The EFF’s much-threatened “national shutdown” did not materialise in the way its leaders would have hoped, no matter how outlandish its claims were at the end of that day just before Human Rights Day — which in itself is an ironic juxtaposition. While there was indeed limited protest activity in some areas, there is no evidence that South Africa was brought to a halt, or that millions of people came out to support the EFF’s aims.  

This failure may have much to do with the police presence and the political views of many voters in general. It may also reveal that some of the EFF’s recent strategic decisions, such as working with the ANC, impose limitations on what it can do. It also reveals that, while Julius Malema is possibly at his most skilful populist self when confronting opponents of different colour, he is considerably weaker at confronting a black-run government.

While the impact of the EFF’s “shutdown” may have been of varied intensity in different places, it is possible that its apparent failure is a turning point for the party. In future, it will certainly battle to convince people that it has so much power that it can bring the country to a grinding halt at will. For a party whose appeal is in great part based on an impression of its brute force, the piercing of that balloon can be brutal.

It may simply be that the EFF’s stated ambition was just too large and too complex without properly functioning national machinery. As has been previously stated, only union movements have been able to cause a shutdown in South Africa in the past — it was always unlikely that the EFF would be able to emulate it.

For some, perhaps the most telling image of the day was of Malema walking, during the protest, hand in hand with the proven liar and fraudster Carl Niehaus. Nothing Niehaus has attached himself to in recent times has succeeded.

(Video: Supplied)

There are probably several reasons why the EFF day of “action” ended in this humiliating way.

It must be noted that the police were far more proactive than in recent times. There was a full briefing by all the ministers of the security cluster in the days ahead of the event, and even President Cyril Ramaphosa addressed the issue before the event happened.

Police back up their words

While the government and the police have said in the past that the law must be obeyed, it seems this time they actually meant it. This is possibly why some reports say up to 500 people were arrested on the day.

One of the main reasons this was possible was that the EFF told everyone who cared to listen what it was going to do. It was clear to all that tyres being dumped in vast numbers were intended to become burning pyres for an extra sense of dread — and so they were removed.

For the police, and the government as a whole, this was a chance to demonstrate that, after so many failures, they can actually be effective in protecting law-abiding citizens.

Questions will certainly be asked about why the police were able to act here and not during the KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng riots nearly two years ago.

While the surprise element of that violence was an important factor, cynics might also point to the fact this was a deliberately planned political action, and that the ANC government itself was the target of this action, necessitating the tough police response. Nothing helps even incompetent people spring into action like a direct, and personal, threat.

It is also important to remember that, generally speaking, most people avoid violence. It is easy to forget this in an environment in which rhetoric involves so many violent words and personal attacks.

But here, when given the chance to participate in a violent “revolutionary” act, most South Africans decided not to.

Professor Anthony Butler might have summed it up best when he wrote last week: “There are some revolutionary Marxists in SA, but there are many more deeply conservative Christians.”

The message is paramount

However, there may also be deeper-seated reasons to do with the EFF itself.

The first is the message.

Often, in politics, if you are going to make a big promise, it is important to follow through. If Malema had simply said he was going to hold a protest and then held one, that would have been covered in a particular way. But the fact he promised a “national shutdown”, and used violent rhetoric in the process, set him up for a likely failure.

It was just too big a promise.

Then there are the EFF’s recent strategic choices.

It is currently working with the ANC in Joburg and voting with the ANC in Tshwane.

While working together like this carries risks for both parties, it may already have come at a price for the EFF. While it claims to be trying to literally overthrow the government of the ANC, it is also working with the very same party. It is a direct result of the EFF’s votes in Joburg that some ANC councillors now hold positions on the mayoral committee there.

For some who support the EFF’s aims, this can easily be interpreted as selling out. For others, it may just be evidence that the EFF cannot be trusted, as it flip-flops way too often and according to its political needs of the day — see the Carl Niehaus example.

Working with the ANC also places limits on how radical the EFF can claim to be. A protest to shut down the country is, by default, beyond those limits.

But there may be a deeper and more important explanation for the EFF’s problems here.

The race factor

There can be no doubt as to the legitimacy of some of the party’s aims. It says it wants to undo centuries of racialised inequality and to stop racism. At times, this leads to direct conflict, including incidents involving brand names as big as Vodacom.

For some black workers, the EFF’s Labour Desk will be the only option to try to get redress from an employer abusing them. Again, race could well be a factor here.

And it is at these moments when Malema may well be speaking for many, many people in this country, when he directs anger and frustration, and demands accountability.

But his legitimacy, and thus his power, takes a knock when taking on the government. Race is simply not a factor here — attacking a government that he is also working with can easily be seen as pushing his narrow, and personal, political interest.

Malema’s power when he is seen to be fighting racism, and when he is seen to be fighting the ANC are two different constructs. And that difference is hugely significant.

The fact that Malema and Floyd Shivambu have been exposed for benefiting from the looted VBS bank also adds a dollop of cynicism to the fire around his image.

Within this may be yet another factor: while the conditions on the ground may appear to some to be fertile for a violent revolution, the people of South Africa believe in their vote as the way of achieving political accountability. After almost 30 years, the culture of voting (or not) has taken firm hold. People are aware they can speak in public, express themselves, protest, organise and vote. And thus, they do not necessarily take part in any event which bills itself as trying to overthrow the state in a revolution.

All of this suggests that the real lesson from Monday’s events is that Malema’s EFF, and populism as a whole, have important limits in South Africa.

For the moment, at least. DM