When Canadian author Naomi Klein argued that the South African democracy was “born in chains,” very few people understood what she meant. She had observed that South Africa’s post-apartheid transition prioritised economic liberalisation over social justice and blamed the ANC for implementing radical economic reforms by favouring market-oriented policies.
According to Klein, this ‘choice’ has perpetuated inequality and hindered the full realisation of freedom for the South African people. Precisely 30 years after apartheid ended, the ANC dropped below the crucial 50% simple majority, forcing it to co-govern with others. This shift has attracted mixed views and feelings. Others feel emboldened, while others decry the lost promise of the liberation struggle.
This article examines the DA, the self-fashioned mouthpiece of free markets, and its position regarding the ‘historic mission’ that 1994 was supposed to have accelerated. It argues that the ANC has dug itself into a hole created by Capital, a situation Klein predicted many years ago. The ANC always prides itself on being a leader of society and a champion of social and economic justice.
How does South Africa’s white populace interpret structural poverty and marginalisation of the black majority?
Basically, this write-up questions the logic of allowing free-market economics (with a white face) to dominate politics (previously black but now diluted) in the manner it does in South Africa. The starting point is none other than the DA and its triumphalism following its Grand Coalition with the ANC.
Despite the ANC’s claims that it is engaged in a ‘national unity’ project, DA leader Helen Zille has repeatedly stated that the two parties are indeed in a coalition. She argues that all the smaller parties are mere participants in the ANC-DA marriage of convenience imposed by ‘markets’ to avoid “a doomsday coalition” that would have seen the ANC align with the EFF and the MK Party.
White Triumphalisim After 30 Years of Democracy
In a recent interview, Zille described the victory of whites over blacks following the formation of the GNU after the May 29 elections. In her view, their recent achievements surpass some monumental victories in global political history, including Castro’s triumph in 1959 or Haitian independence in 1791. Surely, Dingane must be rolling in his grave at how the natives are undermined.
Zille begins her account by asserting that Cyril Ramaphosa is the ANC’s only asset; otherwise, it would be polling at 25% or even 20%. She claims that the ruling party’s decline was engineered to benefit both the EFF and the MK Party, who were expected to enter into a coalition with a weakened ANC. The ANC’s loss of Jacob Zuma, whom Zille claims was to be later reintegrated into the party, presents a move fraught with complexity and potential repercussions.
She then celebrates the expulsion of Zuma from the ANC as a significant milestone in the DA’s many victories in a short period. Zille argues that it is crucial for both Zuma and the EFF to stay out of the ANC fold, but she highlights a significant risk: if the ANC’s support continues to plummet, they might be forced into a coalition with the EFF and the MK Party.
“Most people understand the potential impact on South Africa’s economy,” she said, emphasising the economic instability such a coalition could trigger. Shifting to what she considers the DA’s strategic manoeuvres, Zille spoke passionately about the importance of the South African Rand as a powerful negotiation tool. All this time, the currency was presented as national patrimony and whose independence (read monetary policy) had to be respected and protected.
At the rally many years ago, Julis Malema once labelled Zille a “madam” who “moves around doing a monkey dance looking for votes.” This time, Madam is eager, determined, and triumphant: she is among those who make the Rand dance as it reacts to those disliked by her club. One person remarked, “The Rand has eyes, colour and feelings. I can tell you now, it doesn’t look like the majority of South Africans.” The currency has a long history of odd behaviour, and Zille appears to know the reasons.
Zille explicitly stated, “One of the strongest negotiation tools we had, and by far the DA’s strongest lever, was the value of the Rand.”
She noted that this economic indicator was the DA’s most potent lever, with the Rand surging during positive developments and plummeting during negative ones. Zille explained that the bond market mirrored this pattern. The Madame found this correlation extraordinary and meticulously tracked the Rand’s fluctuations against the timeline of negotiations, revealing a consistent pattern.
Zille recounted a specific incident on June 11th when a scheduled negotiation with the ANC did not occur because the ANC representatives failed to attend. The DA waited all day; the next day, Zille informed a journalist about the incident. This report led to a drop in the Rand’s value. Zille clarified that her intention was not to devalue the Rand but to signal the importance of adhering to their commitments to the ANC. If the ANC promised to attend, the DA expected them to fulfil that promise.
Additionally, she claimed that Tony Leon documented every meeting’s start time and instances of tardiness in his book, often mocking the participants’ lateness. Zille expressed confidence that Leon would write another book about these negotiations, detailing the punctuality of every meeting, which she found prettyhumorous. In short, Codesa II went horribly wrong for the natives yet again!
South Africa’s Squirming Under the Tight Grip of Whites (Capital)
What Zille and her ilk are doing confirms what Allister Sparks said around 1990: “Before transferring power, the Nationalist Party wants to emasculate it. It is trying to negotiate a kind of swap where it will give up the right to run the country its way in exchange for the right to stop blacks from running it their own way.” The ANC held an empty keg of political power while the white masters called the shots.
In practical terms, this meant that while political power was ostensibly handed over to black South Africans with the end of apartheid, economic power remained disproportionately in the hands of the white elite. This economic monopoly ensured that absolute control over resources, business and wealth remained largely unaffected by the political changes of the early 1990s. As a result, the promises of economic liberation and social equity were undermined.
The language of freedom and economic emancipation was quickly replaced with Thatcherism. Immediately, the country felt the results of its experiment in trickledown injustice. Black lives were proven that they do not matter in South Africa. By 2006, the situation had become starkly evident: the number of people living on less than USD 1 a day had doubled, from 2 million in 1994 to 4 million.
The unemployment rate for black South Africans more than doubled from 23% to 48% between 1991 and 2002, illustrating the deepening economic hardships faced by the black majority.Income inequality also remained a glaring issue. While a small fraction of black South Africans earned over USD 60,000 annually, this number was minuscule compared to the much larger proportion of whites in that income bracket. This disparity reflects not just a gap in income but a broader economic structure that continues to benefit those who were already privileged before the end of apartheid.
The persistence of these inequalities indicates that South Africa is still grappling with the consequences of its historical injustices. The tight grip of white-dominated capital on the economy perpetuates a system where political freedoms are not matched by economic empowerment for the majority. Thus, South Africa remains entangled in a cycle of economic exploitation and inequality, struggling to fully realise the promises of its democratic transition.
Markets are at work: South Africans are neither poor nor unemployed
How often have we heard South Africa faces a triple challenge of poverty, unemployment and inequality? This implies that there is no problem after all, but market mechanisms are functioning as intended. Zille and the DA argue that the market efficiently allocates resources, creates jobs, and fosters economic growth. A more critical interpretation of the DA’s market-centric view leadsto blaming the victims of economic hardship: Blacks do not get it and deserve to carry all the pain.
Hence, the DA’s opposition to measures such as minimum wage laws, equity initiatives, and land reform can be understood as being consistent with its belief in market efficiency. It fervently argues that minimum wage laws could lead to job losses or reduced economic flexibility, counteracting the benefits of a free market. The DA sees the EEA and its equity measures ascounterproductive, creating distortions in the labour market and reducing overall economic efficiency.
Similarly, the DA opposes land reform on the grounds that it disrupts market mechanisms and property rights, potentially undermining economic stability and growth. When opposing the amendment to Section 25 of the Constitution, Annelie Lotriet said the cabinet had “an obligation to protect the integrity of our constitutional republic and the protection of every citizen’s rights, including property rights.” After this EFF-sponsored motion failed, she celebrated protecting property rights.
Lotriet is now the National Assembly deputy speaker, ensuring that the knee is forever on the black majority’s neck and that it cannot breathe. That explains why Zille is triumphant and bullish to Gwede Mantashe’s irritation: “You’re Not The Boss Here!” But what Mantashe does not seem to appreciate is what journo Sparks saw a long time ago: whites have always run a parallel structure to emasculate whatever little political power in black hands.
What Mantashe also does not get is that Zille is an embodiment of white power who has always acted as a “parallel president” who controls the Rand and the economy. Since 1994, the dark cabinet has legislated to allow investment strikes, the flight of capital, illicit financial flows and Rand manipulations. Unfortunately, all these heinous, illegal acts have gone unpunished, as evidenced by a Bloomberg headline: “Markets cheer South Africa’s move to broad government alliance!”
Since apartheid days, capitalism and racism have always shared an ugly face in the eyes of the oppressed black majority. With this understanding, Zille should be aware that some victories may be short-lived.
Siya yi banga le economy!
***
The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jambo Africa Online or Brandhill Africa, the publisher of this news portal.