A resounding mandate may sufficiently embolden the less appealing leaders of the ANC to think that they do not need Mr Ramaphosa at all.

Elections are less than a month away and a sprinkling of analysts and commentators continue to push the argument that “a vote for Cyril” will help to turn the country around. 

Their argument is that only if Mr Ramaphosa delivers a resounding mandate for the ruling African National Congress (ANC) will his hand be sufficiently strengthened to introduce much-needed reforms. Other than that you cannot vote for a person in this coming election, there are four reasons to rethink the “vote for Cyril” advice. 

The first is that a vote for the ANC strengthens the hand of the whole ANC leadership spectrum and not only that of Mr Ramaphosa. 

A resounding mandate may sufficiently embolden the less appealing leaders of the ANC to think that they do not need Mr Ramaphosa at all. Why would they not be able to stand up and say, “Look how strong our party remains – why do we need him at all? Kick him out – that agent for white monopoly capital”. 

Particularly given that “vote Cyril” advocates concede that his standing in the party is already relatively weak, his vulnerability to recall must be immense. But would the ANC dare drop him if their support had fallen into the low 50 percentiles and the risk of defeat was imminent? 

We cannot know, and that is the point; a “vote for Cyril” may as easily deliver power to factions aligned to Ace Magashule and, critically, with a very strong national majority that they will wield for the next five years.  

The second is that the “vote Cyril” thesis ignores the basis of change in politics. Pressure breeds change, but the “vote Cyril” camp would have us believe that only by reducing the electoral pressure on the ANC, and affording it a strong majority, will it change its behaviour and embrace reform. This would be a most unusual case study of political and policy reform. You could more easily make the case that driving the ANC to the brink of defeat will prompt policy reform as a desperate strategy of political survival. 

The third is that the “vote Cyril” strategy ignores the structural impediment to reform in the ANC. It does not matter whether Mr Ramaphosa delivers a majority of 51%, or 61%, or 71% for the ANC – the make-up the NEC of the party will remain unchanged. We estimate that 70% of Cabinet ministers are first and foremost members of the NEC. Policy and governance reform is not possible without the NEC acceding to it, but many members of the NEC are so deeply implicated in corruption and malfeasance that they could never accede. 

Too many analysts ignore this structural impediment to the ANC ever reforming itself. Western analysts and CEOs find the impediment particularly perplexing. Russian and Chinese observers have no such difficulty. 

The fourth is that a “vote for Cyril” increases the odds of delivering a Constitutional majority to the ANC/Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) collective. The ANC is polling in the mid to high 50 percentiles and the EFF in the low teens. Collectively the two parties have or are very close to having a 66% majority, which would open the way to diluting key Constitutional protections. South Africa does seem to be slowly drifting towards a future of provincial and national coalition governments and an EFF/ANC coalition is a natural ideological fit. A “vote for Cyril” takes the ANC/EFF collective one step further to a Constitutional majority. Allow them that and it may be the end of South Africa as a free and open society. 

It would seem that a much better strategy would be to vote for an opposition party with strong principled stances in favour of a market economy, property rights, and the rule of law. Especially as such parties, as political kingmakers, may come to wield disproportionate political influence in a future South Africa. The larger opposition parties must hold the ANC in check and the smaller opposition parties must hold the bigger ones in check. 

South Africa’s next Parliament will take the country to the brink in terms of principles such as property rights and the rule of law. When that brink is reached you want men and women on those benches who will fight tooth and nail to hold the line on such important principles. You do not want to be in a position where you emboldened the crooks and ideologues and granted them the power to complete their undermining of the Constitutional order.       

Frans Cronjé is the CEO of the Institute of Race Relations

If you like what you just read become a Friend of the IRR if you aren’t already one by SMSing your name to 32823 or clicking here. Each SMS costs R1.’ Terms & Conditions Apply.

administrator

Frans Cronje was educated at St John’s College in Houghton and holds a PHD in scenario planning. He has been at the IRR for 15 years and established its Centre for Risk Analysis as a scenario focused research unit servicing the strategic intelligence needs of corporate and government clients. It uses deep-dive data analysis and first hand political and policy information to advise groups with interests in South Africa on the likely long term economic, social, and political evolution of the country. He has advised several hundred South African corporations, foreign investors, and policy shapers. He is the author of two books on South Africa’s future and scenarios from those books have been presented to an estimated 30 000 people. He writes a weekly column for Rapport and teaches scenario based strategy at the business school of the University of the Free State.