There is nothing radical, economic or transformational about the so-called RET faction. Why then do we continue using this term to describe them?

Politically and socially, phrases and terms tell us a lot about the state of our society. Often, the power of a meaningful set of words is not fully comprehended until we look deeper into its history, and into what it signifies.

It is then that we realise our collective power to reclaim words from people who attempt to misuse them. This came to mind many times as I listened to, and read, political commentary on the 55th ANC Elective Conference in December 2022.

Since before the preceding conference in 2017, the two main factions within the governing party have had nicknames – the Thuma Minions for supporters of President Cyril Ramaphosa (named so after his mantra from his inaugural State of the Nation Address, plucked from the song “Send Me” by the late Hugh Masekela) and the RET Forces for supporters, broadly, of former president Jacob Zuma (the RET stands for radical economic transformation).

It is the latter nickname that deserves scrutiny – from its history to its re-emergence into political discourse to its current status as shorthand for corruption.

That which we call RET by any other name would be as radical

There has always been crude opposition to the negotiated settlement of the early 1990s to end formalised apartheid. Some of that opposition has come from white supremacists, mourning their diminished social status.

The criticism that is most interesting, however, comes from black nationalists. For them, the people in charge of the apartheid system were let off scot-free. In their view, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a whitewashing of the democratic project, whereby forgiveness was prioritised over justice for black South Africans.

As far as they are concerned, apartheid did not end in 1994. The machinery of apartheid (which was, of course, a subset of white supremacy) simply operated behind the scenes, rather than being overtly present.

Part of this narrative is the notion of continuing to fight for freedom, namely economic freedom. The leftist political party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), is named as such because its main critique of the ANC is that it did not usher in a period of economic prosperity for the majority of South Africans – black South Africans.

Central to the aims of the EFF is to ensure “radical economic transformation” – that is, a complete overhaul of the current economic system in South Africa, with the express purpose of empowering black South Africans.

The EFF has existed for a decade now, and the methods by which they seek to achieve “radical economic transformation” have been vague and unclear. Their most recent political manifesto (for the 2019 presidential elections) offered rather generous funding to every sector of society, and promised astronomical levels of economic growth every year.

This would be all well and good if the manifesto also came with at least a semi-coherent economic recovery plan. Sadly, this was not the case.

The EFF popularised the overarching messages of political movements such as the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) and the Azanian People’s Organisation (Azapo) by being excellent at injecting into Parliament a much-needed sense of urgency regarding black poverty. For this reason, the EFF is an extremely popular party.

But for all the rhetoric we hear from EFF leader Julius Malema, we get very little substance to back it all up. This is why the term “radical economic transformation” was used almost exclusively by Marxists and black nationalists. It was more of a descriptive term than anything else.

This was, of course, until Bell Pottinger entered the picture.

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

Oh, RET, RET, why must you be RET?

Much like “radical economic transformation”, the term “white monopoly capital” has Marxist roots, adapted to a South African context. 

“Monopoly capital” describes how the ruling class owns the means of production and exploits the working class. The prefix “white” was placed as a reminder that the richest in South Africa were almost always white South Africans, owing to the various freedoms they enjoyed during apartheid and colonialism.

Khadija Patel brilliantly explains how the term was used, albeit indirectly, by former president Nelson Mandela, and before that in the Freedom Charter. But the term gained political prominence as a way to deflect from a president’s alleged corrupt ways.

This story is now etched into every South African’s brain. Former president Jacob Zuma, and his “friends”, the Gupta brothers, were (allegedly but probably) engaged in enriching themselves using state resources meant to help the least advantaged.

Call it corruption. Call it State Capture. The results are the same: the poor lost out on essential services that the state had an obligation to provide, while Zuma and the Guptas laughed their way to the bank.

But this wasn’t happening quietly. Almost every political analyst in the country has published a book about the rise of the Gupta family, and how they were coincidentally best buds with the president and his son, Duduzane.

They knew they needed to control the narrative, lest the controversy negatively affect the ANC’s political performance, and, by proxy, Zuma’s access to state resources. Enter a public relations firm named Bell Pottinger.

There were emails going back and forth between Duduzane Zuma and then employee of Bell Pottinger Victoria Geoghegan about creating an illicit public relations campaign to discredit Zuma’s political foes, and to portray Jacob Zuma and the Guptas as heroes.

As a part of this campaign, Twitter bots attacked several journalists and political analysts – in fact, anyone remotely critical of Jacob Zuma. The bots were disturbingly sexist. The bots spread misinformation. Twitter was not a safe space to speak truth to power.

There were two similarities in all of these tweets – the hashtag #WhiteMonopolyCapital and the hashtag #RadicalEconomicTransformation.

These two phrases became interwoven with each other as the bots continued to cause political mayhem on Twitter. The narrative was that the mainstream media, civil society organisations, other political parties and even some members of the ANC were stooges.

In this story, the goal of this assortment of individuals was to extend the economic dominance of white South Africans – hence the term “white monopoly capital”.

Shutting up these so-called agents of white monopoly capital was essential, so it goes, in order for Zuma to bring about “radical economic transformation”. This was quite sinister in that it shielded Zuma from scrutiny, while also adopting leftwing sloganeering to compete with the EFF.

Then #GuptaLeaks happened. The emails were discovered by South Africans. The bots were revealed to be bots. Victoria Geoghegan was fired. The Guptas fled the country.

Zuma is no longer the president, but he continues to portray himself as the good guy in every encounter he has ever been in. 

Never mind the irony of Zuma funnelling funds meant to empower black South Africans to high-powered PR execs (most of them white) in the United Kingdom, the country that had formerly colonised South Africa.

But this does not mean all is well.

RET faction, remove your name

This brings us to the present day. The term “radical economic transformation” is now associated with the ANC faction associated with Jacob Zuma. Some of them have been accused of corruption; some have not. 

There is no discernible ideological or economic agenda bringing this group of people together, besides an overwhelming hatred of Cyril Ramaphosa and equally overwhelming affection for Jacob Zuma.

In other words, there is nothing radical, economic or transformational about the so-called RET force. Why then do we continue to use this term to describe them?

The terms “white monopoly capital” and “radical economic transformation” do not belong to Julius Malema, Jacob Zuma or Carl Niehaus (or even Bell Pottinger).

These terms belong to us, the people of South Africa. And as long as these terms still possess some positive political purpose, then they should be used as such, without the implication of defending corrupt politicians.

Regressive political forces cannot be allowed to co-opt a phrase and beat the public over the head with their perverted understanding of it, so much so that we cannot hear the concept without associating it with said regressive political forces.

It is the responsibility of academics, journalists, commentators and other public figures involved in the production of political discourse not to conflate real conversations about the structure of our economy with the likes of ethically compromised individuals such as Ace Magashule and Malusi Gigaba.

It is a fact that economic power is disproportionately allocated along racial lines in South Africa. It is also a fact that we need change that ensures all South Africans are able to live dignified lives.

A leftist academic attempting to describe economic relations in South Africa should be able to use the term “radical economic transformation” without facing accusations of being a Zuma acolyte.

A political commentator trained in the Black Consciousness school of thought should be able to speak of “white monopoly capital” in the tradition of the PAC and Azapo without being typecast as an agent of misinformation.

Both factions within the ANC have nothing substantive to offer South Africa. For that reason, it simply isn’t worth wasting perfectly precise political terminology on any one of the factions.

They might as well be the Gala Dinner faction (named after the ANC’s fundraising method of choice these days) and the Coalition of the Forever-Wounded faction (because there’s always a grievance to dredge up within that faction).

Language matters far more than we often give it credit for, particularly when we enter the terrain of political discourse. Language allows us to identify things, discuss them and come to enriching and rewarding conclusions that shape our perspectives.

That is why revoking “white monopoly capital” and “radical economic transformation” from contemporary ANC discourse is so important – we’ll need those terms for a far more complex discussion.

As for the entire ANC, we can donate a special phrase to them – they can be called “an opposition party”. DM