THE
EFF AND SOUTH AFRICA’S POLITICS OF BRINKMANSHIP
Dumisani
Tembe
2016 (still relevant in 2020)
THREE interrelated contextual factors define South African
political relationships: the politics of brinkmanship; the absence of
statesmanship; and the settling of personal scores through democracy and state
institutions.
The politics of brinkmanship has always been part of the body
politic. This is the pursuit of one’s political goals by taking extreme
positions. It is a stance where a political adversary occupies an extreme
position with little space for compromise.
Consequently, the targeted adversaries also take an extreme
position. This is just a show of force. It has little to do with rationality
and a quest to move forward to a greater good. The result is a stalemate.
This has been the hallmark of South African politics since time
immemorial. The armed Struggle was initiated because the racist white regime
used force, extreme force, to annihilate calls for a democratic regime.
Liberation forces then also went to the extreme, pursuing a programme to make
the apartheid state ungovernable.
Later, the IFP pulled out of negotiations, amid violent outbreaks
that bordered on a mini civil war. The threats to secede to establish some
obscure KwaZulu kingdom was an essential element of the brinkmanship.
Similarly, the National Party of FW de Klerk negotiated with
brinkmanship. While sitting at the negotiating table, it unleashed the infamous
Third Force that caused death and mayhem in many places, such as Boipatong.
The ANC also pulled out of the negotiations and then returned,
with the persistent threat of unleashing the force of its armed wing, Umkhonto
we Sizwe (MK). Operation Vula was an example.
In this era, the politics of brinkmanship was among political
parties, pitting one political party against another.
However, in the post-1994 establishment, the politics of
brinkmanship has largely been within a party. The ANC has provided much of the
theatre.
Many people have been physically injured at ANC Youth League
elective conferences.
In 2015, the ANC’s eThekwini regional elective conference was
postponed twice due to violence.
The ANC turned what was meant to be an elective conference of its
youth league into a consultative “something”. This was done to avert the chaos
that would have arisen as part of the brinkmanship over leadership.
The community of Malamulele, Limpopo, which is part of the
Thulamela Local Municipality, has embarked on brinkmanship in pressing its
demand that a separate municipality be established for the town. The shutdown
in Malamulele by protesters is an essential element of the politics of brinkmanship!
In many other areas, the destruction of property, blockading of
roads, and burning of tyres are elements of brinkmanship. This is frequently
accompanied by the line: “This is the only language that the government
understands and responds to.”
The EFF is also engaging in the politics of brinkmanship, against
the ANC. The politics of brinkmanship has moved to Parliament. It is playing
itself out in a democratic institution.
It is no longer a private political matter within organisations.
Political brinkmanship is playing itself out in the National
Assembly in the glare of the domestic and international media. It is now live
on television and, as such, has entered society’s public space. It has
penetrated the nation’s consciousness in terms of the value of Parliament and
democracy. Given society’s identification with Parliament as a democratic
institution, the politics of brinkmanship has heightened consciousness about
the future of democracy.
The EFF’s “Pay back the money” charge on President Jacob Zuma is
brinkmanship politics. The EFF is pushing Zuma to the edge. On a democratic
principle, Zuma is being pushed to the edge to account. However, it is also an
extreme drive to embarrass him.
When the “Pay back the Money” chant first started in Parliament,
Malema told Zuma that the EFF would not leave Parliament until Zuma had
indicated when he would pay back the money. Speaking to the ANC national
executive committee afterwards, Zuma reportedly said that he would not go back
to Parliament until the chaotic environment was sorted out.
These are extremist positions. Zuma and Malema took uncompromising
positions. Neither is willing to budge. Both are wired to their trenches.
This is where part of the problem is. The head of state cannot
adopt a similar attitude and tactics as those of a young man who is the head of
one opposition party.
Zuma has much more to lose than Malema. There is a problem when
they are at loggerheads and the president does not show he holds the moral high
ground in managing the logjam.
This is symptomatic of the lack of statesmanship in politics.
President Zuma has not made a conscious decision to rise above
being just a head of state to act as a statesman.
Being a head of state is a mere functional position. Anyone can be
a head of state.
But statesmanship is earned through demonstrable leadership. It
comes with the attributes of standing out in sticky situations, and being able
to guide the entire collective, including those one does not like, towards a
desirable better position for all.
It is a leadership position that the ANC has demonstrated
throughout its liberation course. It was able to exercise brinkmanship through
its MK operations, economic sanctions, and the cultural isolation of the
apartheid regime. And yet it did not degenerate to the level of the white
racist regime.
It occupied the moral high ground by always expressing the desire
to negotiate a peaceful solution. When negotiations began, it kept to this
moral high ground.
Nelson Mandela led this process even in the face of the extreme
provocation of sporadic massacres and the murder of SACP leader Chris Hani.
It is this statesmanship that is lacking in the present political
leadership. The political contestation is looking increasingly like gang
warfare because no one wants to be the better person.
No one wants to assume the moral high ground. No one wants to be a
statesman. No one wants to be a leader. No one wants to think outside the party-political
box. This party-political box says, “Let’s deal with them”, and this becomes
the rallying cry.
This was the mark of the chaos that happened during the State of
the Nation address.
The EFF was being “dealt” with. It was a brinkmanship move by the
ruling party – either the EFF moved out, or the ANC would deal with it.
These are the politics of the edge. However, the politics of the
edge is not necessarily bad.
As the ANC indicated throughout the throughout the Struggle and
the negotiations, it needs management in parallel with a demonstration of the
moral high ground. It needs astute leadership.
When the ruling party responds to the opposition through
brinkmanship politics without being statesmanlike, this becomes a naked abuse
of power.
The ruling party cannot use the force at its disposal without
attempting to win the hearts and minds of society.
That’s precisely what happened during the State of the Nation
address. The chairwoman did not act outside the position of being the
chairwoman of the ruling party. The president decided to remain the president
of the ruling party. This meant that the events that unfolded bore the hallmark
of a party-political decision executed through state machinery.
The EFF was physically thrown out. That was the ruling party’s
short-term gain. But it may not have won many hearts and minds.
It left a troubling question about the state of democracy; the
viability of democratic institutions; and the capability of the leadership to
rise above narrow interparty political squabbles and guide the country to a
greater future.
In the final analysis, South Africa will always have the politics
of brinkmanship. In a society where the private sector fails to create jobs,
political participation will remain the main vehicle for self-employment.
The contest for political relevance will inadvertently encourage
political brinkmanship within and across parties. These politics of the edge
cannot be wished away, but such politics needs to be managed properly so it is
not destructive to society.
This requires leadership by statesmen. These are people who, while
positioned in particular political parties, are nevertheless able to
distinguish what is in the best interests of the party, and what is in the
greater interests of society.
These are leaders who will appreciate that while they are
duty-bound to strengthen their movement, they have the bigger task of building
society to greater heights.
Leadership distinguishes between what is in the narrow interest,
and that which is in the interests of the greater good.
Statesmanship then chooses to act in the interests of the greater
good.
This is South Africa’s challenge.
Twitter: @KunjaloD
AllRightsResereved