Sipho Seepe
Remarks by various political parties during the opening of Parliament should have put paid to any doubt that South Africans live in different worlds. South Africans of all walks of life would easily find themselves accommodated in Charles Dickens’s opening paragraph of his book, “The Tale of Two Cities”.
Dickens wrote. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”
For beneficiaries of apartheid and a few microwaved black millionaires who have been co-opted into the socio-economic arrangement, these are the best of times and age of wisdom. For this lot, President Cyril Ramaphosa was always the best bet to defer the dreams and aspirations of his people in return for 30 pieces of silver. It is precisely for this reason, and others, that they wasted no time in endorsing the so-called Government of National Unity (GNU).
For the oppressed, who continue to languish in conditions of squalor, the dispensation represents the worst of times – the past seven years of the ANC of Ramaphosa reversed whatever gains were made in 30 years. They feel betrayed by the party that branded itself as the custodian of their aspirations. The formation of the GNU adds insult to the injury. Responding to Ramaphosa’s opening address, the leader of the Umkhonto we Sizwe in Parliament, Dr John Hlophe, couldn’t have been blunter.
“The establishment of the Government of National Unity is singularly a very cruel joke by the Ramaphosa faction of the ANC and the Democratic Alliance perpetuated against the oppressed and downtrodden masses of our people. Our people are painfully aware that it will be impossible to create a united nation in South Africa unless the legacy of colonialism and apartheid is addressed.”
In case he was misunderstood, Hlophe asked: “Mr President: Through what magic do you hope to force a national unity of the oppressor and the oppressed, the exploiter and the exploited, the rich capitalist and the toiling working class?”
Hlophe’s admonition is an ever-present threat to the partnership that is underwritten by black inferiority and white supremacy. The DA has been clear about its position of influence. Asked about what the position of the DA would be on the Basic Education Laws Amendment (Bela) Bill, which the ANC supports, Helen Zille, the DA federal chair, did not mince her words: “The Bela Bill is a non-negotiable for us. The right of school governing bodies to determine the language policy of the school is a red line for us, and the ANC has been aware of that from day one.”
The upmanship and brinkmanship by Zille triggered a response from the minister of mineral and petroleum resources. A fuming Gwede Mantashe reportedly told Zille that she was not the boss and should stop trying to usurp the president’s power.
Touching on land, Hlophe was unwavering: “The restitution of land to black South Africans remains the yardstick against which the sell-out ANC and DA GNU government, against which your performance will be measured.” For as long as the land question was not addressed, all the promises of eradicating poverty and the exhortation “we are in this together” would be meaningless.
In its 2022 report, Inequality in Southern Africa, after ranking South Africa as the most unequal country in the world, the World Bank cites land ownership as one of the drivers of inequality. The report continues: “In South Africa, the legacy of colonialism and apartheid, rooted in racial and spatial segregation, continues to reinforce inequality of outcomes … Inequality in household wealth and low intergenerational economic mobility entrench inequality of opportunity … data reveal large disparities in holdings of household assets and liabilities, regardless of the component of wealth being considered … the top 10 percent of the population in South Africa hold 80.6 percent of financial assets.”
For the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP), nothing short of radical socio-economic transformation would address the socio-economic woes plaguing South African society. More of the same dose presented by Ramaphosa would only serve to defer or postpone the resolution of the current malaise.
As if to echo Hlophe, EFF firebrand Naledi Chirwa did not beat about the bush: “There is nothing the establishment masquerading as the Government of National Unity can do to deter us from seeking out our generational mission. The government of the ANC has not fooled all of us. The battle lines have been drawn. It is the GNU versus the people of South Africa. The youth will continue to chant: ‘Economic freedom in our lifetime.”’
Not to be left in the raging debate regarding the GNU, the SACP, through its secretary-general has been quick to argue that the differences between the ANC, EFF and MKP were ideologically manageable: “The strategic enemy of our revolution is monopoly capital, represented politically through the expression of the DA, therefore, you can't treat the DA the same as the MK Party or EFF, irrespective of the differences between these two organisations.”
Not unexpectedly, the white monopoly-owned mainstream media has also been hard at work in presenting the GNU as the best thing since the advent of democracy. In its attempt to rescue Ramaphosa, who has since been described as a white monopoly project, mainstream media has lapped up and trumpeted Ramaphosa’s version of the political developments. Masking an unmitigated political fiasco, Ramaphosa wants us to believe that the voters “through their votes, determined that the leaders of our country should set aside their political differences and come together as one to overcome the severe challenges that confront our nation”.
Understanding that this would not be enough to remove scepticism, Ramaphosa has sought to advance the view that the GNU is comprised of parties that are committed to the rule of law and constitutionalism. While not untrue, Ramaphosa’s claims are mischievous and constitutionally incompetent.
The mischief lies in his attempt to project the MKP and EFF as parties that have no respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. With no shred of evidence, the view has been repeated with gay abandon by political illiterates masquerading as professors of law and constitutionalism. What we are dealing with here is an ingrained prejudice that was unleashed against the former president Jacob Zuma and anyone associated with him. The charlatans subscribe to a view that if a lie was repeated often enough, it would resemble the truth. As a matter of record, the EFF has sought to use the courts to hold the executive to account.
Hlophe’s statement needs repeating: “Let’s deal with that. It is easy. A constitution is there, and it is binding upon all of us. It is the supreme law of the land. Indeed, laws or conduct inconsistent with the Constitution cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. We intend to act within the law and then the National Assembly will act within the rules and practices here in the National Assembly. We’re not hooligans. We are going to act within the law and fight for our cause within the law.”
It also needs repeating that there is nothing wrong in changing and challenging the law and the Constitution. Charlatans would want to believe that. The very Constitution charlatans swear by anticipates being subjected to review or amendments.
Section 74 of the Constitution is dedicated to constitutional amendments. Section 74(1), for instance, may be amended by a bill passed by the National Assembly, with a supporting vote of 75% of its members and a support by at least six provinces in the National Council of Provinces. Section 74(2) argues that Chapter 2 would require two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly, with a supporting vote of at least six provinces.
Amendments are occasioned by new problems and developments that may have not been apparent at the time of the conception of the Constitution. Constitutions are there to serve the people, not vice versa. We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that a constitution is so sacrosanct and that it should not be tampered with.
If the robustness of the debates is anything to go by, the seventh Parliament is on a good start. Battle lines have been drawn between the apologists of the status quo on the one hand, and those that want to change it.
* Professor Sipho Seepe is a higher education and strategy consultant.
** The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not necessarily the views of IOL or Independent Media