that can integrate ideas of productivity, learning and playfulness. Real progress.

Critical to this process will be the establishment of a shared sense of our history and identity as a people (a history that itself has been contested) and a new sense of where we want to go. In this sense the political changes that took place in the early 90s represent just a starting point, rather than an ending or a solution.

Viva the great people of Egypt viva!

Apologies for the long silence in this blog! The last few months have been a busy time. I have been experimenting a bit with Twitter, where I have tweeted on a variety of topics, usually in quite a random way – experimenting with the medium. You can follow me on Twitter.

For the last few days I have been impressed by the resolution and determination of the people of Egypt. By holding firm, they have achieved their singular objective of ending the 30-year rule of Hosni Mubarak. They know well that the hard part lies ahead – building a new democratic system. It is hard not to see the coincidence between the birth of a new Egypt on 11th February and the release of Nelson Mandela 21 years ago to the day.

The change in Egypt raises much hope for wider change in the Middle East. At the time of writing, there is an upswell of protest also in Yemen, Algeria and Jordon. For too long the region has been ruled by kings, dictators and sheiks without regard for the will of the people. This lack of democracy in neighbouring countries has enabled Israel to avoid finding a lasting and peaceful solution to its relationship with the Palestinian people. A more democratic region will inevitably put pressure on Israel to find a new accommodation.

A short note on the death of Eugene Terre’Blanche

Eugene Terre'Blanche & Connie Mulder at AWB cultural day, Krugersdorp, 1986 (Picture: Gisele Wulfsohn)







It is an important sign of the increasing political maturity of South Africa that political leaders have generally called for calm after the murder yesterday of Eugene Terre’Blanche.

And President Zuma this morning is reported as saying that political leaders should think before they speak. Mmm – cryptic. I wondered at first who he was referring to – my first thought was Helen Zille, who yesterday morning warned on eTV of increased polarisation in society as a result of the killing, but by yesterday afternoon (after reading the mood?) was (also on eTV) calling for calm like everyone else. Then I wondered if this was perhaps a shot across the bows of Julius Malema. My next thought was that he was articulating some of his own learnings…

No matter, the point is that the senseless killing of Terre’Blanche is probably unlikely to result in much in the way of civil unrest or increased polarisation, beyond perhaps a few stones thrown in Ventersdorp.

The AWB actually met its end in what was then Boputhutswana in 1994, with the killing of Nico Fourie, Fanie Uys and Alwyn Wolfaardt – three of the AWB members who went into Bop in a futile attempt to bolster the so-called government of Bop and prevent its reincorporation into South Africa before the first democratic elections in 1994.

Of course, racism in South Africa does not begin or end with the AWB, although in substance and form the AWB was clearly a white-supremicist organisation. Perhaps one thing can become clear from the death of Terre’Blanche: South Africa really does have to belong to all the people who live in it, not parts of it for some people and parts for others. This is a good starting point for realising that we all then have to live together – and not just because we have to, but also because it can be more fun and we will be happier as a people!

Morality and ethics in public life

It was a real privilege tonight to attend the Helen Joseph Memorial Lecture delivered by Professor Kader Asmal on the theme of ‘Law, morality and ethics in public life in South Africa’. I am fortunate to count myself as a former student of Professor Asmal at Dublin University, and so this was not the first lecture of his that I have attended!

Asmal spoke eloquently of the need to create an ethical society, based on tolerance and mutual respect founded on a sense of a common shared destiny. He made a passionate plea for people in public life to take a stand on issues of morality, and not to fudge the distinction between right and wrong. Calling for respect for the institutions of democracy, he made a strong case for cementing our young democracy by assuming civic responsibility. Working simply according to rules is not enough, he argued, citing the bizarre ‘conflict of interest’ when MPs under investigation in the Travelgate scandal are able to brazenly vote for the abolition of the Scorpions – while what they did was not illegal or in breach of conflict of interest rules, he argued that they should have recused themselves from the vote. He also cited as unethical the 27% pay increase awarded to the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Tito Mboweni - a pay increase that is four times the upper limit of the inflation target band set by the Reserve Bank!

Asmal made a strong case for businesses, universities and other institutions to make clear breaks with the practices of the past where they do not serve the new democracy, in the same way that the Constitution of South Africa and the Bill of Rights make a decisive break from our apartheid history.

Asmal of course has been a long-standing member of the ANC, and until last year was on the ANC National Executive Committee, so his voice on these matters is important and carries weight. In the context of our current political context, his call for people to make decisions on the basis of what is right and what is wrong, rather than on the basis of personalities, or who is left and who is right, is refreshing.