ANALYSIS
The way for the ANC to weaken the EFF? Shut the door and keep Julius Malema out of power
While all of SA’s political parties are focused on the elections at the end of this month, some will soon start looking ahead to the 2029 elections, when there could be a much more fundamental change. If the latest polling is correct, the ANC may have an opportunity to weaken the EFF as a political threat forever.
Note: This piece of analysis relies on polling data made public. The accuracy, or the possible political leanings of those conducting the polls must always be considered when making decisions. Further Reading: Statistics Professor Mark Orkin or analyst Jonny Steinberg.
What a difference a few days can make. Just two weeks ago, many people were predicting that the ANC could fall to below 40% in the general elections and that it would have to choose between a coalition with the DA, or with the EFF. The news was dominated by former president Jacob Zuma’s uMkhonto Wesizwe party.
Now the trend may be turning.
As the ANC has started its campaign in earnest, and former presidents Thabo Mbeki and Kgalema Motlanthe have entered the fray, the polling indicates the ANC’s share of the vote is rising (Gareth van Onselen, no friend of the ANC, says that on current trends, the ANC could go above 50%).
At the same time, the more established opposition parties appear to be losing ground, while the newer parties may be losing their shine (the smaller the party, the harder it can be to poll for).
Soon, the strategists in every party will start to think about the longer term, a crucial task for the political players who are not focused exclusively on these elections.
For them, deciding who to team up with in a coalition must be compatible with a coherent longer-term strategy for 2029 and beyond.
Polling from Ipsos shows that while the ANC is just above 41%, the EFF is now at 11.5%.
If this were the final result, it would mean that while the ANC had lost significant support, the EFF had increased its share by less than one percentage point — revealing an inability to exploit exploding unhappiness with the government over its many failures, which include soaring youth unemployment.
The EFF has been the biggest electoral threat the ANC has ever faced. The governing party hasn’t ever had to worry about the DA winning more votes nationally, while the EFF has shown that it is prepared to campaign over the longer term, and Cope has collapsed. And MK is surely a one-election party (Zuma will be 87 in 2029).
The EFF has also caused damage to the ANC by targeting its leaders, first Jacob Zuma and now President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Read more in Daily Maverick: Elections 2024
Freezing the EFF
At the same time, the major source of the EFF’s influence is its role of kingmaker in councils.
If the ANC were determined to focus solely on the longer term, the best way to remove the EFF as a threat forever would be to simply keep it away from the machinery of power, regardless of the short-term cost.
Should the ruling party refuse to work with the EFF in any legislature, reject a coalition with it in the national government and cease working relationships with it in provinces and councils, Julius Malema would be reduced to the leader of an opposition party that had lost momentum.
Under that pressure, it would be difficult for him to keep the party going for another five years.
There is evidence that Malema understands this. In recent days, he has suggested that despite their obvious differences, he would be prepared to work with the DA.
Another benefit for the ANC of shutting out the EFF is that the DA would come under pressure.
Considering that DA leader John Steenhuisen has said several times over the years that he would be willing to work with the ANC, it should not be that hard for the ANC to convince him to follow through.
And, in the hard-nosed world of coalition negotiations, they would probably say he could tell his constituency he was only doing this to save them from the ANC’s only other option, what the DA calls the “doomsday coalition”.
But, in the longer term, working with the ANC would probably see the DA losing support ahead of 2029. (Something similar has happened before. In 2009, the FF+ deployed its leader, Pieter Mulder, to the position of deputy minister of agriculture, and the result was that his party lost support).
Of course, the ANC’s senior strategists could decide to go in the opposite direction.
They could conclude the DA will never be a long-term threat and that the way to neutralise the EFF is to force Malema to join a coalition with the ANC.
However, the EFF — like the DA — could be accused of “selling out” by working with the ANC. This would surely frustrate many of its voters who responded to its campaign for radical change.
Of course, it is not only the ANC making decisions — the EFF, the DA and other parties also have to think strategically about the longer term.
The DA appears to have been spending more time planning for the longer term than the other parties and could enter any post-election discussion with a clearer strategy.
But for Malema, if the results of this election do show he has lost momentum, he may have to grasp any possible coalition opportunity given to him — he would be forced to think only of the short term.
However, there is still some time before the elections. And the polling on which political parties are currently basing their strategies could be very wrong — which means they need to be flexible, right up until the final results are announced.
With more than three weeks to go, almost anything could happen. DM
If the ANC support remains above 50% after the May election, then that says far more about the South African voters than it does about the ANC.
A system where the majority of the voters do not pay tax, yet they are given the power to decide who runs the country (decide how tax money is spent) cannot work.
If the DA thinks going into coalition with the criminals in the ANC is a good idea, why would I vote for either of these parties?
I think the DA think that it’s a better option for the country than an ANC/EFF coalition. It’s not their ideal, but it is a lesser of evils.
Now pls be honest here Bob:
Do you really in any way see the ANC giving into ANY DA requirements? Would they give the DA the speaker position? Would they fire Cele and Mantashe? Would they decrease VIP protection or any of the minister perks? Would they help stop the taxi madness? How about changing government procurement policies? The list goes on, you get my drift.
Now tell me with a straight face that the ANC would be willing to concede any of those to form a coalition and save the country.
I am sorry but you cannot blame the DA for poverty, you cannot blame them for the wholesale destruction of our economy, yet somehow you expect the DA to suicide (and a coalition with the ANC would mean the end of the DA next election lets face it) in light of an ANC that has no interest in building up this country, and literally only cares about power and looting.
These two parties simply don’t share any values (as so far as the ANC has any values).
Lets not even get started on the MK or EFF.
Its not DA arrogamce here that is the problem, but ANC “we will rule until jesus comes” hubris.
I’m not blaming the DA for any of the things you list, nor have I accused them of arrogance. You’re building a whole lot of strawmen here.
I think the DA’s position has been quite clear. Should the MPC bid fail, and the ANC needs a coalition partner, they would rather it be them then the EFF. They see an ANC/EFF combination as a doomsday scenario. Based, I’d think, on what they see playing out in coalitions in Gauteng.
Of course the terms of the coalition would be negotiated. Both sides understand that when you sit down at the bargaining table you either make concessions or you walk away with no bargain. Which, in DA eyes, would mean the EFF gets their hand on some levers of power.
Obviously the DA would need somethings to go their way. They would need some cabinet positions, they would need some oversight. That’s getting the coalition in place. Policy comes later.
All this is being talked about because there is a plausible chance that the ANC won’t get an outright majority. If they don’t then no matter how much they like it or don’t like it, they will have to seek a coalition government or, minimum, a supply and confidence deal. Either will have some strings attached.
And yet you still haven’t answered my question: Do you really think the ANC would concede to any of the DA more serious requirements for a coalition? I am sorry but based on previous behavior, this is simply wishful thinking.
You say “when you sit down at the bargaining table you either make concessions or you walk away with no bargain. Which, in DA eyes, would mean the EFF gets their hand on some levers of power.”
But that’s exactly the problem. The ANC would rather concede to the requirements of the EFF than the DA, simply because they could carry on looting (even if they have to now share with the EFF)
At what point should the DA stop conceding to criminals? How far should they bend their own policies and morals just to try to have a coalition with a partner that has no interest in sharing power, especially if it involves less corruption?
In other words, it is not the DA that has a problem with forming a decent functioning coalition, but rather the ANC.
I think any Coalition with that contain the letters “ANC ” is a doomsday scenario unless they fall well below 40%.
I have to respond here because this forum only nests so deep.
I’m talking about a possible pragmatic decision by the DA to go into coalition with the ANC, a possibility that Steenhuisen himself has mentioned.
Now clearly there would be a negotiation and both sides would need to take some stuff off the table and also would have their non-negotiables.
So there is that possibility, and clearly the DA is regarding it as a lesser of evils.
We don’t know what the DA are going to insist on if it comes to this, we don’t know where the ANC will budge, but clearly there will be compromise on both sides.
The rest is stuff that you introduced out of nowhere, words that you tried to put it into my mouth, trying to make it look like I’ve said the ANC will do offer these things. I haven’t done that. I’ve said there will be negotiations with concessions, or there will be no deal. I’m not going to discuss what seem to be the bees in your bonnet.
This has nothing to do with bees in my bonnet, or putting words in your mouth, but the simple question whether a coalition between the ANC and DA is:
a.) even possible considering that the ANC is basically an extraction enterprise similar to the mafia
b.) if such a coalition would help this country.
I simply don’t believe the ANC is capable of decent coalition agreement with the DA, and in the end it will actually harm this country.
The ANC would laud all successes as their own, blame the DA for all failures, flip flop on any agreement that doesnt suit them (like they have in the past), lie whenever it serves them (just like they are doing now with the NHI nd fearmongering that the DA will cancel grants or bring back apartheid), and next elections the DA would be much weaker as they would have lost many supporters due to falling for the ANCs lies. The only opposition that has had any success in slowing down the madness called ANC has been the DA.
Asking whether the ANC would stick to coalition agreements by listing examples of possible sticky but necessary points hardly qualifies as putting words in your mouth. Was merely asking if you believe the ANC would actually entertain such compromises. The only sentence I did make an assumption about you pertained to the perceived arrogance of the DA, and for that I apologize, I may have erroneously attributed a past comment from you along those lines.
If the ANC does not have a majority, it will not have a choice. They WILL have to make concessions. It will be interesting to see to what extent. It also is not only about the ANC, but also about which parties would want to destabilize Ramaphosa’s reign; both the EFF & MK may have some ax to grind with him. On the other hand Ramaphosa’s preference for government is clearly far closer to that of the DA than any other political party; the policy shifts he managed to force upon the ANC when crises happen, such as the deregulation of the energy generation is one such example, because that is not in line with typical African National ideology (there are other examples also). And I know enough about the DA to know that it is quite pragmatic. The notion that, if the ANC is far below 50% and needs a fairly big partner, the DA would have a fair chance of getting the position of Speaker is not far-fetched in my view. Also, the Ramaphosa faction has many leaders who are realistic enough to realise that, in such a scenario, the idea of the ANC dominating everything is unrealistic. Regarding the “we will rule until Jesus comes” – well those who believe that most probably now find themselves in MK with Zuma now; I am not concerned about that.
The DA is NOT going to sell its soul by going into a full scale coalition with the ANC.
There is no permanent enemies in politics. None. If they feel it benefits the DA they will go into coalition I promise you. And they’ll find a message they can use to spin it. The lower thr percentage the ANC get the more likely this is. It won’t happen with an ANC vote if of 45.0-49.9 %. But below 45% and anything goes
The DA needs to form a government from the lesser of evils. Who would you prefer out of MK, EFF, or the ANC? By forcing the DA to *not* form a coalition with the ANC, you are forcing the ANC to form a coalition with the EFF and/or MK. How is that better? At the least, allow the DA to elect Cyril president, in exchange for Speaker and control of parliament.
the DA constituency or voters must start asking themselves that important question whether they like it or not, whom do they prefer to have a coalition with especially EFF and ANC because i think the MKP will only will make an impact in KZN, including between this three leaders Malema, Zuma or Ramaphosa who do you prefer to be in power, and my intuition tells me DA voters will prefer Ramaphosa to rather continue then those other two being in power.
Glyn, it is not selling its soul. Based on current polls, it is the current ANC that would sell its soul to go into a coalition with the DA as the DA would have a very strong ‘poker hand’ with which to negotiate. I am sure that the DA would ensure that the ANC really would have to get serious with regard to combating cadre corruption as the price for joining a ANC/DA coalition. The ANC would be out of its mind to enter a coalition with Malema (a.k.a. EFF).
So you really believe the ANC would hand over the speaker role or fire Gwede and Cele if tje DA would reasonably ask as a prerequisite to a coalition??? They can’t even bare to hand over their deployment records without fighting tooth and nail! As far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) the ANC has not had a single coalition with the DA in good faith, always just to somehow out them later or frustrate procedure as much as possible to hold on to power no matter who they get in bed with.
The DA might have a good poker hand, but it’s pointless if the ANC is playing Snap instead of poker. The one is purely reactionary, while the other actually requires strategy and brains.
Karl Sittlinger, if the ANC is significantly under 50%, they will not have a choice. The EFF and MK would both want radical demands met; the only political party that will be moderate AND has not explicitly excluded any possibility of working with the ANC is the DA. Of course if the ANC gets close to 50%, it will be another story because then a lot of smaller political parties will compete for the position of coalition partner and the ANC would be able to give them something lesser.
Also called democracy – majority rule, tax paying or not. Something you need to learn to appreciate.
Hear, hear! Say it louder for the DA people at the back.
A lot of non ANC voters also don’t post tax, if you are referring to PAYE, but then again there is VAT.
Kevin, everyone pays tax.
You’re obviously thinking only of income tax. And you’re suggesting (correct me if I’m wrong) that only those with jobs or some relative level of wealth should be allowed to participate in a democracy? You’re suggesting disenfranchisement at an epic scale based on the have-have-not distinction?
Exactly! Every person in SA contributes to taxation through VAT, regardless of their income or job status. It’s a crucial part of funding public services and infrastructure.
Not sure how I suggested any kind of disenfranchisement? All I said was the system in South Africa isn’t working. If you can convince me otherwise, feel free, but when rate payers have to take a municipality to court to force that municipality to perform its duty to clean a public space and to enforce its own by-laws, then I am not sure how that is seen as a system that works? Just saying. I am not being insensitive or demeaning at all, so much money has been stolen through corrupt means that a significant number of poor people could surely have a better life by now and be part of the tax paying pool, but when we cannot even supply a stable electricity source then how is that a system that is working?
The system we inherited NEVER worked, and we are simply still dealing with its consequences.
The catastrophic failure of the ANC to create conditions conducive to employment growth; to implement stable, rational policy to stimulate economic growth; to fulfil the basic duties of a government that allows businesses and citizens to thrive (efficient public services, effective expenditure of tax revenue, world-class education system, functioning police and justice system, etc.) – all of this is indisputable. The ANC in power is a failure, and it has cost us all.
But the ANC did not create generations of poor black Africans, the Nats did. It is therefore unconscionable to suggest non tax-paying citizens (those who earn so little they don’t reach the tax threshold) are no longer allowed to vote until such a time as when they contribute more economically. It would be like punishing poor people for being poor.
What we need is a rational, considered and workable long-term solution to extricate us from our malaise, which will require significant compromise in the short term, regardless of what route is chosen or which coalition takes power after the upcoming elections.
Imagine the joint force of the ANC’s ability to reach and mobilise South Africans from every corner of the country combined with the DA’s governance and service delivery excellence. It could be good for more than just each party’s constituencies.
Kevin, you wrote “A system where the majority of the voters do not pay tax, yet they are given the power to decide who runs the country (decide how tax money is spent) cannot work.” It’s quite reasonable to conclude that you’re taking about at least a qualified franchise, IE you can vote if you have this much money, property worth this much. And that will mean disenfranchisement for people who don’t meet whatever threshold you think is appropriate.
There is an interesting possibility here though. I recently got involved in a discussion about state pensions and who qualifies. It is clear that there is wholesale cheating of the system going on, people who have no entitlement but will run parallel bank accounts and disclose only one (which has very small amounts going through it) to get something that they’re not entitled to. It’s clear to that there are many businesses who are not declaring their income or not all of it.
So if you’re going to have some system of inspection that deprive those people of the franchise at all levels, I might find myself supporting you.
Ideally there should be a contract between government and citizens, with obligations on both sides. If you’re going to exclude EVERYBODY who doesn’t fulfill their obligation then that might be fair.
Actually that would be much closer to the original Greek and Roman democracies. They held that citizenship (and the right to vote) was something that had to be EARNED. Being a citizen actually had meaning beyond being born somewhere. It can be argued that they had a strong point there. Its always been an interesting question: is it truly fair and equitable for those who contribute the least to a society to hold the same rights and privileges as those who contribute the most? My view has always been split – its odious to see all the monies stolen (taxed) by the government frittered away on wasteful expenses and pointless programs, knowing full well that my views are over ridden by the majority who doesn’t pay for them (and please don’t argue VAT again – its a pretty dumb argument. Those who pay income tax ALSO pay the flipping VAT). Doesn’t seem fair. At the same time, its morally right that they have the same say. Not an easy question, is it?
It’s true that citizenship and the right to vote were privileges to be earned, but the original Greek and Roman democracies endorsed slave ownership and excluded women from voting. Not the best example I’m afraid.
Not sure where you think I extolledthe virtues of such, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.
The idea that paying tax is a prerequisite for having a democratic voice means that the haves will always support policies that benefit them, and inequality will widen. Also, all who live in SA pay tax, because of the 15% VAT levied on most goods and services. In fact the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on VAT than the rich.
Where do you suppose the money for VAT comes from in the case of persons who don’t eaen a living?
Not only VAT, but also the fuel levy reflected in the price they pay to commute from their far-flung townships to the metros. Everyone in SA pays tax – it’s just about the only truly functioning part of our public service system.
Its called a democracy and it happens the world over. This is not a SA problem. You are free to choose any other autocratic and dictatorial state you wish to live in.
Its called a democracy and guess what… Most people who live in democracies around the the same world over are actually dissatisfied with how that democracy fails. So in your opinion, because the majority decide that the ANC should be re-elected as a reward for their stealing through corruption, the people who are contributing the majority in tax, as well as vat should then just shut up and be happy about the fact that the money is vaporising? Yes people who pay income tax are probably seen as being rich by the majority but that is not the reality is it? South Africa is one of the democracies where you pay a ridiculous amount of money in tax and get absolutely nothing for it and you have other people making the decision as to who has the keys to the vault. Twilight zone!
Perhaps those who pay the lion’s share of tax should stop being armchair critics of democracy and start getting more involved? It’s laughable to expect a once-in-five-years ballot casting to be your sole contribution to the democratic process and then complain about how things didn’t turn out your way.
Every single month when taxation is systematically deducted off of those who are fortunate enough to be above the paying threshold means that they are more than actively involved chum, and not just once every 5 years on the ballot box. The very fact that I pay so much tax and get nothing for it means that I have absolutely earned the right to be critical. I am probably supporting at least 4 others through the grants that are paid so don’t tell me that I need to be more involved. I have no interest in being a politician so I am not sure what you mean by being more involved? So when I vote and pay my tax, in your opinion I am not doing enough? Yet we have a plethora of individuals who are running cash only businesses and not declaring the income, paying zero tax and keep on voting for a government who doesnt give a shit about the people but only how they can steal more money.
Apartheid lasted for 46 years which caused the issues up to 1994. Granted, the process of fixing those issues doesnt happen overnight but guess what, we are already at year 30 of ANC rule, the window of blaming apartheid is very quickly closing. All the ANC has done is to widen the gap between the rich and the poor by stealing from the poor and f&^%ing the middle class like me.
Poll taxes went out of fashion hundreds of years ago.
You are 100% correct, Kevin Venter.
Many taxpayers who agree with you have voted with their feet and are sitting in countries where: (i) they are not treated as pariahs; (ii) their taxes aren’t squandered; (iii) they get something in return for their tax contributions; and (iv) there is a future for their children.
Spot on, this is the most accurate comment so far Random.
Or. It may mean that the opposition lacks offering anything better than the ANC, which says a lot about the opposition. A lot.
The refrain “you voters are stupid” is just lazy thinking.
Offer something better, man! Offer something compelling for people to vote for. That’s how this thing works.
Ja, ja, we know SA needs to be “rescued” from the ANC. (Tell us something we don’t know, Johnny). Tell us HOW you are going to do that. I know. You are going to stop BBB-EE, right?
And see, there’s your problem. Coz the way we see it, only a truly stupid voter would vote for such a party.
Actually, no – the ANC/EFF has the ultimate weapon: All they need to do is whisper: its a whites only party….they will bring back apartheid. Which is what they do and its also why the DA cannot grow beyond the percentage it holds without a similar growth in the so called “black” middle class, for reasons which should be obvious. Its really only once people are in a position to realise how badly the government fleeces them that they start to pay attention. As they say, its easy to spend other peoples money when you are not the one contributing.
Are you really saying that a domestic worker who works 12 hours a day and get paid a pittance because they have no economic power not be allowed to vote for a party that will legislate they get paid a living wage.
Or even to vote for a party that allows them to be paid a lower pittance so that more can get jobs.
Or to vote for a party that can promise that all the food (that is enough to feed all South Africans) be distributed according to need.
Or to vote for a party that will empower people to build their own house and grow their own food.
A lot of the poor are not poor because of choice (there are those who because of circumstance do less – bunk class, no interest in school – because of gangs / trauma / family circumstances) and would work to get out of poverty but are simply not given a chance.
I can name at least 20 people who I personally know.
I am not trying to be demeaning to people who have less or are in a predicament that they have no way of getting out of but lets be realistic here. Lets use your example: A domestic worker who no doubt works extremely hard, has voted for the ANC at every election since 1994, has had no improvement in living condition and will then vote for the ANC again on 29 May, all because the ANC is wanting to legislate a living wage. What would actually constitute a living wage? It will likely be too much for the employer to be able to pay and the job loss would then be inevitable.
So by example, that vote keeps the ANC in power, keeps them being able to steal the money and nothing changes in the lives of the poor people whoh keep voting for them. Nothing has changed for then in the past 30 years.
Lets just be clear here though, not every person who is seen to be worse off fits your description. There are thousands of operators of undocumented cash businesses who are not declaring earnings and then not paying tax when they should, and yet they are still able to vote, elect corrupt organisations who then keep doing the same of the same. The system is flawed where the people actually paying the tax have no control of how their money is used or simply disappears as the case may be.
I am not trying to be demeaning to people who have less or are in a predicament that they have no way of getting out of but lets be realistic here. Lets use your example: A domestic worker who no doubt works extremely hard, has voted for the ANC at every election since 1994, has had no improvement in living condition and will then vote for the ANC again on 29 May, all because the ANC is wanting to legislate a living wage. What would actually constitute a living wage? It will likely be too much for the employer to be able to pay and the job loss would then be inevitable.
So by example, that vote keeps the ANC in power, keeps them being able to steal the money and nothing changes in the lives of the poor people whoh keep voting for them. Nothing has changed for then in the past 30 years.
Lets just be clear here though, not every person who is seen to be worse off fits your description. There are thousands of operators of undocumented cash businesses who are not declaring earnings and then not paying tax when they should, and yet they are still able to vote, elect corrupt organisations who then keep doing the same of the same. The system is flawed where the people actually paying the tax have no control of how their money is used or simply disappears as the case may be.
The emoji that best depicts Stephen’s “analysis”: 🤷♂️
Yes he tries to please all role players including the reds
Which ‘reds’ are you talking about – anyone who is vaguely left of the DA? That’s a big open field, and we can just hope that some serious and creative socialist thinking can come into what is currently a pathetic populist discourse, from all parties! Then you might have some real ‘reds’ to worry about, although I don’t think there is much chance of that here in SA, sadly.
If we want South Africa to be successful, “serious socialist thinking” won’t be the approach. That will certainly keep the masses quiet, but dependent. It’s time for serious capitalist thinking to get people up and going if we want this country to succeed.
It seems you do not understand what socialism is. Please will you give us your definition.
We have serious socialist thinking in the dogmatic, convoluted, luddite and industry destroying Sector Masterplans that SACP minister Patel painstakingly creates whilst the creative world gets on with it and prospers. If you want some good analysis on that, google Donald McKay at XA and his piece of the Clothing Masterplan. And then we also have the socialist mantra that forces a minimum wage (R27.58 per hour) onto private enterprise that is twice what government pays for EPWP piecework (R13.97 per hour), and 13 times what the social grant is (R370 per month divided by 22 working days at eight hours a day). So the ANC government would rather have people literally starve to death than work for less than the minimum wage. That’s straight out of the worst excesses of leftist ideology!
You only have to look at Russia to see that socialism does not work.
The less “serious and creative socialist thinking” the less worse off we’ll be.
Your point about the ANC’s motivation for a deal with the DA is interesting. This is what happened to the LibDems in the UK after they entered into a coalition with the Tories in 2010. They lost their momentum and were repeatedly punished by the electorate. Next general election they went from 50 odd seats to 8 whilst Cameron won outright.
They do quite well in local, Municipal elections, as do the Greens….but an odd, odd bunch at National level.
I’d suggest that the difference is South Africa uses proportional representation instead of FPTP. Our English language heritage makes us prone to make comparisons to UK and US politics, but those are not very informative for us.
In our system, an *inability* to work with people you disagree with is going to mean the end of your party.
If the DA – whether its leadership or its members – cannot figure out how to work with others, it will die. The EFF and PA, I believe, are in an even worse position. They have both screwed the two biggest factions in the country, the ANC and the DA.
In politics, survival comes first. I suspect the ANC and DA could reach an agreement simply to protect each other from the EFF and screw the EFF and PA no matter what.
I believe any long term planning (at least as far as the ANC is concerned) is at the back of their minds right now. Their mind space right now centre’s around doing as well as they possibly can – with a particular focus (and concern) so far as Gauteng and KZN is concerned.
There is a lot of ANC desperation in both of these areas and their leadership will partner with anyone in pursuit of narrow personal interests (preserving own income)
So far as the above is concerned – and so far as I believe the ANC is characterized by individuals whose vision extends no further than the next 5 years – what national leadership believes is of secondary concern to them
The ANC is far from being a united / cohesive / disciplined body – which is also why longer term strategic thinking on their part is almost worthless.
I think Stephen we will have to wait until after the elections- because it is the results of these (rather than principles) which will determine the coalition partner choices the ANC makes
I mostly agree with you, but I want to challenge one point you brought up: “The ANC is far from being a united / cohesive / disciplined body – which is also why longer term strategic thinking on their part is almost worthless.”
I agree that it is not cohesive, but I think in some ways it is the most cohesive and cooperative organisation in the country. The reason we can see cracks in the ANC’s coalition is because there is a large and massive coalition to begin with. This is the concept of survivorship bias in statistics. Other parties are so awful at working with people they disagree with that they never even form large enough blocs for us to see the cracks form within them.
For the most people, ANC people fall in line. This has been their blessing and curse for 30 years. Especially with all the breakaways, what is left are people who truly are not going anywhere.
What do you think?
It seems to me that SA parties’ strategy is exclusively to get into, or stay in power. The dismal failure of the ANC is 100% attributable to their inability to strategically consider the long term – hence the failure of every department. They have no consideration of where this country should go and their resolution to imminent collapse, is Band Aid. It would be interesting to know how much we have spent to keep the lights on for so long – pre election. If they think we don’t know they will go off as soon as the election is done, they clearly think we are more stupid than they are.
I am so glad the ANC fixed loadshedding in time for the elections! In fact, I’m so happy, I’m going to use as much electricity as I can afford this month, I’m talking mad levels like leaving the house with the tumble dryer on!! Might even install a smelter/particle accelerator in the garage. And I’m going to tell all my friends!
I mean, there’s clearly no longer any danger of putting the grid under strain, right? Loadshedding is mos fixed, ne? Like, there’s no way my little insolence might precipitate a loadshedding event and clearly reveal the ANC to be full of it, right?
/S
There are people right here in the comments section who think that it has been improved. It doesn’t take much to fool people who actively seek it because of their ideological bent or whatever other mental defect they suffer from.
I am beginning to realise that the ANC is likely get above 50% as the lights are inexplicably remaining on, with Lootfreely House in overdrive and the promises made by the ANC are becoming more & more outrageous. Premier Lie-sufi offering free private medical care at private hospitals from 29th, millions of non- existent job opportunities, free land in fact free everything! This, coupled with the threat by ANC cadres lingering around the rural polling stations on polling day warning that we will find out who you voted for and if it wasn’t ANC your grant is toast!
Of course winning the National Elections is not the same as Provincial….and the ANC are very vulnerable in Gauteng regardless of the EFF and Lesufi may be history.
I honestly hope and pray that Lesufi gets his backside handed to him on the 29th. A more despicable Malema-lite you’ll not find in our provinces. An absolutely clueless comrade who throws money he doesn’t have at fig leaf policies that will crash Gauteng’s already limping economy in no time.
Apartheid has created a mentality of entitlement on the majority of its beneficiaries and that is a fundamental problem. Political parties are founded on the same principles as businesses. They both exist to solve an identified problem for return on investment. Imagine a business that works hard to create a solution and then don’t work as hard to present it to the market. A perfect solution for our problems must still be marketed aggressively. Failure to do so shouldn’t be blamed on the voters. It is every party’s responsibility to study the political terrain they are in and the characteristics of the targeted voter, or be content in remaining minority representative. Those represented by such parties must not blame the other voter but their political parties for not reaching out more widely. Inefficiencies of another party should only be an added advantage. When a party does not have an effective and captivating leader, no matter great its solution may be, it is likely to lose. A leader engages with followers and cause them to attract, not insult, other voters. We went for a one-man-one vote system that exclude the amount of tax a voters pay. All political parties should know the factors that influence our politics. Those factors have a lot to do with our past as much as they have everything to do with the present and the desired future. A skillful political party combines all factors to craft their message. No assumptions, no stereotyping and no insults to the voter.
Great comment, 100% on the mark. In addition, political parties should be out there emphasising their message and explaining to especially rural disenchanted voters that not voting is not a good way to protest.
👍
Unfortunately the logic of ‘meritocracy’ never seems to apply to the people who are its biggest proponents.
The KPI of an opposition party should be to win new votes. If you track the DA’s performance ward by ward in most of the country for the last 30 years, it’s not been encouraging. They got a large infusion of voters in the 2000s as the NNP unwound. But they’ve been mostly stagnant since.
Interesting! If the main opposition parties (in this case the DA and IFF) believes that the ANC is there for the taking, why don’t they form a coalition to oust the ANC and form the next government?
(a) Leadership delinquency has paralysed on all of them, (b) others constrainted by superiority complex of constituencies
This is nicely articulated! On an only slightly related matter, our political landscape could benefit from some systemic evolutions:
1. Move towards Members of Parliament representing areas and being accountable to the voters in that area;
2. Pay MPs less so that the position is not seen as a pay check but rather a responsibility, reducing the power of the party list.
Perhaps because their policies are totally opposed to the others?
By the time I finished wading through all the speculation, it seems only the last paragraph had any valid meaning – we’ll have to wait and see. Sorry Stephen, not your best.
There are two evils to consider. The hopelessly corrupt ANC desperately clinging onto power in order to extract maximum returns from both the gravy train and the looting trough. The second is the EFF which is a miniature of the ANC. Malema and Shivambu are both seasoned looters of municipal tender grants where they have formed coalition rule. Their involvement in the looting of the VBS Bank shows that they have scant regard for the poor whose money was stolen. They are simply bent on retaining their parliamentary gravy train lifestyles and live in hopes of becoming major players in a central coalition government which would give them ample opportunity to join the ANC in looting the state at every opportunity.
Malema (and Shivambu) have a dismal, consistent track record of financial mismanagement and theft:
1) the ANC Youth League first ran into financial turbulence under their watch;
2) Malema got stitched for a R20 million (or R16 million, can’t remember) tax bill;
3) He was, by how own account, earning R20k a month at the ANCYL when he bought farm which led to the tax bill;
4) VBS;
5) Ratanang Trust and his ‘On Point Engineering’ which got paid millions for roads and bridges never built;
6) His relationship with sleazy cigarette smugglers;
Have I left anything out? Other than the obvious in living it large and beyond his means?
Too many imponderables and uncertainties here. The only certainty is that the ANC will do anything (a coalition with the devil if needs be) to stay at the trough.
Maybe, appear, not necessarily, could be…. Grootes in action
precisely why i enjoy his articles. he doesn’t pretend to be able to predict the future. rather, he outlines the influences and factors that speak to potential future outcomes. i can take the ideas he presents and draw my own conclusions.
The author is trying to sanitize the read into getting the ANC to destroy the EFF. If the EFF gain 1% in 2024 then its in an upward traction. But if the DA gains 1% then it’s shows that the DA is losing traction.
Coalition government was being pushed cause the elitists realized that the DA is losing traction & the MPC cannot achieve more than 50% so they now pushing a ANC/DA coalition. If the ANC falls short by just a few % they don’t need to DA & should allow the projected demise of the DA.
The DA’s demise will more likely come in a coalition where they are swallowed up by the larger, intransigent ANC. Should the ANC continue the downward trajectory of the country through another coalition, their vote share will trend in the same direction as it has done over the last few elections.
The Poll that Grootes links to as an attempt to justify his argument shows the EFF at nearly 20% before collapsing to just over 10% after the formation of MK, while the ANC remained unchanged. The EFF is no threat to the ANC.
here is a left field thought; I think that Zuma may have been sent by the ANC to eat the EFF’s lunch. Just think about it, Zuma not kicked out of the ANC yet. After elections he is forgiven and arrives back with his voters…. Maybe? 🧐
With over 26,000,000 people on social grants at a cost of 232 billion, around 11% of the national budget, I am certainly not going to argue with Kevin Venter over who doesn’t pay tax.
The DA going into a coalition with PUTINS PALS? Please no!!
The trouble is that the forecasts have been getting it significantly wrong recently.
People no longer answer their telephones, mobile or otherwise, because there are so many spammy calls from call centres, and few polling organisations go round knocking on doors any more.
Internet surveys are also hit by spam / anonyminity problems.
Facebook selling information to Brexiters has made many people angry, and cautious about what they tell people about how they vote.
So the strategy will be made when the votes are in.
If the last electoral cycle in SA is a guide it will not really matter what the big wigs want.
When it is a choice between losing power with all the financial benefits which go with it, or eating with the devil, the devil wins every time.
Whoever decides to give the ANC a lifeline will sadly pay the price going to the next elections!
If that’s what’s necessary to keep Malema or Zuma away from power then the DA needs to make an agreement with the ANC.
An ANC/EFF or ANC/MK coalition would be an economic catastrophe for the country.
There more Black South Africans are pushed to the margins of poverty there more the ANC and EFF (and now MKP) will resonates with them.
That’s an extremely valid point that most middle class (white) South Africans don’t understand.
Interesting to note the comment about voters “who don’t pay tax”and responses. Of course, the allegation that anyone doesn’t pay tax does not stand up to scrutiny, as everyone pays tax in one form or another. However, the democratic model followed in virtually all democracies suffers a significant deficiency. Universal suffrage means that everyone earns the right to vote simply by reaching a certain age. This results in significant problems. Unscrupulous politicians abuse an ignorant, politically disengaged, electorate on a grand scale. This is, of course, not confined to South Africa. Ideally, everyone (age irrelevant) should be obliged to earn the right to vote by means of a proficiency test requiring a basic understanding of the political system and, perhaps, a very basic level of economics. The disengaged and apathetic would not bother, but at least one would have a marginally more informed electorate and more limited scope for gaslighting on the part of politicians. One can only dream …