Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

South Africa

South Africa

What is the MK party’s game in Parliament?

What is the MK party’s game in Parliament?
Rebecca Davis
By Rebecca Davis
5 Sep 2024
Facebook
7
Jacob Zuma’s MK party has demonstrated one clear focus in Parliament thus far: to rewrite the historical record of South Africa under the presidency of Zuma.

It has not been easy to discern what the uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party’s strategy in Parliament is likely to be, thus far, for one major reason: we still don’t know exactly who their MPs are. 

Eighteen of the party’s 58 MPs were suddenly axed in August, but only eight people were sworn in as replacements last week, meaning that there are still vacancies on its benches.

For a political party to still not have a full, fixed complement of parliamentarians in place more than three months after the elections is surely unprecedented in South African history, and it is understood to be causing significant administrative headaches for Parliament. The institution also cannot function optimally if committees have revolving doors in terms of membership.   

While this is probably an unintentional result of MK’s clear internal dysfunction, chaos as a byproduct of MK activities nonetheless serves the party. Any hindrance to the functioning of South Africa’s democratic institutions is a net win for MK, and the party’s manifesto makes its unhappiness with the current composition of Parliament clear: MK says it would ideally fill half of Parliament with unelected traditional leaders.

Of the MK MPs who are in place, a number do appear to be traditional leaders — and since the party has confirmed that Zuma simply selects individuals to fill positions, they are in effect unelected.

It is now clear that MK is the most undemocratic party in the history of democratic South Africa to win representation in Parliament. Although Julius Malema is often accused (legitimately) of running the EFF as his personal fiefdom, the party does hold electoral conferences where leaders are elected, albeit without much contestation. 

MK has said that it will not hold elective conferences — an astonishing statement from a South African political organisation, and one which did not attract as much attention as it should have. As a result, whoever it deploys to Parliament or appoints to its leadership structures is seemingly whoever is in favour with Zuma at any given time.

Hlophe’s team hits the ground running


The lack of a full cohort of MPs has not prevented MK’s existing parliamentarians from getting stuck in fast. A number have already emerged as the caucus’s most prominent voices: impeached judge John Hlophe, who is now the official leader of the opposition in Parliament; MP David Skosana, the husband of EFF MP Busisiwe Mkhwebane; and Visvin Reddy, who is still facing charges of inciting public violence due to inflammatory comments he made before the May elections.

The MK MPs have thus far shown little appetite for the kind of politics of distraction practised by the EFF in the National Assembly, which revolves around raising bogus points of order, frequent objections and insulting other parliamentarians. Just this week, Malema and EFF MP Omphile Maotwe were thrown off a virtual session for repeatedly referring to Sports, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie as a pantiti (jailbird). 

MK MPs are far more grown-up. They also have a very clear mission: to send the message that South Africa under the presidency of Jacob Zuma was a far better place for ordinary South Africans than the country under Ramaphosa.

This project of historical revisionism is not subtle. 

Here was Skosana this week, during the National Assembly’s debate on extortion: “Compared to the glorious years of His Excellency, President Zuma, the current surge of extortion incidents coincides with a significant rise in unemployment… It is ironic how the years of President Zuma were dubbed ‘the wasted years’, which is quite absurd and is madness.” 

At a plenary session last week, another MK MP proposed that Parliament should hold a debate comparing “the state of unemployment under President Zuma where job creation was a priority”, and the current administration.

During the first sitting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa), Skosana proposed that one of the committee’s first orders of business should be to probe why the performance of Transnet had declined so much under Ramaphosa’s government — once again, as opposed to under Zuma.

State Capture MPs will bolster the narrative


When one understands the project at play here, the selection of alleged State Capturers Lucky Montana, Brian Molefe and Siyabonga Gama as the latest MK MPs starts to take on a new light. 

Zuma is clearly deploying these particular individuals not merely because they are trusted old allies who need a job.

At the time of their swearing-in, Hlophe justified their entrance as being necessary to beef up scrutiny of state-owned enterprises.

“The MK party fully embraces these capable and experienced public servants because we know that the neocolonial elite and establishments as well as the Ramaphosa-led ANC hounded them out of state-owned enterprises so that they weaken them and later privatise them,” Hlophe told the media.

MK wants these men — accused by the Zondo Commission of significant wrongdoing — to stand as symbols for what the party maintains is African excellence sidelined by Ramaphosa.

But Zuma is also sending them into the ring because of the value they can offer him in terms of efforts to rewrite history. You can be sure that the committees on which Montana, Gama and Molefe sit will be used as platforms for these men to deliver (wholly inaccurate) treatises on the superior performance of state-owned enterprises under their governance.

Ordinary South Africans watching Parliament — and believe it or not, some do — are going to be fed this one relentless narrative: Zuma > Ramaphosa. South Africa under Zuma > South Africa under Ramaphosa. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yxyQXLdrSc

What is the endgame here? It is clearly not simply a matter of Zuma’s wounded ego needing to “correct” the historical record, although there is little reason to doubt that Zuma’s personal animosity towards Ramaphosa does indeed run deep and wide.

The ultimate aim is another Zuma presidency — achieved by amending the Constitution to alter term limits — or, at the very least, a presidency run by a Zuma proxy. Parliament is going to be a key theatre in the strategy. DM  

Categories:

Tags: