SA has dodged a bullet — but with hard lessons for nice-guy opposition parties

Why did newcomer opposition leaders Songezo Zibi and Mmusi Maimane — two attractive, youthful, well-educated party leaders with sound CVs and values — fail to meet the least of their expectations in the 2024 election?

We need to face this question before we forget what last month’s election results showed us, in the afterglow of the new world of cooperative coalition government.

Right now, the constitutionalist opposition is feeling good.

For the first time, it’s about to go into government. The markets are over the moon, which means real investment could be on the way. Western governments are quietly pleased, and many ordinary South Africans heaved a sigh of welcome relief.

The DA’s management of its side of the talks started masterfully. Unlike most of our previous, unseemly coalition talks, they did not demand positions for any of their leaders. They focussed instead on the best interests of the country, on principles and policies that would make it possible for them to do the difficult work of fixing broken institutions in an awkward alliance, and delivering services better.

Their delegation was mature, modest, and respectful of the magnitude of the process they are involved in, and of an electorate that includes some strongly suspicious of them, fueled by fake social media claims that their hidden agenda is Western Cape succession or a return to apartheid.

Read more in Daily Maverick: Things don’t fall apart— the centre starts to hold as GNU takes shape

Nevertheless, it would be dangerous to forget what the electorate told the DA as well as the other parties, old and new, that cloaked themselves in constitutional values and non-racialism.

The DA’s share of the vote was up only a single percent, from 20.77% in 2019, to 21.81% last month. That’s still lower than their 2014 result under Helen Zille, when they got 22.23%. Mmusi Maimane was fired as DA leader in 2019 for getting just one per cent less.

https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/18161310/

The Inkatha Freedom Party managed to rise less than half a per cent, from 3.38% to 3.85%, likely on the back of some former supporters who backed Jacob Zuma’s ANC in the 2010s returning to the fold after he retired. Freedom Front+ fell from 2.38% to 1.36%, probably signifying that the DA got back what it lost when Maimane was DA leader. In fact, the DA’s increase of 1.04% almost exactly matches the FF+’s loss of 1.02%.

In short, at a time when the governing party was unprecedentedly vulnerable, the electorate was unimpressed by the “good guys”.

The two small opposition parties that became a factor in Parliament for the first time are the Patriotic Alliance (PA) in the Western Cape and the Gauteng-based ActionSA (ASA). But the leaders of both now have a lot of words to eat.

During the campaign, ASA’s Herman Mashaba said, “We’re bigger than the DA. I don’t see the DA as competition for us.” He has six seats to the DA’s 87. “The Western Cape is about to change,” preened Patriotic Alliance leader Gayton McKenzie six weeks ago. “We are taking back the Western Cape.” The PA has nine MPs to the DA’s 87.

These two, who did a little better than their peers, have something in common — they have a base in local government, Mashaba from his time as Johannesburg’s mayor, and McKenzie as Central Karoo mayor. There is a lesson in that, but ultimately they are also-ran parties in Parliament.

In other words, the DA, IFP, PA, PAC and Good are in the new government because the ANC lost 17% of its support, almost all to the MK party of Jacob Zuma, which went from zero to 14.58% in six months.

We better take a clear-eyed look at why, because our futures depend on it.

Read more in Daily Maverick: The GNU had better work for the ANC and DA, or else

Zuma’s MK party has denied it is anti-Constitution because it proposes removing the Constitutional Court’s power to overturn legislation through constitutional means, by a constitutional amendment. It may be a fair point, but it’s a radical downgrading of our constitutional checks and balances. And it goes with a demand to overturn Roman-Dutch law and replace it with African law, a vague demand that hardly inspires confidence.

The EFF wants far-reaching constitutional amendments, especially on land rights. What both these populist parties have in common is their enthusiasm for shortcuts. The MK party and the EFF together have 24.1% of the vote.

The Constitution allows for the confiscation of land provided it meets appropriate criteria, and both jurists and land activists have blamed government for failing to test this with viable cases. The populists want land grabs without safeguards.

Constitutionalist opposition parties did badly

The constitutionalist opposition’s failure to make gains despite deep pockets and hard work requires deep soul-searching. Why did their honest and honourable quest achieve so little? It wasn’t because they lacked the time or money.

Rise Mzansi’s R32-million campaign chest gleaned two seats, which works out at R16-million each. Bosa’s two seats cost half the price — about R16-million for the pair.

Zibi and Maimane talked about their vision prolifically. What did they not get right?

What’s missing is real vision, but what does that mean? It’s harder for constitutionalists to grab attention than it is for populists, who can tug at emotions without pondering achievability. They have to do the harder work.

It’s time to face the fact that our politicians have not done the really hard work of figuring out the big picture — what South Africa really needs to change, and focus on becoming absolutely expert at that.

What do successful leaders in other democracies have that we aren’t offering? Too often we look at Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, and try to imitate their style. I covered both at different times. They were much more than outstanding and charismatic speakers.

They addressed the issues of their time in fresh ways, showing they were thinking through concrete solutions, to the economy, to climate problems, to foreign policy and yes, to race.

How does that translate in South Africa’s current conditions?

Voters may not know the answers, but they can detect when their leaders don’t either.

Here are three big-picture areas where we need a far more up-to-date and better-informed view than politicians have offered.

SA’s long-term, premature deindustrialisation

First, you have to have an informed view of the drivers of rapid growth in the South African economy. You have to have an answer to this question: Why have the targets of the National Development Plan not been met, even remotely?

More importantly, why would they not have even been remotely met even if there had not been State Capture or the electricity crisis?

South Africa is in long-term premature deindustrialisation. The same is true for mining, where total output by volume has been shrinking throughout the democratic era. This explains a great deal of the reason for our uniquely awful unemployment figures, despite our rich endowment of human and other resources.

Until we face the causes of long-term deindustrialisation and declining mining output, and figure out the drivers of the rapid growth essential to mop up our horrendous unemployment, we are flailing about. Our politicians talk in vague, general terms about “entrepreneurship”, “small business”, the “private sector.” Government has endless rhetoric about everything from the ocean economy to government works programmes.

But there are answers. There is copious research.

South Africa has created more jobs in the information economy in the last few years than the whole of the decades-old car sector. Researchers flagged this option two decades ago, but were ignored. It’s finally started happening, despite the government, more than because of it. Our political leaders need to understand what went wrong.

A second major driver should be mining. Here one politician, the DA’s James Lorimer, has been going around quietly figuring out where the opportunities are — major new discoveries in natural gas, oil, as well as for the green and tech economies, rare earths, manganese, copper, etc. He’s looked for the opportunities as well as the blockages.

These and one or two other areas have to be understood and put in context by a party leader to get both voters and business inspired to support them.

A real conversation about race

The second question that needs urgent attention for the aspiring leader is a more up-to-date version of a vision for all races. Simply repeating the Mandela vision isn’t good enough. So much has changed in our lived experience since 1994.

A black middle class has access to political power. White youths are leaving because they feel the dice are loaded against them in going for their choice of jobs. Many coloureds feel they were too black under apartheid, but now too white under democracy. And a breakdown in policing makes all races fearful.

All races need a more resonant message that they all matter, that there is a place for all, and a harmonious way to get there. What will politicians do to make all races see a place for themselves that connects what politicians say with what they experience in the job market? What will politicians do to protect them in public?

Real electoral reform

There is a third key issue that voters can see, but it’s for politicians to find solutions. The electoral system is failing in one of its most important tasks of all — providing constituents with an accessible lever to make government accountable to them.

Tens of thousands of service delivery protests make that clear. Where are the MPs, MPLs and town councillors? Every service delivery protest represents the failure of local elected officials.

Some form of accountability must be added to the current principle of proportionality in elected MPs. Anyone who goes to Parliament can see the problem: many MPs are too comfortable, they don’t depend for re-election on keeping their constituents happy.

Instead of tackling this big problem staring at us, electoral reform became an exercise in electing independents. It failed, was bound to. It did not address the real problem of accountability. It came about as a result of the pressure of local movements, leading to a court order. But it was never going to resolve the real problem — that voters have nobody to go to with their problems. Only some form of constituency system, however, mixed with proportionality, can do that.

Read more in Daily Maverick: Accountability is the key success factor in leadership and good governance as elections loom

Few of the big systemic issues were tackled by the opposition. Focus was understandably on ending corruption and improving government competence, but that should be a bare minimum, not a great vote-getter. The proof is there to see. It wasn’t.

So, amidst the warm optimism of opposition politicians going into Cabinet, it would be dangerous to believe their own PR — that they succeeded in dislodging the ANC from its majority after 30 years of one-party dominance.

The 2029 election will be much harder for the ANC without President Cyril Ramaphosa whose presence at the head of the ticket was responsible for much of the party’s success in 2019, and even in 2024, if less so.

This week, we felt better.

For the first time in a long while, South Africans who understand how jobs are created and how governments can help their citizens have reason for optimism.

After an election campaign characterised by alarmism and bloviating ambition, South African leaders recognised the gravity of the moment and the potential for violence and unravelling, and let themselves be guided by their better angels.

President Cyril Ramaphosa was magnanimous in defeat, John Steenhuisen was statesmanlike in his call for maturity, and the IFP’s Velenkosini Hlabisa navigated the potentially bitter waters of KwaZulu-Natal with an eye firmly on the main prize, a violence-free reckoning with the election results. Even the South African Police Service was deployed early and in force, anticipating where the greatest risks came from.

Read more in Daily Maverick: Perception is everything — how SA’s new unity government will impact investor sentiment

Meanwhile, the bigger gainer in the election, the sphinx of Nkandla, plots his next move. He’s leading the new “progressive caucus” against the ANC-DA sell-out government. And the “progressive caucus” has turned to race — it openly calls for the “black” parties to get together to fight this “white minority government” that includes the party he was a member of all his life and which made him president.

Read more in Daily Maverick: Zuma slams GNU as ‘white-led unholy alliance’ as MK party decides to join Progressive Caucus

This is not the programme of a committed constitutionalist, even if he hopes to achieve his ends by amending the Constitution. And his Trump-like accusations that nine million ballots are unaccounted for and the election was rigged, without presenting the evidence in public, inspires misgivings.

Clearly, underneath it, he wants to be let off from further corruption or contempt charges without the indignity of having to defend himself in court again.

The campaign strategies of the DA and ANC had something in common: to protect their base and try to knock off potential allies eating into their support. Both parties described it as a “squeeze” on the parties yapping at their heels. In this, the DA was far more successful than the ANC.

For constitutionalists in all parties, a new seriousness is required. A lot will ride on how the ANC and DA govern. That just underlines that it’s time to get beyond “the DA just needs to find a black leader”, or “all the opposition parties need to amalgamate”.

Which black leader? Amalgamate around what vision?

We dodged a bullet this time. 2029 requires better answers. DM

John Matisonn is a policy analyst and author of Cyril's Choices, an agenda for reform.