The DA plan to march on Luthuli House was ill-advised, but showed the ANC’s political intolerance, writes Max du Preez.
The DA’s plan to march on the ANC’s Luthuli House headquarters was not a sensible political move. But at least it has again shownthe ANC’s basic instincts of over-reaction and intolerance.
I didn’t like the idea of a march on Luthuli House because it was too obvious that it was an attention-seeking exercise without much meaning in terms of job creation, which was its stated aim.
This is Malema-style politics unbecoming of the DA.
Still, if the DA had received permission for the march, it would have been a legal and legitimate exercise in political electioneering.
The ANC’s reaction that the DA plan was “provocative” was, actually, more provocative. ANC leaders came up with dark threats that Luthuli House would be “defended at all costs” against this “assault”. ANC members escalated the rhetoric on social media and on radio talk shows to a threatened race war, promising bloodshed and reminding the DA of the slaughter at the same building 20 years ago when the IFP launched a march on it.
The SACP called the proposed march “a declaration of war” and “threatened the ANC’s right to exist”.
Yes, really.
For every action, there is a corresponding over-reaction, seems to be the natural law of South African politics.
We’re talking about the DA here.
Did the ANC hotheads really expect Helen Zille and Lindiwe Mazibuko in camouflage uniforms with hand grenades in their belts and rocket launchers draped over their shoulders launching an assault on their building?
Or did they know that the DA was simply planning to march up to their front door in Joburg’s CBD, hand over a memorandum and then walk away?
What exactly was it that the ANC wanted to “defend”?
The SACP in the Western Cape warned that it would react by leading marches to the private homes of DA leaders. How did the jump from party headquarters to private homes happen?
The SACP called Zille’s home a “lush residence”. The reality is that Zille and her family have lived in the same modest suburban home for several decades – not the kind of residence senior ANC leaders would want to be seen dead in.
The ANC condemned the DA’s planned march as a “publicity stunt”, “political opportunism” and “grandstanding”. Of course it is all of those things. But that’s what political parties do when they want to canvass votes from the electorate.
Building a house for a poor family near the ANC leader’s villa was all three of the above, as was rushing to Mothotlung to cash in on the backlash to police brutality. Promising 6 million jobs when you know full well you cannot even create 10 percent of that was opportunism, as was saying an opposition leader concerned with the integrity of education results believes blacks are too stupid to pass matric.
Most political actions and statements by political parties in the run-up to an election are hyperbolic and aimed at bolstering the commitment of supporters and swaying those who had not yet made up their minds who to vote for.
After four general elections since our political settlement, the electorate is beginning to realise this.
I think Julius Malema and his Economic Freedom Fighters have upped the ante, though. Parties now feel the need to demonstrate their militancy, the new political currency of the last year or so.
But no party can keep up with Malema’s unsubtle but brilliant strategies to grab the headlines. The media have unfortunately played along, even blaming the DA, especially Mamphela Ramphele’s AgangSA of being inactive because they don’t do or say sensational things that grab the headlines. This is merely encouraging slogan politics and a discourse of insults and threats.
The DA, Agang and parties like Cope should resist the temptation to compete with the cheap populism of some of their opponents. It could perhaps score them a few votes, but it downgrades their brand in the long term.
They should be energetic and innovative in their efforts to communicate with voters, but not contribute to the raising of the already unhealthy political temperature.
South Africans should be far more intolerant of political intolerance. While many may agree that the DA’s plan to march on Luthuli House were ill-advised, we should focus on the ANC’s threats of a violent reaction to that and the violence with which ANC supporters confronted Malema and his groups at Nkandla recently. Political demonstrations in public spaces and on public roads and streets may never be met with violence of even threats of violence.
South Africans of all political persuasions should remember that elections are a central pillar of democracy and should guard against election campaigns damaging it.
* Max du Preez is an author and columnist.
** The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Independent Newspapers.
Pretoria News