Shoot the messenger, but get the message: Risks facing the multi-party government and its dynamics with the opposition

The emergence of MK into the South African political landscape often gets chalked down to the product of Zulu nationalism and/or the secession of more radical elements from the ANC. However, I think a political force of this size deserves greater analysis than mainstream political thought seems to give it. Similarly, the EFF has also been categorised as a black nationalist splinter group of the ANC and the ANCYL. Both parties have garnered a reputation for being/coming off as anti-constitutional, disruptive and radical.

However, the size of these parties represents a sentiment within South Africa that is important to political discourse; and this sentiment is overlooked or diminished because of the reputation of these two parties that claim to represent it.

It is no secret that 30 years into democracy South Africa still battles with a lot of the same problems it did at the advent of democracy: poverty, crime, and biggest of all inequality. What the ANC represented in 1994 was the idea of transformation from that reality into a better future for all. Though 30 years on, the same problems of poverty, unemployment, crime, etc, still largely affect the same groups, and the ANC has failed to adequately address these issues. 

With that being said, the sentiment that transformation (or in other words social justice) is necessary has not been lost. And not social justice in the pejorative sense that it is sometimes used, but social justice in the sense of addressing the entrenched inequalities in our society, and the ills that have come with them. For most South African people this is a sentiment that still holds, and will continue to as long as the stark reality of South African society persists.

This sentiment manifests itself in our political landscape in various ways. For many, though decreasing as time goes on, the ANC still represents a medium to achieve this justice. Though, I would also say that the EFF and MK Party convey this sentiment in different ways. As time has progressed and conditions have not significantly improved for the majority of South Africans, and in certain cases have gotten worse, there has been a growing disillusionment with the ANC government in being able to achieve true social justice. And the effect of this disillusionment has had great effects on the state of South African politics this past election.

The EFF and MK’s ensuing popularity shows that there is a view that to fix South Africa’s biggest issues, solutions are to be found outside the ANC or even outside the current socio-economic structure of South Africa. Both parties express this in different ways, employing a mix of ideologies and policies that involve ideas from the left and right. With the EFF particularly favouring a more left-leaning approach than the MK party. But fundamentally their messaging is trying to appeal to the same sentiment, the need for true social justice and economic prosperity for all in a democratic South Africa, particularly for the black majority who are the worst off. And for many, this means looking at land reform, labour market inequality, public benefits, etc. So when looking at the emergence of MK and while diminished, the presence of the EFF, their support needs to be contextualised as also appealing to the aforementioned sentiment. And it is this sentiment, an important one at that, which often gets lost because of the disruptive politics of each respective party.

I would also go as far as to say that parties like the Patriot Alliance also appeal to this sentiment in their own way. And for those who are disillusioned and see no answer in any party, they form part of the large contingent of South Africans who do not vote. Therefore, even outside of the EFF and MK, this sentiment pervades South African society.

Now while the EFF and MK may appeal to a sentiment which is genuine and important, that does not mean that they cannot be disingenuous. Any political entity that claims to represent anything or anyone necessitates a high level of scrutiny. And doing so will indicate that serious questions need to be asked about the governance capabilities of both MK and the EFF, as well as some of their high-profile members. There are genuine questions about corruption and competence that affect both parties, especially notable figures like Jacob Zuma, Julius Malema, and Floyd Shivambu. This gives some level of plausibility to the reputation surrounding both parties but does not take away the fact that they represent a joint 24% of the national electorate. And with this, the sentiment that they represent is to be taken seriously, as are they.

Now, labels like the ‘doomsday coalition’ reflect an antagonistic attitude that the likes of the DA hold towards parties like the MK and the EFF. With some within the ANC also affirming this attitude towards these two parties. Mainly because of the aforementioned corruption allegations against some of their members, the ideological differences between the parties, and/or the history between the parties. While these attitudes must be taken in the context of antagonism on the part of the MK and the EFF not wanting to collaborate with the DA; the reality is also that the new multi-party coalition government did not include the EFF and MK. So the EFF and MK now are the biggest opposition forces to this new formation. I believe that this antagonism and exclusion of the EFF and MK poses some potential risks that are not being widely discussed.

As the adage goes, ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’, and this can and is starting to become true between the EFF and MK. Isolating these two parties, even though their leaders have stood on opposite sides before, will create a more unified opposition towards this new government. Where the EFF and MK can team up where possible to try and veto the new ruling coalition, as evidenced by their attempt to form a ruling coalition in response to the IFP, ANC, and DA taking control of KZN. As well as their formation of the ‘progressive caucus’. Additionally, in a more long-term view, unifying these two against them means that they are potentially losing out on 24% of parliamentary votes, which could prove devastating. Even though the ANC and DA together have about 60% of seats, the coalition does not bind either party to vote together on all issues and so immediately isolating the EFF and MK could be politically damaging for both parties. Especially when you consider the issue of Phala-Phala and the potential complications it brings for the new government.

Secondly, say what you will about MK and the EFF, they represent a sentiment which is significant to many South Africans, namely the need for social justice and socio-economic prosperity, and the neglect of this cause post-Apartheid. In their antagonism of MK and the EFF and the potential policy platform of this government, they must be careful not to alienate a large part of the South African public to which this sentiment applies. Which a potentially fiscally conservative and neoliberal shift that this new coalition could adopt might do. This I think is the biggest potential risk for this new government. In alienating the South African people through policy and rhetoric that goes against their political wishes, the proposed social, economic, or political stability and prosperity are not assured. And that is at its worst, an existential threat.

So in the coming days, weeks, and months, as a new cabinet is soon to be decided, and an agenda for this new government will need to be enacted, so will the consideration of these risks. But more importantly, regardless of ideology, will this new coalition govern in such a manner to address the fundamental problems affecting South Africa? In so doing creating a better South Africa for all. 

Consequently, the challenge that is left to the EFF and MK is in their opposition, can they best serve the people and sentiments they represent, and hold this new coalition government accountable for creating a better future. 

Only time will tell.