Could DA use Zuma’s metaphorical muti?Comment on this story
Not in two decades – not in 66 years, come to think of it – has South Africa’s official opposition had better prospects of landing the ruling party a bruising body blow. As things stand, however, it might well botch the opportunity, says William Saunderson-Meyer.
The ANC is in unparalleled disarray. It has squandered its liberation dividend, the emotional cachet that elsewhere in Africa kept post-colonial ruling parties in power for political aeons.
Although the ANC can credibly argue, as President Jacob Zuma did in the State of the Nation address, that there is a “good story” to service delivery, voters just aren’t listening. The expectations of the poor have galloped way ahead of realistic delivery targets, fuelled partly by the EFF’s promises of largesse.
There is disaffection over corruption, crony capitalism and the governing elite’s arrogance. Most damaging has been the inability of the tripartite alliance to facilitate job creation, leaving the more than 7 million unemployed disillusioned and increasingly angry.
The DA has assiduously exploited these pressure points and Zuma’s increasing personal unpopularity. It championed the youth wage subsidy and like the showy but pointless drill of the nursery rhyme’s Grand Old Duke of York, DA leader Helen Zille marched her 10 000 men up to Luthuli House and then down again, supposedly in support of “real jobs”.
Many in a media world often surprisingly gullible when it comes to political parties’ propaganda bought the DA’s prediction of 30 percent of the vote in the May election. The DA, incidentally, is now disavowing that estimate, unsurprising given the public relations disasters that have befallen it recently.
The party has been hurt by a series of missteps, which are cited by the DA old guard as evidence of Zille moving the DA closer to the ANC in order to draw black votes, and in the process abandoning cherished liberal values.
The first debacle was the DA voting for the Employment Equity Amendment Bill, which prescribes penalties for private entities that don’t meet racial and gender targets. In response to an old guard rebellion, Zille had to flip-flop and withdraw her party’s support for the now “Verwoerdian” bill.
The second debacle was the DA’s cringingly humiliating “merger” with Mamphela Ramphele’s AgangSA. This collapsed in recriminations within days, when it became apparent that Agang’s furious provincial leaders had not been consulted.
Unlike with the equity bill incident – when Zille placed the entire blame for the “plane crash” on the parliamentary team – she this time apologised for erroneously trusting her old friend, who had turned out to be duplicitous.
The most recent debacle is a parliamentary conference on Palestine attended by Justus de Goede, DA spokesman for International Relations, and his deputy, Bill Eloff. Abandoning the DA’s official, scrupulously even-handed position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, they stood mute as the conference endorsed a punitively anti-Israeli action plan.
Eloff then gave fulsome thanks to the delegates for “fostering solidarity to build a just and better world”. Only the African Christian Democratic Party voted against the plan.
The Jewish community, which has historically provided the DA with substantial support, is outraged. The DA leadership’s response, by now a habitual reaction, has been to lie low and hope all will blow over.
The official line is that whatever transpired at the conference, the DA’s policy remains unchanged. In fact, De Goede left early for a flight and is thus blameless. Eloff, at worst, “erred” in supporting a position that “lacks a balance of views”. The ACDP rubs its hands in glee.
There are other small but telling indications of DA atrophy. For decades it boasted the slickest, best-organised party machine. Now the organisational cogs are creaking. Take its public face, the website: the news section hasn’t been updated for over two years, so too the list of DA office bearers.
That might be why when I last week phoned the DA national office, the switchboard hadn’t a clue who handled the International Relations portfolio. Eventually I hacked my way to speak with one of Zille’s top staffers and it got worse.
Him: “Who’s De Goede?”
Me: “Um, your shadow minister of International Relations.”
Him: “Oh! Yes! There’re lots of new people in new positions.”
Me: “Six months in the job, clearly he hasn’t made much of an impression…”
Were I either De Goede or Eloff, I’d start clearing out my desk. Were I in the DA leadership, I’d be worried. And were I Zuma, I’d keep working that metaphorical muti that so confounds his enemies.
Follow WSM on Twitter @TheJaundicedEye