Whether one regards it favourably or not, the most important political issue facing South Africa at present is the endurance or failure of the Government of National Unity. The whole idea of the country governed by something other than a majority party is a novel one, and the combination of coalition partners would once have seemed inconceivable. The GNU is something profoundly different.
The GNU is a bellwether of the future. It will indicate how well its political formations are able to operate in the new reality, and which direction they will take the country.
That the ANC had ultimately opted for a coalition with the Democratic Alliance (behind the face-saving terminology of the Government of National Unity) at least kept at bay a conscious rejection of constitutionalism. The more optimistic – and here one thinks of many in the business community – hoped that this would open the way for substantive policy reform.
With the ANC having had to make a choice between regression (the EFF and MK) and reform (the DA), it would surely choose the latter. Indeed, being now partly dependent on the DA, the ANC would be subject to considerable leverage to move in that direction.
Caution
This always needed to be taken with caution. Reform has been a mantra of President Ramaphosa’s ascendency since he took the Presidency from his predecessor – whom he had previously served loyally, but the misdeeds of whose incumbency were only apparent to the current President after he took the presidency (at least if his account is to be believed). There has very little of substance to show for this. The reason for this is simple, in that the president occupies two presidential offices and his political calculus has invariably been made from that of his party rather than that of the country.
This imposed a hard limit on what he would ever be able to do, and more importantly, what he’d be willing to do. President Ramaphosa has acted in the first instance as a party man. He had no intention of being remembered as the leader who had presided over the collapse of the fragile unity in the ANC; if that meant that the interests of South Africa as a whole were to be sacrificed (to the extent, of course, that such a differentiation was possible in the ANC’s worldview), it was a sacrifice he was prepared to make.
From that perspective, the flagship post-2017 policy drive is explicable. Expropriation without Compensation offered nothing of value to the country. It was at best tangentially relevant to the failings of land reform, and land reform was itself always known to be a relatively minor public demand. It was, however, a matter of importance for the ANC.
On ideological grounds, it signalled a “radical” stance on the “land question”. It enabled an enemy to be identified – the white commercial farmer – against which the party could unite. And it could serve to rekindle millenarian aspirations that with the correct application of fervour and revolutionary commitment, South Africa’s crises would be resolved. As President Ramaphosa once memorably declared, EWC would turn the country in a Garden of Eden.
Consequences
The consequences were as misaligned with the country’s needs as the President’s understanding of Scripture. If it was meant to signal a “radical” stance, it did so. We at the IRR repeatedly heard that EWC has made the country “uninvestable”. At best, it added a new concern to investors and businesspeople who were already looking askance at a battered economy. At worst, it suggested that South Africa was lurching towards a Zimbabwean or Venezuelan option. Either way, annual investment in South Africa as a proportion of GDP continued its long-term decline.
Since the formation of the GNU, there has been little indication that state policy is changing. Despite differences between the participating parties and tensions in the cabinet, the pre-election policy agenda remains largely intact.
The intention to introduce the National Health Insurance system, the legislation for which was signed before the election (and proved deeply unpopular) is being pursued. As the Health Minister declared, this would take precedence over the survival of the GNU. The Basic Education Laws Amendment Act strikes at a core interest for many of the DA’s supporters. It’s hard to see the President signing it – when the Basic Education portfolio is held by a minister from the DA – as not being meant to put its nominal coalition partner in its place. Much the same could be said of President Ramaphosa’s comments in China and Russia.
And here again, EWC has arisen. The Constitutional amendment may have failed, but not the overall objective. Thus, last week, Deputy President Paul Mashatile declared in parliament that EWC remained the intention. This was in response to a question from MK MP (and impeached former judge) John Hlophe goading the Deputy President about the issue.
The key was the Expropriation Act, passed by Parliament and now awaiting the Presidential signature. “Let’s accelerate it. Let’s not wait for the day when we might be able to amend the constitution, let’s do this expropriation act,” he said.
For the Deputy President, Dr Hlophe’s concern about the term “nil compensation” was semantic, although he pledged that even this was up for reconsideration. “The issue of nil compensation,” he said, “I will look at. But my sense is nil compensation is that you don’t pay. Maybe we need to relook the language.”
Indeed, it’s worth noting that he helpfully clarified the key issue: “you don’t pay”. Or rather the state doesn’t pay. The expropriated owner receives nothing, and loses his or her property. The broader cost is carried by society and the economy as a whole in damaged investor confidence and in continuing “uninvestability”.
Ultimate winners
The ANC – certainly, ironically, those within it least sympathetic to the GNU and the need to cooperate with the DA – as well as the EFF and MK would be the ultimate winners, at least in terms of the ideological satisfaction that EWC would deliver. Both of the latter, and many within the ANC, remain committed to a mass custodial talking of land. It would be folly to discount this.
The reality is that as much as the GNU may – and it is a conditional matter – have provided the opportunity to change the nature of politics and to shift South Africa onto a high-growth path, but this presupposes whether the ANC is willing to shift its own assumptions. There is not much evidence of that right now.
Incidentally, the experience of the GNU should also have dispelled a key part of President Ramaphosa’s mystique: that he is a master negotiator, with a unique ability to bring disparate interests together. This was never true He was a competent – perhaps even a very good – negotiator in the sense that he was able to deliver results for his party. An avuncular character, he is able to charm and cajole, and during the negotiations around the transition and the Constitution, he had the leverage of enormous political backing.
This should not be confused with being a consensus seeker, at least not to those outside his political home. His conduct as President has primarily been that of a party leader, this has not changed with the advent of the GNU. (Helen Zille said in an address to a business audience in London that it was President Ramaphosa personally who attempted to make last minute changes to the coalition agreement to benefit the ANC and undermine the DA. This has not been contested.)
Prof William Mervin Gumede, one of South Africa’s most incisive commentators (and someone who really gets the gravity of the country’s problems) recently remarked that the GNU faced two existential risks, both ultimately originating in the ANC. The first would be an inability for the ANC to transition from operating in a majoritarian mode to operating in a consensus mode. The second concerns the tensions within the ANC, and whether those opposed to the arrangement – such as Gauteng premier Panyaza Lesufi – can wrest control of the party.
Balance of forces
So far, the ANC has clearly not made the transition in its approach. And whether its internal balance of forces remain with a pro-GNU grouping is unclear. The Deputy President for one seems to be keeping his options open, preparing to position himself wherever the wind may blow.
The GNU was meant to herald change. But as the adage goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same – and perhaps the real bellwether is the re-emergence of EWC.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend