No political leader in South Africa has threatened violence as a political weapon as much as the leader of the EFF, Julius Malema, has. In fact, there appears to be an inverse correlation between the militancy and radicalism he regularly espouses and projects, and the frequent and sometimes even macabre threats in his public speeches.
It was therefore not surprising when Malema was convicted recently for the unlawful possession and discharging of a firearm in public. In this instance, he was charged with firing shots from an assault rifle at an event to celebrate the EFF’s fifth anniversary in Mdantsane in the Eastern Cape in 2018.
Expectedly, Malema immediately appealed against the sentence. He will return to court in January 2026 for pre-sentencing procedures. But this threat of violence has gone on for many years and represents a serious political problem, which none of our supposed political analysts and commentators has properly confronted.
The threats of violence from Malema have gone on for far too long, especially in a vibrant and vigorous constitutional democracy that enables political parties and leaders to assertively espouse and defend any views and ideas without the threats of violence and/or resorting to it.
We often saw in the past how EFF leaders and members of Parliament, including Malema, disrupted proceedings and created chaos in the National Assembly when they were dissatisfied. But there has been a distinct shift in their conduct in Parliament over the past one to two years, which has been a positive development.
Violent threats
However, the many violent threats Malema has made in public must come to an end, the sooner the better. In fact, he should have faced the strongest public reaction when, a few years ago, he threatened to “slit the throat of whiteness” and argued that such threats might still be propagated and enforced later on.
But it is Malema’s repeated misunderstanding of and confusion about what Frantz Fanon, the political philosopher and supporter of the Algerian war of independence, had to say about violence that appears to be the source of this problem.
Fanon, contrary to what Malema and the EFF advocate, was never wedded to violence under all circumstances. He understood that in the anticolonial struggles, the fierce oppression and exploitation the black masses were subjected to daily would serve to justify them resorting to violent resistance.
But our conditions changed when, in 1994, we had our first nonracial and democratic elections, which ushered in a vibrant constitutional democracy. This changed the face of “white” rule and “whiteness” and inaugurated black majority rule, however much white domination of the economy has been retained, as we can see when we look at the JSE today.
But our constitutional democracy, especially if Parliament was more vigorous in its control over the executive, is able to change virtually anything the majority there wishes to change. This reality has therefore changed the face of “whiteness” as we understood and experienced it under apartheid. And with the ANC in serious parliamentary and political decline, this truth is becoming more evident.
This truth remains intact, even if thus far black majority rule politically has not dislodged white capitalist domination of the economy.
However, just as “whiteness” as experienced under apartheid no longer exists, black majority rule has not changed the material conditions of black poverty, unemployment and social inequalities.
Instead, under its aegis, the lot of the black working-class majority has worsened, ironically in inverse proportion to the deliberate creation of a tiny black political and economic elite since the late 1990s. This deplorable situation I have attributed in numerous columns and articles since the late 1990s to the adoption by the then ruling ANC of distinctly neoliberal policies virtually from the outset of its rule in 1994, until it lost political power in the 2024 elections.
More genuinely redistributive policies
But Parliament can change this situation by voting to adopt more genuinely redistributive policies, especially with regard to local government and the basis on which municipalities carry out its core functions, in order to truly build the better life for all which the ANC had falsely promised the voters but never delivered.
What this means is that instead of “slitting the throat of whiteness” and singing the violently provocative song of “kill the boer, kill the farmer”, Malema and the EFF should have consistently fought for and won in Parliament the firm implementation of section 25 of our Constitution, which deals with the restoration and restitution of stolen land.
This the ANC had failed to implement for all the years it was in power. In fact, the Expropriation Act of 2025 was not really necessary because section 25 made provision for the expropriation of land for public purposes under specific circumstances.
Similarly, the Bill of Rights in the 1996 Constitution has never been realised. To the contrary, black poverty, unemployment and raging social inequalities are worse today than they were under apartheid.
What this means is that Malema and the EFF must focus in Parliament on making the constitutional provisions in the Bill of Rights a living reality and stop making any kind of violent threats.
But instead of doing so, Malema seeks to justify the rhetoric of violence, which is also counterproductive, as we can see with his conviction on 1 October and the media speculation that it could legally threaten his status as an MP. This would be a huge loss to the EFF in Parliament if it were to happen.
Malema needs to urgently wake up to the huge dangers of continuing to spew violent sentiments, whether literally or figuratively. He needs to cease his gung-ho and cavalier attitude. I am certain that such a change will make him a more effective, significant and influential political leader. DM
Ebrahim Harvey is a political writer, analyst, commentator and author.
This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
