The Dear Mnganam letters
Leadership Editor Prof JJ Tabane and Competition
Commision Head of Communications Mr Sipho Ngwema
Dear JJ Mnganam,
Thank you for sharing your perspective on the recent developments within the EFF. However, I must respectfully disagree with some points you've made.
Firstly, while Panyaza Lesufi's sentiments are indeed noteworthy, they may stem from a deeper concern about losing a key strategic ally in Gauteng. Ironically, the Gauteng ANC has engaged in an uneasy alliance with a party led by Julius and Floyd, whose mission has often been to undermine and wipe out the ruling party nationally. This uneasy coalition can be seen as “sleeping with the enemy”, raising questions about whether such relationships truly serve the country's best interests.
Secondly, it's crucial to recognise that populism and radical rhetoric do not inherently equate to progressivism. While passionate speeches and bold statements can energise supporters, they often mask a lack of substantive policy proposals and meaningful action. An organisation's true progressiveness should be measured by its commitment to inclusive governance, accountability, and the genuine advancement of the marginalised.
When rhetoric overshadows tangible actions and credible reputation, it risks becoming mere populism, ultimately failing to address the systemic issues that affect our society. Progressivism requires more than just strong words; it demands integrity, a sustained reputation and effort to create real change that benefits all citizens, particularly those most in need.
Further, the formation of the EFF and MKP lacks a solid ideological foundation; instead, they can be viewed as splinter groups emerging from the erratic political behaviour of their respective leaders. These parties appear to be reactions to internal conflicts and personal ambitions rather than movements grounded in a coherent set of principles or long-term vision for societal change.
This absence of a unified ideological framework raises questions about their legitimacy and effectiveness in addressing the complex challenges facing our nation. Rather than promoting genuine political discourse or advancing progressive agendas, these groups often seem focused on the delinquencies of their leaders and individual power struggles, which have led to fragmentation within the broader political landscape.
For a movement to be truly impactful, it must be rooted in a clear ideology that prioritises the needs of the people, rather than merely serving the interests of its leaders. Thus, whether Floyd stays in the EFF or shifts to MKP, that is inconsequential because indeed birds of the same feather do flock together.
The leadership of the EFF has always been dogged by controversy, starting with their involvement in the near collapse of the Limpopo Province, which necessitated national government intervention. Recent reports, including information from the plea bargain affidavit of the VBS chairman—who appears to have turned state witness—along with the Amabhungane investigations and various forensic reports, do not paint these leaders in a favourable light. Same with the MKP, their prominent membership lists reads like the NPA corruption prosecution court roll. Therefore, what can South Africa gain from them, except deceptive rhetoric aimed at further scamming our people?
Indeed, while the GNU requires oversight, it would be foolhardy to believe that the MKP and EFF can provide it. History shows that the combination of prominent individuals from these two organisations led to the collapse of state institutions in the past. Perhaps this is the attraction to the MKP for Floyd because his newly found leader, a master of destruction, may be seen as the only hope to avoid the imminent prosecution widely reported in the media.
South Africa needs parties that genuinely prioritise national interests, committed to salvaging us out of the mess we are stewing in. We do not need tribalism, traditional nationalism, and corruption nor should we equate these to progressivism.
Furthermore, adopting and participating in a market economy does not inherently equate to being anti-poor. In fact, social democracies that implement progressive policies can build a capitalist system with a human face. By prioritising growing inclusive economy, decent job creation, social welfare, equitable resource distribution, and robust regulatory frameworks, such systems can promote inclusive economic growth while ensuring that the needs of the most vulnerable are addressed.
This approach emphasises that a thriving market can coexist with strong social safety nets, job creation, and access to essential services, ultimately leading to a more inclusive and just society. The challenge lies in crafting policies that harness market dynamics to uplift all citizens, particularly those who have historically been marginalised. These we do have, by and large, we just need to eradicate corruption and racism.
Thank you,
Sipho
Dear Sipho Mnganam,
Well written retort, Mnganam, but it falls short in my view about what will hold our nation together. We are not yet a nation if we believe we can be dismissive of almost a quarter of the population not represented in the so-called GNU. The grand coalition between the DA and the ANC can clearly only be held together by a consensus that the status quo remains. Any radical policies that can reverse the horrific inequality will be met with resistance. In other words, if there is no serious counter force that will hold the GNU accountable, it is unlikely to move from the centre to the kind of left leaning that can make a dent on inequality. So we must establish that the GNU cannot do that by itself and will out of necessity need a strong and irritating opposition. The opposition that was crafted into place by the voting population. You may call such opposition populist, but it is a necessary counter force. The failure of the ANC, I dare say, could have been much worse if there was no irritating opposition that the DA has been for decades. I am sure you thought of them as irritating and reactionary at that time, but you can't sustain an argument of being dismissive of their role and existence.
EFF and MK and whatever is left of the progressive movement need to be supported to get their act together to force the GNU to attend to issues of land, for example, which do not feature much on the GNU agenda. The so-called inclusive economy will not happen under a regime that has placed Employment Equity at risk by continuing with those who hate change... those who have declared war on redress. The EFF's policies may well be extreme, but they are a necessary pricking of a dead ANC conscience. When it comes to caring much about the working class agenda.
Your dismissing of the MK party as a gathering of crooks is unfortunate in its blindsidedness. The political parties on all sides of the political spectrum harbour crooks. Your DA can't deal with racists even among its leadership. They are appointing people illegally as we speak. The ANC is harbouring crooks from top to bottom... should I remind you of a speaker in chains for graft and Zizi Kodwa on trial? Or Gwede who doesn't know how cameras enter in his yard or a president trading in foreign currency? Clearly they all qualify to join MK so to elevate the crooks. Let all crooks be in orange overalls regardless of which side of the aisle they are.
What remains is that all parties must play a role to build the country and the EFF has proven that it has a constituency that takes it seriously over 11 years; better than all post-94 experiments like UDM and COPE. Let's cut them some slack and like Panyaza says, not celebrate their possible demise.
Sincerely,
JJ
Dear Mnganam,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. We must cultivate a steadfast commitment to our principles, approaching them with unwavering resolve rather than treating them as occasional guidelines. We must differentiate genuine political parties of the left like SACP, Azapo, PAC, New Unity Movement, Soya etc. and modern employment agencies formed for annuity purposes.
So, I appreciate your emphasis on the need for a strong opposition to hold the GNU accountable. However, not every assembly of any black hoipoloi is by design a progressive movement. You seem to fall into that trap of glorifying garbage in the name of black progressive.
I must hasten reiterate that the EFF, MKP, and other so-called progressive movements currently lack the genuine belief, orientation, and solutions needed to address the systemic issues facing our nation.
While it is true that the GNU requires scrutiny, we must recognise that parties like the EFF and MKP are not separate from the problems plaguing South Africa. You seem to forget, rather conveniently, that they are part of the very mess we find ourselves in. Their radical rhetoric often distracts from the lack of substantive policies that could truly advance the working-class agenda.
It seems you’re blinded by the radical rhetoric of MKP which seems to now have outsourced the objective of their forming to Floyd who was not even part of them when they decided to create a party. Floyd must now craft policies that explain their existence post facto. This is unsurprising, isn’t it! It’s an open secret that MKP is “Baba's” personal weapon of mass destruction that has virtually nothing to do with solving South Africa’s challenge—the party itself is the country’s problem.
Instead of offering real alternatives, they contribute to the fragmentation of political discourse, which ultimately hampers progress. So, no, I don’t buy the scam.
Moreover, your point about the necessity of a counter-force is valid, but it must be a counter-force that genuinely represents the interests of the marginalised, rather than one that simply engages in populism without accountability. The DA, while often seen as irritating, has its own issues, including instances of racism and questionable leadership choices, which only complicate the political landscape further.
As for the MKP, elevating it as a solution is misguided; its membership does not escape the reality of being embroiled in the same corruption that afflicts other parties. The call for unity among parties that harbour those in conflict with the law undermines the integrity of any movement aimed at true reform. If we are to hope for a better future, we need to demand accountability from all political actors and seek genuine leadership that prioritises the needs of the people over personal ambitions.
In short, while I agree that the GNU cannot move forward without pressure from the opposition, it’s not just any opposition—the current landscape is riddled with factions that, instead of providing solutions, perpetuate the status quo. South Africa deserves better than what these splinter parties currently offer.
Thank you,
Sipho
Mnganam Sipho,
This is the most blind response I have received from you on my musings. Your articulations remind me of how the ANC responded to you and I when we were part of COPE in 2008. They described the well-meaning project as a coalition of the Polokwane wounded and sought to cast aspersions on all of us; even those that had little to do with being disgruntled by Polokwane's outcomes, but were simply outraged by how they were steering the country in a wrong direction.
I suppose you have learned from the best. You seem to have become a fresh spokesperson for those who want to deligitimise opposition by using the criteria of corruption that applies equally to them. My view is simple. I will not disregard a million citizens who gather under the EFF umbrella because a few of their leaders are in conflict with the law, the same way that I can't write off the ANC because some of their top leaders, including the President, the Chairman, and the DSG, amongst others, are facing possible conflict with the law.
This is all red herring stuff. We have an ANC that seeks to redefine our future trajectory by aligning with the DA and we need an opposition that can keep that new agenda in check. The ANC cannot choose a government and then choose who is legitimate enough to oppose it. So, to call the children of the same ANC garbage because you don't agree with their narrative is not particularly clever and is the kind of rhetoric that births dictatorships. Corruption is a common denominator is SA parties, but no party has a constitution that founds it on corruption. The law must take its course against any leader in all parties, including the opposition. But you can't deligitimise any party on the same thing that applies to your corrupt ANC leaders.
Now that that chuff is out of the way, let me reiterate that the EFF can not merely be dismissed as populist. Any political articulation is a mix of populism and realism to endanger hope. That is why the ANC uses the social grant scare tactics to numb rural voters. They are refusing to remove the COVID-19 R350 grant long after the pandemic has passed because they need to find a populist thing to hang onto in the face of electoral decline that has seen them at a paltry 40 percent. The populist policies that the EFF is often accused of can easily be found in the ANC Nasrec resolutions; the only difference is that the ANC is poor at both articulation of the same policies of issues such as the land question, as well as implementation. If anything, they show disdain to the same policies. They know that there is no capacity there to make any impact. So to use populism as another demeaning criteria seems not to hold water. At the end of the day, we can not be so blindly loyal to the ANC.
I know it may be difficult for you to see any redeeming feature of the EFF, with that I sympathise, but that is our reality; we cannot import a perfect opposition.
But thanks for the robust engagement.
Sincerely,
JJ
Dear JJ Mnganam,
Your response is disappointing, as it veers into personal attacks rather than addressing the issues. Did I hit a nerve? I will resist going low though and will choose to focus on the substantive points, nonetheless.
It is disingenuous to label the MKP and EFF as “well-meaning projects” and to compare them to COPE. I’ve dealt with their formation in my previous letters and won’t repeat it. COPE, on the other hand, was founded specifically to halt corruption, particularly under Zuma, and aimed to create a credible alternative.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, you fail to mention the word credibility in defence of the two parties, which is central to any viable opposition. A credible and ethical opposition is vital for the health of a democratic society, as it ensures accountability and integrity in governance. An opposition that prioritises principles over mere opposition for its own sake promotes constructive dialogue, encourages transparency, and holds the ruling party accountable.
Without a well-meaning and principled opposition, voters may be left with choices that lack substance, leading to a political landscape dominated by populism rather than informed policymaking. This can result in disillusionment among citizens and erode trust in the political system.
Ultimately, a strong, ethical opposition not only enhances democratic processes but also promotes responsible governance that aligns with the values and needs of the electorate.
Back to COPE, their leadership was not embroiled in corruption cases, thrown out of the ruling party nor had any of their members gone through impeachment. Comparing their situation to the current state of your now favourite parties is comparing apples to oranges. Unlike these parties, COPE maintained a commitment to the policies they once championed, with any deviations rooted in structural reforms for accountability like the direct election of the President, Premiers, and the Executive Mayors. This, you will be aware, was informed by the reckless removal of President Mbeki.
South Africa desperately needs a credible alternative, and the recent turmoil surrounding Floyd does not contribute to that vision. Thus, his defection is a none event in the bigger scheme of affairs. A viable alternative is essential for South Africans when a contending party falters. The ongoing legal issues involving many in your preferred parties only emphasises the need for integrity in leadership. It baffles me that this is suddenly lost to you. It really does.
The GNU is a correct pathway forward right now, given the circumstances we find ourselves in. It is a special intervention for special circumstances. It is crucial that we remain focused on constructive solutions rather than get caught up in past grievances. This is what the overwhelming majority of a sensible opposition has done. They joined others in the building of a prosperous South Africa. They didn’t check out.
The ship has now sailed and your guys opted out of it on their own volition—we now need worthwhile progressive prepositions not fear mongering based on feigned black solidarity.
Thank you,
Sipho
