Siyabonga Hadebe | Tuesday, 4. June 2024
It is indisputable that significant forces, often driven by external influences and historical power dynamics, continuously shape and reshape South Africa’s landscape, diverting its trajectory away from the interests and empowerment of its native population. Under apartheid and colonialism, power was transferred to the white minority to the exclusion of the majority black population, and this ensured that the negative effects of colonialism were exacerbated and reinforced in a political system that was expertly designed in the interests of imperialism.
Apartheid South Africa epitomised “internal colonialism,” where one group within a nation dominates and exploits another, akin to colonialism within a country’s borders. This system, characterised by racially discriminatory laws and capitalist economic policies favouring the white minority, perpetuated the disenfranchisement and subordination of the black majority. Coined as “colonialism of a special type” by Marxist scholar Harold Wolpe, apartheid entrenched this unequal power dynamic, illustrating a form of home-grown colonialism that entrenched political, social, and economic disparities.
Due to the widespread backlash against apartheid policies, the Big Power replaced the National Party with the black-led ANC yet maintained the oppressive structure. Thabo Mbeki acknowledged the existence of internal colonialism, noting that South Africa was a nation of two economies without a connecting staircase. This implies that even after apartheid’s demise, the disparities between developed and underdeveloped South Africas persisted, resulting in discontent among the black majority.
Nonetheless, the ANC has been permitted to (mis)rule for the past three decades and has been systematically exposed as incapable of managing a country rife with massive contradictions. Bolstered by the findings of the 1932 Carnegie Report on white poverty, the National Party followed an authoritarian form of rule, which enabled it to uplift whites and grow the economy using a large pool of black labour. In contrast, the ANC was handed constitutionalism and democracy to limit any prospects of redress or emancipation of the black majority.
While the decline of the National Party was attributed to racism and economic underperformance, Big Power now cites democracy and governance as primary justifications for removing the ANC from power. Their proposed solution is the establishment of “anarchy for the benefit of South Africa,” without specifying which of the two South Africas must be empowered. This article posits that the ANC’s electoral defeat was pre-determined, and the resulting political chaos was carefully engineered to foster coalitions that prioritise white dominance over the emancipation of the black majority, further delaying true freedom.
Elections Ushering in a New Era of Savages, Victims and Saviours
Public narratives have long touted a coalition between the DA and ANC, presenting the current discourse as a mere facade. The UK-based Economist magazine recently argued that “to prevent a coalition of chaos, Cyril Ramaphosa and the DA must do a deal.” Influential figures within the ANC, such as Kgalema Motlante, have cautioned against “unprincipled coalitions,” stressing that purely “transactional” deals would lack the political stability needed for economic development. The preference for a deal with the DA raises suspicions of re-centring whiteness once more.
Makau wa Mutua’s metaphor of savages, victims and saviours reveals a hidden narrative within the human rights discourse. This narrative portrays an ongoing struggle between ‘savages’ and the ‘victims’ they oppress, with ‘saviours’ intervening to protect the vulnerable. This construction, interconnecting savages, victims and saviours, lays bare some of the hypocrisies of the human rights project, urging activists and scholars to critically examine their assumptions and biases. Although Mutua’s metaphor was conceptualised for human rights, it equally applies to the South African political context.
This oversimplified idea of giving power to the white minority for economic reasons is complex and contentious, reflecting broader debates about the balance between economic growth and social equity in South Africa’s political landscape. The current approach to coalitions evokes Mutua’s metaphor of savages (the ANC government), victims (the poor black majority) and saviours (whites via the DA). The DA has boldly claimed that it will provide oversight over parliamentary portfolio committees and government departments.
London-based Chatham House asserts that “an ANC–DA alliance is the outcome investors want in South Africa.” Such a partnership would represent stability, fiscal accountability and a significant milestone in the country’s political evolution, moving away from the shadow of apartheid. However, this push for collaboration potentially disregards the historical oppression and exclusion experienced by the black majority. The DA is encouraged to embrace its access to government, enabling it to influence the legislative agenda for the first time and tackle corruption.
Kim R. Holmes criticises modern liberalism for prioritising power over genuine inquiry and debate, leading to closed-mindedness. Contemporary liberalism tends to align closely with certain social movements, paradoxically championing intolerance in the name of tolerance. Liberalism’s control over knowledge and public choices perpetuates this trend, undermining its reputation as a defender of freedom and open-mindedness. Therefore, South Africa needs to disregard local and global liberals and opt for a more nuanced approach to political discourse and coalition-building.
- Grand Coalitions and Dilution of (Black) Majority Power in Democratic South Africa
In Electoral Manipulation in Liberal Democracies, Waldemar Wojtasik suggests that electoral manipulation is on the rise in liberal democracies due to technological advancements. For the first time since the dawn of democracy, for instance, several parties in the Western Cape claimed that elections were manipulated in favour of the DA. Similar accusations were made on how the IEC helped amplify electoral dominance, especially in the case of the DA. Despite these concerns, the elections were declared free and fair.
Now holding 40% of parliamentary seats, the ANC must negotiate its policy positions with potential coalition partners. The main contenders for the coalition are the DA, MK Party and the EFF, which hold the second, third and fourth most seats, respectively. Additionally, the situation in Gauteng and KZN is precarious and requires joint governance, except for the Northern Cape. While it remains unclear if technology influenced the outcome, the election results hint at a preference for grand coalitions.
Adam Przeworski emphasises that elections remain the most practical way to determine political power despite their flaws. However, if elections become less effective at ensuring fair representation and consensus, the crisis of democracy will worsen. At this point, imagining a similarly effective and socially accepted alternative is difficult. The political system would undergo fundamental changes without genuinely free and fair elections. However, the credibility of South Africa’s elections is currently under scrutiny, indicating a challenging period for democracy.
While murmurings about the elections persist, there is a widespread belief that there were no clear winners and that a solution in the interest of “all South Africans” must be found. Some analysts suggest that political parties should collaborate to benefit “our” economy through a government of national unity or a grand coalition involving multiple parties. However, this perspective entrenches internal colonialism, as it discusses an economy that continues to underserve the black population, thereby deepening the divide between developed and underdeveloped.
As flawed as this thinking is, the economic dimension element that leans towards empowering the DA, in particular, is gaining traction among the ruling ANC and others. ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula has expressed openness to negotiations with all parties, including the DA, which has long criticised the ANC but is seen by many analysts as a stable coalition option. DA leader John Steenhuisen also mentioned that his party is initiating discussions with other parties. There is a time pressure for coalition talks, as the new parliament must elect a president within fourteen days of the election results being declared.
On the other hand, Mbalula stated that the ANC would not entertain the MK Party’s demand that Cyril Ramaphosa step down as a precondition for talks. “No political party will dictate terms to us, the ANC. They will not… If you come to us with that demand, forget it,” Mbalula said. Some within the ANC have also opposed a coalition with the EFF. Additionally, the DA has consistently stated that it will not collaborate with the EFF and MK, labelling them a “doomsday coalition” for South Africa. In their paper Scenarios for a Coalition Government: Factors and Decision Choices, Matsobane Ledwaba et al. think the high policy fit between the ANC and MK might lead to a very unstable coalition “due to two bulls in one kitchen and personality cults.”
Furthermore, Motlanthe emphasised the importance of setting clear, measurable targets within coalitions and ensuring all partners accept South Africa’s constitutional democracy. He criticised the nationalisation of the South African Reserve Bank and the reintroduction of capital punishment. He also stressed that successful coalitions must address key issues like land reform and have sufficient electoral support to govern effectively. He supports coalitions with major parties like the DA and EFF. Ledwaba et al. also highly recommended the ANC-EFF coalition and ranked the DA lowest. With all said, the ANC appears to lean towards the DA to appease the invisible hand.
- Drawing Lessons from Corporate Mergers for Coalition Partner Fit
The much-promoted DA-ANC coalition appears to have the lowest “strategic fit” at both domestic and international policy levels. Bhaso Ndzendze argues that the ANC’s foreign policy will be a key bargaining point in coalition negotiations. Over the past 30 years, South Africa has established a clear stance on major geopolitical issues, particularly through its BRICS membership and its advocacy against ‘vaccine apartheid’ during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ndzendze notes that each party has distinct foreign policy perspectives: the DA is pro-western, the EFF is more revisionist and the MKP largely mirrors the ANC’s foreign policy.
The ANC’s coalition partner selection will shape South Africa’s domestic and foreign policies. Aligning with the DA may signify a pro-market direction, while other party alliances could prioritise equity-focused agendas. With such a choice, analysts anticipate positive implications for FDI and the international economic outlook for the country. However, the suggestion about inward investments seems to purposefully downplay South Africa’s previous attempts to attract foreign capital, such as the GEAR and ASGISA. Even then there was talk of chasing investors that never came, but this economic policy stance was forcefully pursued at the expense of focusing on transformation and socio-economic development.
Simply put, certain sectors of society have a latent desire to empower the white minority, particularly through supporting the DA. This desire is driven predominantly by economic considerations and stems from various factors, including historical power dynamics and perceptions of economic competence. The white minority historically held significant economic and political power during apartheid, and some believe that the DA, with its historical roots and significant support base among white South Africans, represents a continuation of this influence. However, Ledwaba et al. caution that “any coalition with the DA will please the market in general with short-term gains.”
Supporters of this view argue that empowering the DA would lead to policies that prioritise economic growth and investment, potentially benefiting the country as a whole. However, the concern is that such policies could exacerbate existing inequalities, as they may not adequately address the socio-economic challenges faced by marginalised black communities. A focus on empowering the white minority could perpetuate economic disparities and hinder efforts to achieve meaningful change. Therefore, the DA’s perceived stance against opening the economy for broader participation could delay transformational agendas like the EE Act and NHI, especially if they assume crucial roles.
Unlike corporate mergers, however, the success of political coalitions is significantly influenced by factors beyond strategic alignment. For instance, the ongoing ‘talks about talks’ in South Africa appear to overlook crucial details and ignore the voices of historically marginalised groups, potentially undermining the coalition’s legitimacy and effectiveness. Politicians often prioritise self-preservation and delay delivering the freedoms that the black majority has long awaited since the end of apartheid.
Ultimately, the notion of empowering the white minority for economic gains is intricate and contentious, echoing broader debates surrounding the equilibrium between economic advancement and social justice within South Africa’s political sphere. What is deeply concerning is that Big Power appears least concerned with addressing the incompatibility between the ANC and the DA, akin to its sponsorship of apartheid to the detriment of black lives. This implies that the black majority will bear the brunt of the consequences as investor interests take precedence over principles of justice and equity.
To demonstrate loyalty to Africans, one suggestion is that “the ANC must take its 40% mandate and sit in the opposition benches” to thwart the plans of global liberals in South Africa.
Si ya yi banga le economy!
Jaywalking Political Discussions 