Could it be that the promise of Polokwane may finally be materialising, or are we being sold a mirage, yet again? Gathered almost 10 years ago at the ANC’s 52nd conference, delegates chose Jacob Zuma over Thabo Mbeki.
They considered Mbeki a moderate who had preserved the status quo, and looked to Zuma as a radical alternative, who would reconfigure the South African economy, providing “decent jobs” for the country’s downtrodden. Communists and workers alike hailed Zuma as “the man of the people”. He was one of their own, they claimed.
What unfolded soon after the Polokwane conference, however, was quite the opposite. Instead of the people benefiting, the supposed champions of the people, as Zwelinzima Vavi put it, turned into parasites. They gorged off the resources of the state, prioritising family and friends over the deprived masses. It seemed a cruel reward for the destitute masses, as they had sworn to die for the champions-cum-parasites, because they had believed they truly cared.
And, so the “predatory elite” continued in their gluttonous ways for the next six years and, in the process, threatened to reduce a once vibrant democracy into a fully-fledged neo-patrimonial state.
Just as we await the courts to decide who should dig into the past further exposing the predators of Polokwane, we hear echoes of that historic conference.
In opening parliament last Thursday, the president of the republic and the victor of Polokwane promised us “economic freedom in our lifetime”. It was Zuma acting in a manner unlike any we’ve seen before in the parliamentary pulpit. He expressed impatience with income inequalities and uneven distribution of wealth. Henceforth, the president assured us, the state would use its purchasing power to boost black business, and the powers of the Competition Commission would be boosted to break down monopolies over markets. The idea being to attract new entrants into the economy and enable them to thrive.
President Zuma wants black folk to value assets over cash. This has been a problem in the land restitution programme. Most claimants took cash in lieu of returned land. After a while, Zuma lamented, that money got finished and people were back in poverty. Land, on the other hand, is a sustainable resource that can possibly generate wealth. That’s why, according to the President, the government will enhance its programme to support new black farmers.
This will involve promoting co-ownership of farms by white farmers and their black labourers.
I agree with everything said by the fourth president of the democratic republic. Every patriot should support economic emancipation.
The republic is not safe in the presence of high unemployment and poverty.
Given the track record of our president, however, one has to ask: Is he for real? After all, that’s what he said at Polokwane, but went on for the next 10 years to care only for himself, his family and his friends.
He could still be deceiving us now. This president is simply not trustworthy.
What is different this time, however, is that the impulse for meaningful change is necessary for the party’s prospects as well.
The ANC needs a game-changer to stand a chance of reversing its electoral trajectory. People are no longer dazzled by lights and tarred roads. They too, want jobs and upward mobility. Everyone aspires for something better. And so changing the economy gives Oliver Tambo’s party a new narrative, one that appeals to a much broader section of our society.
Organisational benefits aside, Zuma does also has self-interest embedded in this new plan. It has to do with both his legacy and future. Like most people, Zuma would be gratified to be remembered for having done something good for the country. Presently, one really battles to pinpoint anything positive the president has achieved, and he’s running out of time. This might just be it – the great economic liberator.
That brings me to his other self-interest. This one is related to Zuma’s immediate future, especially because of his legal problems. Remember, Zuma is likely to face more than 780 charges of fraud and racketeering, and further, an investigation into the State of Capture report could unearth wrongdoing for which he could also be charged.
Zuma needs not only a legal defence, but public support.
Pursuing economic freedom enables Zuma to dust off the old, stillborn image of a “man of the people”.
Just as he’s dragged to court, he’ll portray himself as a victim of “white monopoly capital”, which he’s trying to break down.
This will be the old populist Zuma, in the same manner as the rape trial.
Then, he claimed to be a victim of the establishment – the counter-revolutionary, unelected judiciary. This year he’s likely to point at the Oppenheimers and their ilk as the source of his travails.
The finger-pointing has already started, and will increase as the judges haul to court the issues involving Zuma. Monopoly capital will be lambasted as the enemy that doesn’t want to grant the masses economic emancipation, hence Zuma’s prosecution.
The likely result will be popular anger towards established capital and sympathy for Zuma. This could be enough to force a consideration of indemnity from prosecution – for fear of what might follow should the “man of the people” go to prison.
If he fails to secure indemnity directly, Zuma will do so through his preferred successor, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. Advancing economic freedom now strengthens his hand to influence the succession. He’ll tout Dlamini-Zuma as the most reliable successor to continue what he has started.
Conversely, his proxies will berate Dlamini-Zuma’s opponent, Cyril Ramaphosa, as a stumbling block to economic emancipation.
Let me reiterate my point: I don’t doubt the necessity for economic emancipation.
South Africa’s social reality and history demand it. It also makes sense for the party to revive its electoral fortunes.
But Zuma will exploit it for his own self-interest. His proxies will couch the argument in a way that disadvantages Ramaphosa as a product of “white monopoly capital” and therefore a likely defender of the status quo.
That line of attack, however, won’t necessarily cripple Ramaphosa.
Economic emancipation also seeks to produce wealthy black people like Ramaphosa. This enables Ramaphosa to tout his business acumen to assist in the success of the black industrialists’ programme.
His role at Marikana might be difficult to cover up, but his contribution in reviving the trade unions in the early 1980s will earn him an audience with the workers.
But, it will be up to the communists and Cosatu to vouch for Ramaphosa’s credentials among workers. The National Health and Allied Workers Union (Nehawu) has already started. Just last week, they even reiterated their call for Zuma to step down.
This shows how difficult it will be for Zuma to parade as a champion of the working people while they’re rejecting him.
Zuma is becoming increasingly desperate. This was reconfirmed by the ugly scenes at parliament last week.
Zuma may not have mooted the idea to double the number of soldiers in parliament, but he benefited from their deployment. They kept away demonstrators and harassed opposition MPs.
This was an assault on democracy and made a lie of the claim that ours is a parliament of the people.
Is there anything Zuma wouldn’t do to avoid accountability?
Mcebisi Ndletyana is associate professor of politics at the University of Johannesburg
How far will JZ go to avoid accountability?
They considered Mbeki a moderate who had preserved the status quo, and looked to Zuma as a radical alternative, who would reconfigure the South African economy, providing “decent jobs” for the country’s downtrodden. Communists and workers alike hailed Zuma as “the man of the people”. He was one of their own, they claimed.
What unfolded soon after the Polokwane conference, however, was quite the opposite. Instead of the people benefiting, the supposed champions of the people, as Zwelinzima Vavi put it, turned into parasites. They gorged off the resources of the state, prioritising family and friends over the deprived masses. It seemed a cruel reward for the destitute masses, as they had sworn to die for the champions-cum-parasites, because they had believed they truly cared.
And, so the “predatory elite” continued in their gluttonous ways for the next six years and, in the process, threatened to reduce a once vibrant democracy into a fully-fledged neo-patrimonial state.
Just as we await the courts to decide who should dig into the past further exposing the predators of Polokwane, we hear echoes of that historic conference.
In opening parliament last Thursday, the president of the republic and the victor of Polokwane promised us “economic freedom in our lifetime”. It was Zuma acting in a manner unlike any we’ve seen before in the parliamentary pulpit. He expressed impatience with income inequalities and uneven distribution of wealth. Henceforth, the president assured us, the state would use its purchasing power to boost black business, and the powers of the Competition Commission would be boosted to break down monopolies over markets. The idea being to attract new entrants into the economy and enable them to thrive.
President Zuma wants black folk to value assets over cash. This has been a problem in the land restitution programme. Most claimants took cash in lieu of returned land. After a while, Zuma lamented, that money got finished and people were back in poverty. Land, on the other hand, is a sustainable resource that can possibly generate wealth. That’s why, according to the President, the government will enhance its programme to support new black farmers.
This will involve promoting co-ownership of farms by white farmers and their black labourers.
I agree with everything said by the fourth president of the democratic republic. Every patriot should support economic emancipation.
The republic is not safe in the presence of high unemployment and poverty.
Given the track record of our president, however, one has to ask: Is he for real? After all, that’s what he said at Polokwane, but went on for the next 10 years to care only for himself, his family and his friends.
He could still be deceiving us now. This president is simply not trustworthy.
What is different this time, however, is that the impulse for meaningful change is necessary for the party’s prospects as well.
The ANC needs a game-changer to stand a chance of reversing its electoral trajectory. People are no longer dazzled by lights and tarred roads. They too, want jobs and upward mobility. Everyone aspires for something better. And so changing the economy gives Oliver Tambo’s party a new narrative, one that appeals to a much broader section of our society.
Organisational benefits aside, Zuma does also has self-interest embedded in this new plan. It has to do with both his legacy and future. Like most people, Zuma would be gratified to be remembered for having done something good for the country. Presently, one really battles to pinpoint anything positive the president has achieved, and he’s running out of time. This might just be it – the great economic liberator.
That brings me to his other self-interest. This one is related to Zuma’s immediate future, especially because of his legal problems. Remember, Zuma is likely to face more than 780 charges of fraud and racketeering, and further, an investigation into the State of Capture report could unearth wrongdoing for which he could also be charged.
Zuma needs not only a legal defence, but public support.
Pursuing economic freedom enables Zuma to dust off the old, stillborn image of a “man of the people”.
Just as he’s dragged to court, he’ll portray himself as a victim of “white monopoly capital”, which he’s trying to break down.
This will be the old populist Zuma, in the same manner as the rape trial.
Then, he claimed to be a victim of the establishment – the counter-revolutionary, unelected judiciary. This year he’s likely to point at the Oppenheimers and their ilk as the source of his travails.
The finger-pointing has already started, and will increase as the judges haul to court the issues involving Zuma. Monopoly capital will be lambasted as the enemy that doesn’t want to grant the masses economic emancipation, hence Zuma’s prosecution.
The likely result will be popular anger towards established capital and sympathy for Zuma. This could be enough to force a consideration of indemnity from prosecution – for fear of what might follow should the “man of the people” go to prison.
If he fails to secure indemnity directly, Zuma will do so through his preferred successor, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. Advancing economic freedom now strengthens his hand to influence the succession. He’ll tout Dlamini-Zuma as the most reliable successor to continue what he has started.
Conversely, his proxies will berate Dlamini-Zuma’s opponent, Cyril Ramaphosa, as a stumbling block to economic emancipation.
Let me reiterate my point: I don’t doubt the necessity for economic emancipation.
South Africa’s social reality and history demand it. It also makes sense for the party to revive its electoral fortunes.
But Zuma will exploit it for his own self-interest. His proxies will couch the argument in a way that disadvantages Ramaphosa as a product of “white monopoly capital” and therefore a likely defender of the status quo.
That line of attack, however, won’t necessarily cripple Ramaphosa.
Economic emancipation also seeks to produce wealthy black people like Ramaphosa. This enables Ramaphosa to tout his business acumen to assist in the success of the black industrialists’ programme.
His role at Marikana might be difficult to cover up, but his contribution in reviving the trade unions in the early 1980s will earn him an audience with the workers.
But, it will be up to the communists and Cosatu to vouch for Ramaphosa’s credentials among workers. The National Health and Allied Workers Union (Nehawu) has already started. Just last week, they even reiterated their call for Zuma to step down.
This shows how difficult it will be for Zuma to parade as a champion of the working people while they’re rejecting him.
Zuma is becoming increasingly desperate. This was reconfirmed by the ugly scenes at parliament last week.
Zuma may not have mooted the idea to double the number of soldiers in parliament, but he benefited from their deployment. They kept away demonstrators and harassed opposition MPs.
This was an assault on democracy and made a lie of the claim that ours is a parliament of the people.
Is there anything Zuma wouldn’t do to avoid accountability?
Mcebisi Ndletyana is associate professor of politics at the University of Johannesburg
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos