It is known the world over that politicians, in democracies and other forms of government, are going to be hypocritical from time to time. Expediency, putting personal interest above principle, comes with the job. But at no time is this more evident than during times of great political change, and the one such event is unfolding right in front of our very eyes. By STEPHEN GROOTES.
We have seen wonderful illustrations of hypocrisy in our politics since the political wind-shift of Nasrec in December 2017. In the political world of South Africa since Cyril Ramaphosa’s ascent to power, many who supported one point of view will suddenly stand up and support another, sometimes opposite position, often without any explanation or enlightenment about which facts have changed to warrant such drastic alteration of course. Usually, the only fact that has changed is that the wind has a new direction, and so it is in their best interests to undergo an extraordinary transformation.
It was the former Ambassador to Bapetikosweti, Her Excellency Evita Bezuidenhout, who probably put it best when she said that “hypocrisy is today still the Vaseline of political intercourse”. The big point here is that without it, foreplay will be all you get, there will be no happy ending for
Often, particularly in democracies, getting something achieved requires the representatives of different groups with different interests to go into a small room somewhere and agree to something – this is how deals were struck for many generations. In the case of political change, there are usually people who fall into the middle of two categories; they represent a group that doesn’t particularly mind which side wins. Or, more obviously, they are prepared to simply back the person who will win, as opposed to the person who will lose. There is no principle involved here, just plain old personal interest.
There are plenty of good examples of this. Malusi Gigaba, the current Minister of Home Affairs, appears to have been doing for years exactly what he was told by people who appear to have a plethora of passports, but whose nationality is still difficult to discern precisely. Then he ended up as Minister of
Fikile Mbalula is another good example. His hypocrisy has been on public display for many years, through all of the political events of the last decade. His support of former President Jacob Zuma, Julius Malema, Zuma again, Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma and then, after his victory, Ramaphosa, must have left him more than dazed and disoriented. But in the end, he has also been punished for this. He gave every impression of enjoying his position as Minister of Police. To go back to the humble corridors of Luthuli House with no government VIP brigade to spoil him must be a humiliating experience.
At the same time though, there is also the hypocrisy of entire political entities, and what happens when the winds change. Just last year the ANC caucus of MPs all argued against the expropriation of land. Some of them gave well-argued speeches about why land expropriation without compensation would damage the country, and should not be instituted. Then, simply because of a late-night policy change at Nasrec, the same people got up and argued entirely the other way.
This is surely a different form of hypocrisy. Yes, people are arguing for what they argued against last year. But it is not just for personal political advancement. Individual MPs are simply following orders. This may be callow in some ways, but it’s also less ignoble than Gigaba’s actions. However, they are not without blame. It shows that what is said in Parliament by MPs is not their own view, that they have not constructed arguments either
There is a much more complicated conversation to have
But the difference here is that there was still the long-term aim of removing Zuma from power. For them, as has been widely discussed, the only way to remove Zuma and keep the ANC together was to be hypocritical in this way. This means that if their interests are only the longer-term interests of the ANC, their decisions were correct.
But if you assume that their primary interest is supposed to be the well-being of the country, then they may become vulnerable to criticism. Of course, they could also argue that removing Zuma before Nasrec would have led to political chaos (an ANC caucus that was split may have been able to vote with opposition parties to remove Zuma, but would never have been able to unite to elect a new president, with early elections being a possible result), which would not have been in the interests of the country. Certainly, that might have led to some people finding it easier to sleep at night.
It should not be forgotten that it is not just those who are in power who engage in hypocrisy. All politicians have to do it from time to time.
The most famous example of an opposition politician doing so here is
The same is of course also true for the DA. The party campaigned hard in the 2016 local
The party has also claimed to be for the Constitution and the rule of law. And yet it had no problems cosying up to AbaThembu King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo when it was obvious he had broken the law and committed a violent criminal act. This is the kind of hypocrisy that a party indulges in when it is desperate to change a particular image that it has.
The funny thing about all of this is that voters, here and around the world, are very aware of this hypocrisy. They know about it, and more important, understand it. They make up their own minds. Only voters can judge whether to accept Malema’s claim that he still speaks for the poor while wearing Louis Vuitton, whether the ANC’s view on land expropriation has really changed, or whether the DA really lives up to its claims of fighting for the Constitution.
Whichever way this country goes, hypocrisy will be its constant companion. It is just the way it is. DM
Photo: Then Minister of finance Malusi Gigaba and SARS’ Tom Moyane at the Budget press conference, 21 February 2018 (Leila Dee Dougan for Daily Maverick)
The 2016 Rio Olympic medals are already showing defects including rusting and chipping.