Political commentators are often at a loss when describing Jacob Zuma and the uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party, because so much of what the former president and his party represents is a bold departure from how we understand democratic politics in South Africa.
I thought this as I was following the recent discourse on the social media platform X, where political analyst and author Tessa Dooms posted, “MK is the future of progressive politics in South Africa”, leading to heated discussions over the MK party’s place in the political landscape.
It starts, as it often does, with Jacob Zuma. His tenure as president of the country was an extremely controversial one, and his actions post-presidency have only added to the controversy. And it has got to the point where it is impossible to discuss Zuma with any kind of consensus.
Most mainstream political analysts (rightly) see Zuma as a threat to our democracy; as someone who has acted selfishly while in public office and who engaged in acts that were not in the country’s best interests; someone who sold out the revolution for personal enrichment.
But in some circles, Zuma is the only president who has ever cared about black lives in South Africa, and who was stopped by an untold number of forces such as people within the ANC, civil society organisations, Johann Rupert, other world leaders, the judiciary... and the list goes on.
They see Zuma as someone who has been unfairly maligned for not being formally educated, for being Zulu, for being a polygamist, for “acting against the West”… and the list goes on.
This particular narrative is completely uncritical of the man, though. It may be true that certain groups did not see Zuma as a “proper” head of state for various reasons, some of which may be unfair. But it simply isn’t true that Zuma has consistently acted with integrity, honour and truth. That is a lie.
Zuma has labelled any individual or institution that attempts to hold him accountable as being “captured” by people who have personal vendettas against him, be it the entire judiciary or Advocate Thuli Madonsela in her capacity as the then public protector.
And people have listened.
Messianic tone
In fact, there is almost a messianic tone to the way Zuma and his supporters portray any sentiment that even implies any wrongdoing on his part. This very sentiment led to violence and unrest in certain parts of the country in July 2021 after he was arrested for failing to comply with a Constitutional Court ruling compelling him to give evidence at the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture.
Because of this, Zuma knew that a sizeable segment of the population were completely on his side. He used this influence to re-enter the political scene, with the emergence of the MK party. It’s a party that obtained 15% of the vote in the national elections this past May, and is, in essence, the official opposition since the DA is in government. This means that we have to take Zuma and the MK party seriously. How we do so is the big question.
The MK party, if you examine its policy documents as well as Zuma has said during party events, is a conservative African nationalist party that perceives the Constitution as an albatross that undermines the plight of black South Africans.
At the same time, though, it is seen by some as progressive because of its apparent focus on improving the lives of black South Africans and how it seeks to radically change the system to achieve this. In this context, the implied authoritarianism and wholesale rejection of the rights-based Constitution is only a minor detail.
And as Tessa Dooms would point out, this could lead to incredibly interesting conversations about what constitutes “progressive politics”, and what does not.
It is an open question whether the MK party has broken the political spectrum completely, or whether South Africa’s dynamics are uniquely configured in a way that allows a party such as MK to claim the term “progressive”, despite having policies that run counter to the very idea as we know it.
The problem arises when political analysts simply describe the MK party, or its leader, for that matter. Any description, as factual as it might be, is dismissed as being a tirade of the “clever blacks” or as the mainstream media fooling us. Because of that, it’s easy to give up on the matter and conclude that MK party members and supporters are part of an echo chamber.
We can simply accept that they are unconstitutional and dangerous for our democracy while masquerading as progressives, and vow to describe them as such at every available opportunity.
However, such simplistic thinking would be at our peril. Treating the MK party as we do every other political party is not the wisest decision, because the party is uniquely threatening.
The damage that the MK party can do in eroding the constitutionally protected rights of women, children, the LGBTQIA+ community and others should they gain a majority vote, is nothing to dismiss.
The situation is even more dire when one remembers how violence can erupt in this country over the MK party’s leader. If enough people believe that certain groups are standing in the way of Zuma enacting change that would allegedly improve their lives, the result would probably not be of the democratic kind.
That leaves us at an impasse: we cannot treat the MK party as another fixture of political life, because it isn’t.
Based on what we know about politics in democratic South Africa, we’ve never seen a former president decide to get back into politics, and form a new party while he was at it. We’ve never seen a party that gained 15% of the vote, while barely campaigning, and emerging seemingly from nowhere.
Anti-democratic behaviour
At the same time, constantly describing the party in apocalyptic terms risks adding a “cry wolf” effect to our language — if everything the MK party does is a catastrophic assault on democracy, then the same words will fail to truly move the electorate if the party genuinely does escalate its anti-democratic behaviour. This is not even mentioning how this would serve the party’s interests — it would love to paint legitimate criticism as mere hysteria.
So what do we do?
We must confront the MK party with a critical but measured approach. That approach must demand accountability without falling into alarmism, and engage its supporters without alienating them further. We might not currently have the necessary framework to pull off such a feat, but it is one that we urgently need.
The stakes are too high for complacency, and the cost of failure could be catastrophic for South Africa’s already-fragile democratic project. So it matters less whether we can correctly place the MK party on the political spectrum than whether we can discuss the party with the nuance that it warrants, given the political power it yields and the impact it may have on the democratic project.
This means we have a challenge on our hands — can we, as people who comment, write and discuss political and social issues, acknowledge the legitimate frustrations about economic inequality and social justice, while challenging narratives that threaten constitutional democracy?
Only time will tell. DM