Julius Malema can push or pull the ANC back to its founding principles

Julius Malema’s political career has been through so many turning points, ups and downs, peaks and valleys that he might need medication for motion-sickness. Yet (more seriously), through it all, Malema’s oration, interventions, disruptions, his uncompromising political stances and militancy have not changed. The man is, at least, consistent.

From the moment when he rushed the podium and “pushed aside” elders at an ANC gathering in Durban in 1991, Malema has been “a problem” for the ANC. It was decided, then, that Malema would benefit from political education and training in diplomacy and protocol. A respected leader of the ANC was given the task, but she failed to see it through…

This “problem” did not go away after Malema was expelled from the ANC in 2012. He simply took his voice and vituperation to the streets, formed the Economic Freedom Fighters, and got something akin to a type of “new manager bounce”. The EFF got 11.36% of the vote in the general election of 2019, and dropped to 9.52% of the vote in 2024.

A small but dedicated group of intellectuals who voted for Malema in 2019 recognised that he did not quite live up to the expectations that many South Africans continue to hold dear. See, especially, here, here and here. And, since the 2024 general election, the EFF has bled leadership figures with the departure of some of Malema’s closest comrades, loyalists and saamlopers.

And then there was Malema’s association with corruption scandals, notably the bankrupting of Limpopo (also see here), which turned more of the early voters away from the EFF. Malema stated that he would not be prosecuted because, he claimed, he was innocent. We should not take his word on that; suffice it to say that if one person tells you it’s raining and another says that it is not raining, it’s probably best to go out and see for yourself whether or not it’s raining.

A man whom time has left behind

When Malema stood in the dock to face a pre-sentence hearing last Friday — having been found guilty of discharging a firearm in public — he seemed as defiant as he has been for most of his adult life and, given the loss of electoral support, the departure of comrades, loyalists and allies, he seemed to be a touch forlorn. He seemed pitiful, unless you’re naturally inclined to schadenfreude or you feel smug. To be clear, he has been found guilty; let’s not be blindly loyal to a criminal. This does not seem to matter. There is a convicted criminal in the Cabinet, and, well, the Leader of the Freeworld ™ is a convicted felon.

When Malema stood in the dock last week, I could not help thinking that he was a man whom time had left behind. One response to this would be for Malema to catch up with time, but that may require humility, compromise and reimagining a (new) place for himself in the world. It’s not all good.

For instance, when Malcolm X left the Nation of Islam and made a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1964, he changed his perspective, moved away from strict black separatism toward a broader, more inclusive philosophy of human rights and racial equality. That took courage. Another response would be to work with new information. Drawing on the ideas of Alfred Marshall, John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind”. My view of this “change” is that it does nothing to change the underlying, structural and historical conditions that have brought South Africa to its present.

Malema did not help matters when he said, last October, that: “As a revolutionary, going to prison or death is a badge of honour.” This performativity presented as martyrdom suggests that if/when he goes to prison, his followers and true believers are on their own, and must continue battling against underlying, structural and historical conditions. Malema’s strength and appeal (to his followers) is Malema himself. If he is incarcerated, the EFF would probably shrivel up.

The times have changed, and, in an important sense, it has not been for the better. Let’s go back to the underlying structural conditions that a Keynesian (and Marshallian) response to “change” glosses over. The evil that established the underlying, structural and historical conditions (which persist) has concealed itself and presented itself as necessarily benevolent — even necessary.

The power of reinvention

There is much evidence from history that demonstrates this power of reinvention. In France, the nobility retained their privileges and prestige after the French Revolution and “returned,” as it were, to influence the future of that country. Closer to our time, after the Second World War, Italian fascists of the inter-war period “rebranded” — or repositioned — themselves as Christian Democrats — slipping in and out of Italian politics and government for the next several decades.

In the early 1990s, after the Soviet Union collapsed, “connected” members of the old regime, notably Roman Abramovich and Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, repositioned themselves as being “pro-democracy” — and massively reaped the benefits of this repositioning, becoming billionaires.

In South Africa, key figures from the pre-democracy era have now presented themselves as the solution to the myriad problems that beset the country, and they have co-opted the elite that previously gained from being part of the liberation movement.

Part of this repositioning is a war against remembering. What has been ignored, or considered to be irrelevant and unimportant (reconciliation, for the sake of appeasement, for the sake of “moving on” and “the market”) is the structural legacy of colonialism and apartheid and the epigenetic trauma that has been handed down. The liberal war against remembrance means black people have to “forget” (Nelson Mandela already forgave), and are not allowed to grieve, and calls for accountability have been turned into “reverse racism”.

Malema’s choices

What can Malema bring to politics today? Well, whatever the outcome of the sentencing — if anything decisive actually comes from the next sentencing hearing — Malema will have to do something, anything, to revitalise his political life and leadership.

First, he could accept a prison sentence, which would be framed as persecution and martyrdom. Second, he could turn left and stay on (a leftist) course. This is highly probable, given his stated commitment to “the seven cardinal pillars of the EFF”. Third, he could nudge his politics rightward, towards compromise and conciliation, and make friends with the ANC.

If he had any sense as a visionary, of a vision tied to his belief of a date with destiny/appointment with the future, Malema’s best bet is the third option. In doing so, he may be able to remind the ANC of its founding principles and restore the emancipatory impulse that drove the liberation movement(s). He would be up against a lot. The ANC looks more and more like a spent force, and the money train has been running on time.

For his sins, Malema has not been co-opted by the idea of “national unity,” a fig-leaf for appeasement, nor has he entered into the whiteness protection programme — that bolthole for people seeking new sources of income and pecuniary gain.

This whiteness protection programme provides a window seat which pays for therapy — the retail type. It is that window seat, multiplied over and again, which changed only the colours of the colouring book, while the story remains the same. That is the story the ANC has ignored, and to which Malema will bring the old liberation movement back. He may be the conscience of the ANC. It will not be nice, but the past two decades since Thuli Madonsela’s landmark report in 2016 have not been nice either.

Here are massive caveats towards a conclusion. All this talk about Malema turning to the ANC (his political character and general disposition are much more suited to the famigghia at the head of the MK party) is romantic idealism, it is unfeasible and, well, could lead to a trap.

There is little to suggest that Malema is not driven by the allure (and the titillation) of brutal revenge. We forget that some people get joy from vengefulness. Malema remains “intent on an audacious, immitigable, and supernatural revenge” (I borrowed that expression from Moby-Dick), which provides a special thrill.

About that trap. I will take a lesson from negotiation theory; I’m supposed to know something about that. When a corporation enters into discussions about investment in a country, the political leaders make offers of protection, national treatment and profit repatriation — if investments come from abroad. Once the corporation has invested in the country, politicians can make changes and raise all kinds of barriers that inhibit productivity, manufacturing, marketing and distribution — and export.

So, the ANC and black politics, such as it is, can let Malema in through the front door, but there is no guarantee that he will not storm the podium and disrupt proceedings. DM

Ismail Lagardien is a writer, columnist and political economist with extensive exposure and experience in global political economic affairs. He was educated at the London School of Economics and holds a PhD in International Political Economy.