Eusebius McKaiser speaks to DA leadership candidate Wilmot James about his prospects this weekend.
Johannesburg - I think it’s fair to say that Wilmot James has a better chance of winning the lottery this forthcoming weekend than becoming the next leader of the Democratic Alliance.
Mmusi Maimane will, come Sunday, be the leader of the DA. [Read interview with Maimane here]
The key reasons are obvious: he is much more charismatic than James, much better known than James and, despite the limited time for campaigning, Maimane appears to have had more resources at his disposal, managed quite admirably by a very good and creative campaign team.
So, there is little point in framing the news agenda over the next few days around the question, “Who will it be?” It will be Maimane.
It is therefore more useful, for the sake of the DA and competitive politics in South Africa, to ask a different set of questions, which I explore here: Eloquence aside, was Maimane genuinely and obviously the better candidate for leader of the largest opposition party? Is there anything praiseworthy to say about James’ attempt to become leader of the DA? And, beyond this weekend, what will a Maimane led-DA mean for the broader domestic political landscape? Should the ANC fear a Maimane-led DA?
Wilmot James: A committed liberal democrat and policy guru
I met James for the first time on Monday, at the City Lodge Hotel at OR Tambo. I love the habit of politicians of scheduling meetings at airports. It gives a wonderful illusion, but one I am going along with, for today’s literary ride anyway, of a politician who is busy, on the move, going places, doing things, and only having just enough time to grant a nosey political analyst an interview after days of playing hard to get. If only such “on the move”-impressions translated into better lives for all; of course, to be fair to James, he is in the opposition and cannot reasonably be expected to make a material difference to our lives. Unless, that is, he becomes the DA’s next leader, and manages to lead his party to victory in the 2019 national elections. Then he’d be in the driving seat of power and have the chance to do what he was about to tell me he would love to do as leader of his party and ultimately of the country.
As I waited in the foyer of the City Lodge, with my multimedia colleagues from Independent Media, who were there to video-record the interview, I send James a WhatsApp message to say we are waiting for him. I had last interviewed him on a radio station I previously worked for, and on that occasion we had a rather tough but spirited conversation about black economic empowerment. James had argued that instead of talking about “black” empowerment, we should focus on “diversity”. I explored this by suggesting to him that, in effect, he is implying that the massive billboard advert which the DA had taken out in downtown Johannesburg, declaring its support for BEE, is wrong.
If James was to be believed, including his stated suggestion that if he was the leader of government he’d scrap references to race in redress policies, then surely the billboard should read something like, “We support DEE – Diversity Economic Empowerment”. He agreed, despite later going on to write to newspapers suggesting, in a rather delicious turn of phrase that I still cherish, that I was guilty of “gotcha!” journalism. I love that word choice, don’t you? Of course he didn’t deny saying what I had reported him as having said and the audio still exists.
In this interview, I would eventually go on to ask him, “Are you a black man?” It was tongue-in-cheek, but he is clearer now on some of these issues. “Yes I am a black man,” he would respond more earnestly than I expected. His view is that race is a powerful proxy for disadvantage, and that race was a marker of exclusion and oppression in the past. But he thinks that BEE must be scrapped in its current form, not because he is against racial redress, but because it has only benefited a few, politically-connected black people. It has resulted in “crony capitalism” and should be reviewed, to extend the business support networks to wherever it is needed, in townships, so black entrepreneurs have access to capital including venture capital.
“Do I self-identify racially? Not really. I don’t really think of myself as a coloured person...” he would also add but what he meant is that he doesn’t wake in the morning and chant when looking in the mirror, “I am a coloured man! I am a black man!” Fair enough.
So while I waited for James to arrive in the foyer area I was mindful of needing to create a rapport, very quickly, that would enable an open, honest, exploratory conversation about him. Who is he? What is he about? Why on earth is he running for a post he almost certainly will not get? What are his ideological convictions?
“WILMOT! HOWZIT! OVER HERE!” I shouted in his direction when I saw him looking around but not spotting us when we were a mere 10m, or less, from him. My very first impression is just how incredibly gentle his eyes, and facial expressions, are. I wanted to hug him, for a nice long 30 seconds, and say, “I’ve missed you so much, deddie! It’s really nice to have you back in the country. You look exhausted though. Was the 24-hour flight horrible? It doesn’t seem you got much sleep, deddie!”
Because, and this really isn’t meant as an ageist jibe (but I accept I am open to the accusation), Wilmot really looks and comes across like a professional who has a bloody good career behind him already, and is now in semi-retirement. In one exquisite photo taken by my colleague (see Matthews Baloyi’s picture top right), we see James through an iron grid next to the chair he was sitting in, almost slouching forward, looking in turns pensive, forlorn, peaceful, and deep in semi-retired thought. I think it is a beautiful shot of him, really, and we should give him a copy of it, but it is also a photograph which, as I told my photographer colleague, sadly for James, perfectly captures the state of his leadership campaign, a photo that could be captioned, “Late in the day”.
He greeted us politely, and very helpfully arranged a corner for us that was quiet enough to record our conversation. Though Maimane too was polite when I met him last week, and certainly more energetic, James drips with sincerity. He’s a really lekker guy to chat with. I never knew, but that is his fault for keeping a low profile despite his leadership position inside the DA.
“The numbers are not in my favour and it is a stretch!” James agrees when I start off our chat saying that he surely has little chance of winning. He insists, however, that he has consulted widely and has enough support to make it possible that he could win, even if it is probably unlikely. James adds that it is really important to set a precedent of open, democratic, contestation for leadership positions. Off-camera he elaborated further, suggesting that, even if Maimane is talented and has potential, it is crucial for any leader to have their strengths and weaknesses tested and probed rather than simply being given, in effect, positions in the party.
I find this justification for running for the leadership position admirable. I suspect that it is, in reality, the only reason James is running. As a liberal democrat it seems genuinely undesirable for him that there should not be a leadership contest. That motive, rather than self-belief about his prospects, probably is the central reason why he is in a losing race.
Unlike Maimane, James is much more granular, and authoritative, in exposing ideas.
“I am a liberal democrat,” he tells me, and looks to our liberal constitution to guide his views on social policy, and various hot South African debates.
“I have the ability, I have the willingness, and I have the courage to lead the DA strategically in a direction that speaks to, and communicates with, voters on the issues that matter to them- jobs, education, health, and shelter. It rests on the DA’s growth and jobs plan. It is a strategic focus. It’s not strategic drift. It’s keeping in line with what we want to offer the voter as an alternative to the ANC.”
This was fascinating. Despite Maimane’s background in business including part-time lecturing at GIBS Business School, I find James much more nimble when he talks economic policy. Maimane, by contrast, speaks in terms of the big picture. That’s probably smart given that the majority of voters, rather than a nerdish subset of voters, do not want to get lost in your detail. But while that makes Maimane more electable, being electable isn’t a sufficient indicator of leadership excellence. It is just that: Being electable. Mugabe was electable; Zuma was electable; Malema, too, has electable traits. So the question here is whether Maimane has substantive convictions on policy, and ideology, that makes him both electable and an excellent leader.
When one compares the responses of Maimane with those of James, not just in my interviews but also in interviews with both of them carried in the Sunday Independent and the Sunday Times over the past two weeks respectively, and their remarks in a live television debate, it is clear that James is the superior mind between the two, and the more committed liberal democrat. I don’t think Maimane, to be brutally honest, truly gets what liberal democracy and constitutional supremacy, mean. Why else flirt with majoritarianism by being willing to potentially put social policies to a referendum despite excellent constitutional case law protecting us against the tyranny of the masses?
James does get constitutional supremacy, and a thinking voting delegate in Port Elizabeth ought to be confused about who they should vote for. But it is probably too late for James to reach these delegates. Helen Zille’s sudden resignation has made it impossible for someone not already prominent publicly to have any chance of beating Maimane at this late stage.
Still, since James was keen to focus more on the economy than on identity politics - which is actually a good thing if we want to transform our country materially - I asked him to elaborate on how he would go about growing the economy, dealing with unemployment and, crucially, reducing inequality.
James tells me: “What creates jobs is investment, and so what the country needs to do is to attract investment, both domestic investment (domestic companies are not investing in the country), and we need to attract foreign investment. That’s how you create jobs. Why (would) people invest here? There’s some level of stability, there’s a market, some level of stable provision of services, reliable supply of electricity, a pool of skilled South Africans available and who could be further up-skilled. Or rather that is what investors are looking for. So we need good service delivery, reliable electricity supply... and in our educational provision we must (achieve quality education). We know about service delivery protests, how Eskom has failed... Our task as the DA would be to create the conditions to enable investment, service delivery, good electricity supply...
So, if you want this economy to grow, you can remove barriers to trade, you can stabilise commodity production, you can try and plug the ports of the country into the global trading network, especially with China now beginning to shed some manufacturing industry – you can take advantage of that – and we can remove some of the bureaucratic barriers that DTI and state departments have erected, and we can expand trade. We should expand trade on a vast scale! In short, we can create jobs by attracting more domestic and foreign investment.”
I have for a while now been fascinated by the relationship between growth, poverty and inequality. I am under no illusions that poverty must be eliminated, speedily. If not, we are an inhumane society. But I am also aware that an increase in economic growth doesn’t guarantee a more equitable distribution of the proceeds of national income-generation. So I asked James what he would do, not so much to eliminate poverty, but out of interest, specifically, what he thinks of inequality, which is an evil that correlates very reliably with the worst gratuitous acts of violence and other anti-social behaviour in our society. His response was impressive in parts but not wholly convincing.
“You can have economic growth and increased inequality. You can eliminate poverty and increase inequality.” This I loved to bits, I must confess. James is the first DA leader who so pointedly, and without qualification, is clear that the focus on growth that former shadow minister of finance Tim Harris punted is useful, but not a bulwark against inequity. A bigger economy, and less poverty, can only help us to become more equitable, sure. And will make some difference in making the Gini co-efficient less embarrassing, probably. But that isn’t guaranteed, and certainly the magnitude of the reduction in inequality that would result from a bit more economic growth, isn’t a certainty; I am pleased that James showed an instinct here for social justice.
“In my view,” he goes on to say though, “the most important thing to do is to eliminate poverty. I think that people who are extremely wealthy need to pour much more back into the economy. I think those bonuses that are paid to very wealthy people should be curtailed, not through regulation but through increased shareholder activism and internal measurements... But the key to tackle, first, is poverty elimination. Economic growth is necessary but not a sufficient condition to eliminate poverty... It is unacceptable that after twenty years into democracy... that especially black people live in such misery. It is utterly unacceptable. That is why the first target should be (to eliminate) poverty.’
This is great stuff. I am not sure if wealthy DA supporters would be chuffed, but anyone who cares about economic injustice would surely agree. My disappointment is that James is avoiding the inequality question, however, and so I pressed him to tell me how we can become a more equal society once we have reduced poverty (and assuming, for sake of discussion, that reduced poverty did not result in significant reduction in inequality).
He then tells me: “The biggest driver of inequality today is the divergence between wealthy black people and poor black people. That’s the biggest driver. And that’s a consequence of crony capitalism, which is to say that the tenders and some of the preferential access to goodies being handed around are creating a class of very wealthy people. That’s what’s driving inequality. The BEE processes should be spread more evenly.”
But this is too simple. Many, myself included, would agree that BEE doesn’t help to reduce inequality because opportunities for wealth creation are not spread evenly. James is right about that. But structural inequities in our society predate BEE. We were already deeply unequal before BEE and BBBEE policies were designed and poorly implemented. So it is unconvincing to posit these policies as the sole genesis of inequality. James should spend more of his diagnosis on the wealthy people, mostly white, that he skewered a few minutes earlier in his analysis of poverty. It is the effect of unearned privileges that resulted in a racial minority having the lion’s share of the country’s wealth. If we’re serious about reducing inequality, we would need to either reform or scrap BEE, but also, and critically so, have redistributive policies targeted directly at corporate citizens and wealthy South Africans.
At any rate, James was impressive in these policy exchanges whereas Maimane is far less magisterial when he talks policy. But does that matter in the face of Maimane’s charisma? I explored that with James.
Is great public speaking crucial for leadership?
I asked James whether voting delegates should care about the public speaking ability of the leadership candidates. And, since Maimane is a better orator than him, won’t that be a decisive problem for James? His response was a prudent concession that Maimane is, indeed, an excellent speaker.
Wilmot said: ‘Let me tell you... Mmusi is superb as a big platform speaker! He has a charm and a wit and charisma that is (exemplary), and clearly that is to his advantage in terms of communicating to people. I have other assets. I can’t pretend what I am not. I have a good mainspring of ideas, and some of them are policy ideas. I think ideas are really important to the future of the party… and to speak to voter concerns… I have the ability and agility to navigate through the complexities of this world, but also to speak very directly to voters. I like direct contact and I thrive on interpersonal engagement. The voters clearly must see what my assets are. I think I am more solid (than Maimane) as a person on policy and clearer in terms of understanding what needs to be done.
I have a lot of experience. I fought against apartheid. I spent time in jail. I know what indignity is. I know what the fight against apartheid was about. It was a fight for dignity. I worked in helping to put the constitution together when I was the head of IDASA. I have policy experience. I have been involved in policy relating to migration and electoral reform. I am very experienced when working in the world of politics and experience matters when the future of the country’s politics is coalition-politics. So you must know who you are dealing with when dealing with a Cyril Ramaphosa in terms of negotiations. It’s not simply a question of having the wisdom that comes with experience but also using it in a way that’s useful in managing and building trust in coalition politics.”
Obviously James is trying to imply that Maimane’s inexperience in politics could cost the party when it needs to engage in complex political negotiations once the ANC doesn’t get an outright electoral win. But that doesn’t change the aesthetics of a well-groomed, well-spoken competitor in Maimane.
Concluding thoughts
DA delegates will choose, in the end, between a charismatic, energetic, and leadership-hungry Maimane, and a thoughtful, analytic, policy guru in Wilmot James. But Maimane’s relative discomfort with teasing out, and engaging, questions of political ideology, values, and policy, will not cost him. That is because voters want to be inspired, and to be able to cheer you on when you walk to the podium. He is more electable than James.
James, I’m afraid, despite a sincere desire to still be a politician, would be most useful to our country as an academic, a political analyst, a writer, the head of another research outfit like IDASA was, or a combination of these roles. It is horrible to say that not having a great presence in interviews, on stage, and when debating others, matters. But politics is shallow. That is a serious problem for James’ campaign.
The country needs people like James in strategic technocratic positions like the role of Director-General. Alternatively, if he really wants to remain a career politician, he should be given a strategic role within the party. He was very impressive, off-the-record, in detailing the tactical issues that the party, and Maimane as leader, ought to grasp much better. If I was Maimane, I would pull James into my inner circle as soon as the festivities die down after this weekend’s elections.
In turn, James can help Maimane become a better leader, one that doesn’t think a referendum on the death penalty is a good idea in a liberal democratic society that cherishes constitutional supremacy; he can help Maimane go beyond saying “No one has a monopoly on what liberalism means!” and actually spell out what it means, for him; he can help Maimane grasp the complex challenge of dealing with poverty and inequality with tools that go beyond trying to get the economy to grow, and so on.
Because, although Maimane will be the likely winner this weekend, the Maimane we have seen in interviews in print, on radio, and on television, over the past two weeks, is a Maimane that the ANC doesn’t have to fear. He has a lot of work to do to improve his messaging and even revise some views he holds, so that he can avoid, for example, sounding less committed to progressive social policies than even the ANC. If he doesn’t self-examine after Sunday, then he is in danger of being a one-term party leader. Who knows what could happen if Lindiwe Mazibuko challenges Maimane at the next DA elective congress?
After all, Mazibuko is both charismatic, like Maimane, and analytic, like James. So Maimane cannot be comfortable after Sunday. He must own his strengths and chip away at the weaknesses. The DA can be proud, however, that we have come to learn of these strengths and weaknesses only because it held an open, public, democratic leadership contest. It has set an excellent precedent.
* Eusebius McKaiser is the best-selling author of A Bantu In My Bathroom and Could I Vote DA? A Voter’s Dilemma.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.