10, 9, 8 . . . South Africa's slide into decline
THABO Mbeki endured eight days in September, a turbulent period in 2008 that led to his ousting as President of the Republic. With Jacob Zuma, it was the so-called nine wasted years, a presidency characterised by state capture and economic decline. For President Cyril Ramaphosa it was a case of ten minutes of shame, and it happened on the world stage.
The meeting between Ramaphosa and US President Donald Trump started well. It should have been a sign. When it is too good to be true, it probably isn't.
Ramaphosa must have been nervous but, for the first 20 minutes, he came across as relaxed, in control and, at times, even jovial. He had clearly learnt from the ill-fated encounter Volodymyr Zelenskyy had with Trump. In contrast to the Ukraine president, Ramaphosa, went out of his way to thank Trump and praise him. And then, about 20 minutes into the meeting, Trump asked for the lights to be dimmed. What followed was a video of Julius Malema addressing supporters.
In a voice that is now familiar to most South Africans, he chanted 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer' and spoke about expropriating land of white farmers without compensation.
The mood in the room changed. The chant was now exposed to a global audience. There was no context and, as a result, it came across as crude. Inciteful. Shameful. Ramaphosa wiped his face. He was probably hot in his suit and tie. There were also bright camera lights, and the room was packed with people. But those who study body language claim it could also be a sign of anxiety – perhaps a desire to wipe away a problem or stress.
But this problem was not going away. The chant was first uttered by Peter Mokaba, a former president of the ANC Youth League. He did so while addressing a rally following the murder of Chris Hani by right-wing whites. The chant has always been contentious. But the Equality Court found it did not constitute hate speech and should be protected as freedom of speech.
Afrikaner lobby group AfriForum did approach the Constitutional Court to appeal the matter, but the court found the application had no reasonable prospect of success. As a result, Malema cannot be arrested for singing the song, as suggested by Trump. Ramaphosa did point out that official government policy was completely against what Malema said. But what Ramaphosa didn't say was that neither he nor others in the ANC have done enough to distance themselves from the chant.
After the voice of Julius Malema, came another voice well known to most South Africans – Jacob Zuma. These days, he is the leader of the uMkhonto weSizwe Party. But not too long ago he was the leader of the ANC and President of the Republic. In the recordings played, he too had a go at white farmers.
When the video ended, US Vice President JD Vance handed his president a thick stack of pages that reportedly depicted the brutality of the attacks on white farmers.
The DA's John Steenhuisen, in his role as agriculture minister in Ramaphosa's executive, put up a spirited defence: 'They are both leaders of opposition minority parties,' he said.
'The reason my party, the DA, chose to join hands with Mr Ramaphosa's party was precisely to keep those people out of power. We cannot have these people sitting in the Union Buildings making decisions.'
But by then the world had realised that not all was well in South Africa. At best we are a violent bunch. At worst we are a racist nation. In those ten minutes, South Africa had been exposed. In his own unique rhetoric, Trump summed it up: 'There are many bad things happening in many countries, but this is very bad – very, very bad!'
It didn't matter whether Trump had the full facts or not. He had enough to paint a picture, and it wasn't a rosy one. Anyone wanting to visit the country or invest in it would have been forced to reconsider. Trump then invited three men he knew and clearly admired to say a few words.
They were businessman Johann Rupert and golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen. It was ironic that it took an American president to invite the men to speak because it was a courtesy their own government had not offered them – certainly not in recent years and not in public. Yet these were no ordinary men. Rupert is a celebrated businessman who is one of the richest people in South Africa. Els and Goosen are both masters at the game of golf.
The second irony was that while the voices of Malema and Zuma have become so well known, the voices of Rupert, Els and Goosen have rarely been heard in South Africa. Yet, they are the kind of people whose opinion should be sought and whose success we should emulate. It speaks to the society we have become. It is one where those who seek to antagonise and break apart become popular, while those who seek to build are ignored. It is a society that places credibility on those who shout the loudest and avoids those with integrity.
In this society, mediocrity is celebrated and merit shunned. It is no wonder then that South Africa finds itself in an economic mess. The economy is barely growing and certainly not at levels that will create meaningful jobs. For more than a decade and half the country has been sliding into economic decline. The projections for the coming year are dismal. Economic growth is projected at 1.4% with slight increases in 2026 and 2027 but nowhere near enough to create meaningful jobs for a growing population.
The solution to the problem emerged in the White House get together.
'We need more foreign investment in our country,' urged Cosatu president Zingiswa Losi.
"If the South African economy does not grow, the culture of lawlessness and dependency will grow,' said Rupert, mirroring the sentiments of organised labour.
It means that if our president wants to change the trajectory of economic growth, it cannot be more of the same. There are a few realities that must be acknowledged. No one will invest in a place where they must give away a chunk of a business they have nurtured. No one will invest in a country where they can't hire the best talent for the job. No one will put their money where the government can take away their land for nil compensation. And no one will invest in a place they don't feel safe in.
If the South African government is to change the fortunes of this country, it needs to ditch broad based black economic empowerment. People need to be hired on the basis on merit and not skin colour. Land expropriation without compensation needs to be reconsidered. Above all, South Africa needs to make investors feel safe. But the clock is ticking.
This Government of National Unity is at the end of their first year of a five-year term in office.
As Steenhuisen warned: 'This government, working together, needs the support of our allies around the world, to grow our economy and shut the door forever on that rabble.'
That 'rabble' is the EFF and MK. Combined they got one out of every four votes cast in the last general elections. If this government cannot improve the fortunes of ordinary South Africans, support for the so-called rabble will rise and Constitutional Democracy may be done for. Then, what Donald Trump thinks South Africa is, will become our reality.10, 9, 8, 7, 6 5, 4 …..
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
2 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
CRL chair's claims against its executive director are 'defamatory', Forsa says
Freedom of Religion South Africa (Forsa) has strongly denied what it termed false and defamatory allegations made by chairperson of the CRL Rights Commission Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva on Thursday. During a media briefing convened by the commission, Mkhwanazi-Xaluva alleged Forsa and its executive director Michael Swain had accused her, Cheryl Zondi and/or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation of receiving R1.5m from the National Lotteries Commission. Zondi was a witness in the rape trial of Nigerian televangelist Timothy Omotoso. Forsa said this donation was reported widely in the media. It said a press release from the National Lotteries Commission of December 13 2018 stated the Cheryl Zondi Foundation had partnered with the Izimvo 447 NPC and received R1.5m to aid their work for those exploited in sacred spaces. 'Neither Michael Swain, nor Forsa, has ever alleged financial misconduct of any kind. Such claims are false and wholly without any factual basis at all,' the organisation said in a statement. Forsa said it was disappointed that Mkhwanazi-Xaluva did not first seek clarity or engage with it before making public accusations and threatening legal action. 'Her subsequent laying of criminal charges against Michael Swain and Forsa is seen as vexatious and unfounded. It appears to be a personally motivated attack designed to intimidate and deter Forsa (or others) from opposing the chair's agenda to push again for state regulation of religion.' Forsa said it reserved all legal rights in its response to this matter and was considering appropriate legal remedies in response to these false and harmful allegations. 'These include a formal demand for retraction as well as amending its extant damages claim for defamation.' Forsa said it was not against any person or institution, including Mkhwanazi-Xaluva or the commission. 'On the contrary, Forsa supports all of its legitimate and constitutional objectives. However, our singular focus is the protection and advancement of religious freedom and related constitutional rights in South Africa.' Forsa said a letter from more than 20 senior religious leaders representing about 12-million South Africans was sent to President Cyril Ramaphosa in 2019, raising several concerns, including that Mkhwanazi-Xaluva simultaneously served as CRL chairperson and deputy chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation. The commission was a Chapter 9 institution, created to be independent and impartial, accountable only to parliament, Forsa said. 'Thus, its chair must avoid bias, preferential treatment and dual loyalties. Arguably, this includes keeping clear boundaries when interacting with organisations, especially advocacy organisations, linked to matters before the commission.' Forsa said under Mkhwanazi-Xaluva's leadership at the time, the CRL strongly pushed for state regulation of religion. 'A wide diversity of faith communities strongly opposed the CRL's proposal. The 'conflict of interest' concern arose because the CRL chair cited the Omotoso case as a high-profile example to justify the CRL's proposed regulation model (via peer review councils, licensing of religious leaders, etc).' Her appointment as the deputy chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation, therefore, created a strong impression of an overlap of interest and influence. 'On the one hand, the chair of the CRL is tasked with impartial interaction with faith communities, constitutional compliance, and safeguarding diverse religious rights. Acting as deputy chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation is an advocacy-aligned — not neutral — position.' This raised legitimate concerns about a conflict of interest on the part of the chairperson, Forsa said. 'It must be stressed that this in no way raises any concern or casts any suspicion on Cheryl Zondi or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation.' Since being reappointed, Mkhwanazi-Xaluva has continued promoting proposals for state regulation of religion, including the introduction of peer review mechanisms, Forsa said. It said it had consistently opposed this course of action, repeatedly warning that state regulation of religion was unnecessary, unconstitutional, unworkable and unaffordable. 'In Forsa's public education efforts to point out the dangers to religious freedom of state regulation of religion, we gave the historical background to the current context. One part of this extensive presentation referenced the 2019 letter to the president in good faith and with full transparency.' Forsa said the 2019 letter did not accuse Mkhwanazi-Xaluva of theft or corruption of any kind and did not contain any accusations against Zondi or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation at all.
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
The weaponisation of intelligence in SA politics
Nco Dube a political economist, businessman, and social commentator. Image: Supplied The recent revelation by former uMkhonto weSizwe Party Secretary General Floyd Shivambu, who claims he was sacked on the basis of a fake intelligence report, is neither new nor surprising in the context of South Africa's post-apartheid political landscape. Instead, it is the latest in a long line of controversies where unverified intelligence reports have been deployed as weapons in intra-party feuds, factional battles, and the broader contest for power, often with former president Jacob Zuma at the centre. The use of intelligence reports—real, doctored, or entirely fabricated—as tools for political ends is deeply embedded in our recent history. The so-called 'Browse Mole Report' is a prime example: a controversial document that allegedly implicated various political figures and was used as justification for decisive political actions, despite its questionable provenance. Throughout Zuma's presidency and beyond, a series of unverified intelligence reports have surfaced, each conveniently appearing at moments of heightened political tension, often to the detriment of Zuma's rivals or critics. These reports have not only been used to discredit opponents but have also served as pretexts for removals, suspensions, and even criminal investigations. The pattern is clear: intelligence, or at least the suggestion of it, becomes a bludgeon in the hands of those seeking to manipulate outcomes within the ANC (or its offshoots like the EFF and the MKP) and the state at large. Another one of the most infamous cases was the so-called 'Operation Check Mate' intelligence report. In March 2017, then-President Jacob Zuma abruptly instructed Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan to cancel an international investor roadshow and return to South Africa. The only explanation offered was an 'intelligence report' alleging that Gordhan was plotting with foreign interests in the UK and the US to overthrow the state. The report's existence and authenticity were never substantiated, and it was widely dismissed as a fabrication designed to justify Gordhan's removal and facilitate a cabinet reshuffle. In December 2021, journalist Thabo Makwakwa received a purported State Security Agency (SSA) report alleging that the United States had infiltrated the ANC's leadership to the point of influencing or subverting national policy. The report was used to justify a High Court gag order preventing publication, ostensibly for reasons of national security. However, the Supreme Court of Appeal later ruled that the classification of the report as 'secret' was unjustified and that its suppression served the political interests of the ANC, not the country. The court's decision exposed how the SSA's mechanisms were misused to fight internal ANC battles and highlighted the blurred lines between party and state. There have also been instances where fake intelligence reports were used to push false claims of judicial corruption. Political figures like Bantu Holomisa, Julius Malema, and former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane have been accused of leveraging such reports to undermine the judiciary's credibility. These tactics not only damage individual reputations but also erode public trust in key democratic institutions. Another example is the 'enemy of the state' dossier targeting the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa). This fake report surfaced during a period of intense labour and political contestation, aiming to discredit Numsa leaders and justify state surveillance or action against them. The report was later exposed as baseless, but not before it had caused significant disruption within the union and the broader labour movement. The Supreme Court of Appeal's rulings and investigative journalism have repeatedly shown how the SSA has been weaponised to serve the interests of particular ANC factions. The agency's resources and credibility have been compromised by their use in intra-party feuds, often with little regard for legality or national interest. Shivambu's claim that a fake intelligence report was used to justify his removal fits seamlessly into this established pattern. His experience reflects the broader reality of intelligence being weaponised in the service of political factionalism. The implications of his allegations are profound: they highlight the persistent challenge of verifying intelligence in a context where its very existence is often shrouded in secrecy and where the mere mention of a 'report' can be enough to destroy reputations and careers. Why Intelligence Is So Easily Weaponised South Africa's intelligence community has its roots in the clandestine operations of both the apartheid regime and the liberation movements. The skills, networks, and mindsets developed during those years did not simply disappear with the advent of democracy. Instead, they were repurposed, sometimes for noble ends, but often for the pursuit of personal or factional power. The ANC, as the dominant political force, has long been riven by internal divisions. Intelligence operatives and their reports are frequently drawn into these battles, not in the service of national security, but to gather dirt on rivals, discredit them, and sway internal elections. This dynamic has only intensified as the stakes have grown, with control of the state and its resources hanging in the balance. The Zuma Factor Jacob Zuma's career is inextricably linked with the intelligence world. As a former head of intelligence for the ANC in exile, Zuma has always understood the power of information and disinformation. His rise to power and his presidency were marked by a proliferation of intelligence-related scandals, from the so-called 'spy tapes' to the endless stream of dossiers implicating his enemies in plots, corruption, or treason. Zuma's embedded relationship with intelligence operatives, both official and shadowy, allows him to cultivate an aura of omniscience and threat: his opponents could never be sure what he knows, what he was willing to fabricate, or how far he would go to protect himself. The Mechanics of Fake Intelligence Reports Fake intelligence reports are typically crafted by individuals or groups with access to the language, format, and networks of the intelligence community. They are then leaked, sometimes anonymously, sometimes through willing intermediaries, to the media, party structures, or law enforcement agencies. The reports are rarely subjected to rigorous verification; their power lies in their ability to sow doubt and suspicion, not in their factual accuracy. Once in circulation, these reports serve multiple functions, discrediting political opponents by associating them with scandal or criminality. They then justify suspensions, removals, or investigations under the guise of 'due diligence,' creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust, deterring would-be challengers from stepping out of line. The media, often hungry for scoops and exclusives, can become unwitting amplifiers of these reports. Even when journalists are sceptical, the mere existence of a 'leaked intelligence report' is newsworthy, and the damage to reputations is often irreversible, regardless of subsequent denials or debunking. Few, if any, of those responsible for producing or disseminating fake intelligence reports are ever held to account. The ephemeral nature of these documents and the secrecy that surrounds them make it difficult to trace responsibility or impose consequences. For those in power, the ability to instill fear and uncertainty is a potent weapon. Zuma's Legacy: Intelligence as a Source of Power and Control Zuma's presidency did not invent the use of intelligence as a political tool, but it did elevate it to an art form. By cultivating relationships with both official intelligence operatives and shadowy figures, Zuma created an environment where information, real or fabricated, became the currency of power. His willingness to deploy intelligence innuendo, to hint at plots and conspiracies, and to use reports (however dubious) as justification for political action has left a lasting mark on South African politics.
The Herald
2 hours ago
- The Herald
Ramaphosa to make judiciary fully independent of justice department
Ramaphosa said the dependence of the judiciary on the government has been odd. 'A joint committee is now in action to finalise this whole process of the independence of the judiciary. It has been an anomaly of our constitutional architecture that we've had parliament as an independent institution in our constitution fully and properly recognised, and the executive — but the judiciary has on an unfair basis had to depend on government on a variety of matters from getting approval on the appointment of people and not even being in complete control of their own budget,' said Ramaphosa. 'This comes to an end now. The judiciary will be independent. We will ensure the judiciary is rightly constituted as an equal branch of the state, same level as the executive and the legislature.' At the meeting with the senior leaders of the judiciary led by the chief justice earlier this month, Ramaphosa and minister of justice Mmamoloko Kubayi committed to ensuring the independence of the state. 'Within the principle of the separation of powers, each arm of the state has a responsibility to co-operate with, and provide support to, the other arms of the state in giving full effect to our constitution. It requires, in particular, that we create conditions in which each arm of the state can fulfil their respective mandates without hindrance,' said Ramaphosa at the time. 'It is an opportunity to develop common approaches on issues that are critical to the effective functioning of the judiciary. At the core of our deliberations is our shared commitment to safeguarding and entrenching the independence of the judiciary and ensuring that it has the space and means to administer justice.' Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said as much as the judiciary has always been independent, some aspects including its finances have been under the department. 'It's always been independent but on some administrative aspects they were dependent on the department. So those administrative areas will now be fully managed by the judiciary as they should be,' he said. TimesLIVE
