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.
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