Things don't bode well for Cyril Ramaphosa, or his party. (RAJESH JANTILAL/AFP via Getty Images)
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/20210714_152s817-100x100.jpg)
Shortly before Britain’s skelm (furtive) and short-lived annexation of the Transvaal Boer republic, the Victorian travel writer Anthony Trollope said this of the unfortunate country:
“These people in the Transvaal would not pay a stiver of tax, there was in fact no government, the gaols were unlocked in order that prisoners might find elsewhere the bread which their gaolers could not get for them, the posts could not be continued because the Contractors were not paid… property was unsaleable, life was insecure, chaos was come upon the land.”
The year was 1877. In not entirely dissimilar circumstances, 147 years later, President Cyril Ramaphosa this week announced a South African general election for May 29. The answer to a now pressing question rests on its outcome: can the country resume its march to modernity after three decades of misrule and corruption under the ruling African National Congress (ANC)?
The election is a contest between two broad coalitions. On the one side stands a wide range of ethnic, religious, regional and class groups, unsteadily allied in a reformist and modernist Multi-Party Pact, dubbed the “Moonshot Pact”. It musters an estimated third of the electorate; the largest component is the liberal Democratic Alliance (DA), with more than a fifth of the total vote — according to an average composite of the six most credible recent polls. The alliance is concerned about state incompetence, corruption, and the combination of meagre economic growth and unsustainable state social spending.
Against them stands a larger polity far more exercised about the continuation of the extensive grant system — 45% of South Africans receive some form of welfare subsidy and that proportion will soon grow, with a minimum income grant — and the survival of the “black empowerment” policies that have seen the enrichment of a new parasitic elite class comprising about 1% of the population. This proportion of the population is unsettlingly similar to the 43.6% estimated share of the vote that a composite of the polls gives the ruling ANC in the coming elections.
The two wild cards are the 11-year-old Left-wing, incendiary and nativist Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) — its leaders mostly expelled members of the ANC’s radical Youth League — and a new party, uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP), cheekily named after the military wing of the struggle-era ANC. It is supported by the disgraced and corruption-plagued former ANC president Jacob Zuma, finally divorced from his birth party.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe real danger will be when the ANZ is eventually about to be ousted in a democratic election. Cue Mugabe #2: unemployed thugs ousting white farmers and giving productive land to government ministers’ nephews, in whose hands it will rapidly rot; spiralling hyperinflation; famine and potholes; and a fleet of gold Mercedes for the ANC aristocracy, with beatings for dissenters carried out by ANC-PF gangs.
The leopard doesn’t change his spots.
Sounds about right.
South Africa is not Zimbabwe. It is a much larger country with a far more diverse population. Furthermore. it is not a central state, but quasi-federal with elected government at national, provincial and local level. The ANC has already lost power in one province and in many municipalities, including two of the metropolitan ones. This has occurred electorally and largely peacefully. The likely trajectory is that it will remain the largest party at national level after this election, but may lose control of, or be forced into coalition, in two more provinces. This in turn will influence the outcome of local government elections in 2026, as the population experiences a different kind of governance.
Will the blacks of SA ever be able to turn down the ‘free stuff’ … ? Only time will tell …..
When the ‘free stuff’ runs out will they migrate North looking for other sources?
The loyalty to the ANC is among older people in rural provinces who remember the indignities of apartheid keenly, and the ANC’s role in overturning that. This is why their choice is to vote (for the ANC) or not to vote (for any party at all). Most people in deep rural areas who are old enough to remember the time before 1994, have had their lives observably improved (albeit they could have improved more under better governance). Younger people are disproportionately not registered to vote. Some of the younger people that are registered, have adopted the slogan “this is our 1994”.
I don’t get the downvotes. You know your subject and are talking sense.
I hadn’t thought of that. 1994 wasn’t so long ago, after all … the unfortunate impacts of apartheid still linger in the human mind …..
Most of the initiatives launched by the ANC fall under the heading of consumption, not production. Essentially they’re running up the credit card bill to buy votes, which will eventually result in its inevitable end.
The great unspoken is what happens when the ANC run out of wealth to loot and the largesse (bribes) to the millions of unemployed ends? It only took 30 years to ruin a once enviable country.
It is such a shame that after such a positive start under Mandela, South Africa has turned into such a basket case. It remains resource rich, a lot like Venezuela, but totally corrupt mis-management squanders its inherent wealth.
“His tenure has been marked by indecisive and ineffectual leadership, a collapse of state infrastructure and a willingness to drive impractical and destructive redistributive and anti-growth policies to keep his flailing party together and to please his entitlement-driven electorate. His ineptitude has created the space for toxic organisations such as the EFF and now MK to flourish.”
In today’s upside-down world, this sounds like a campaign commercial.
–deleted–
At least the South African government can spend time promoting frivolous and stupid cases in the International Court of Justice.
SAs hostility towards Israel will be remembered for a long time.
Yes it is such a pity that two such close friends have fallen out quite so spectularly now one has abandoned apartheid and the nuclear bomb.
Joke all you want but when SA faces famine in the coming decades, conservatives will still remember SA sided with evil.
SA’s hostility to Israel was an advertisement of its own impending demise. It is basically an African Titanic. Holed below the water line — there is no danger of it avoiding the fate of Zimbabwe.
You don’t have to be a Marxist to wonder if the raw economics may bring a disintegration that renders party politics irrelevant. Transnet (rail freight) is in such a state of collapse that it can no longer move SA’s valuable ore exports to ports. Big business has offered to take over the railway but Ramaphosa stalls. Then there are the daily 4-6 hour power cuts. How much can the country take?
And in Britain, 53% of households receive some sort of welfare subsidy.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/382858/uk-state-benefits-by-region/
Pot, this is Kettle, over.
Yes, many people come to the UK for state benefits. What’s your point?
Some view that measuring a society by how many people must depend on the government to survive as a negative. Others see it as a positive. Do you not agree that a flourishing society, where the citizens are able to provide for themselves and their families, is the ideal situation? And no, I don’t advocate for the elimination of the safety net. I just don’t think the net should be larger than the ocean.
Does that include the pension?
Seeing as the bulk of the other benefits are paid to workers who don’t earn enough to pay the bills, then it’s a failure of our neoliberal race to the bottom
I always knew that majority rule would ruin South Africa. And now it has.