It’s heads you win, tails I lose

There is a middle way to understanding coalition politics. Coalitions have “good and bad” things. It depends, of course, on where you stand on things.

It can be good because it forces political leaders to work together to achieve a better future, where one group presumably keeps another in line, and thus expands the reach of “widely accepted” laws.

It can be bad because political leaders have to make concessions when compromise may not be the best way forward, and even “widely accepted laws” may not be better. They are simply widely accepted.

Commitment, here, refers to guiding public policy formulation along a middle path and seeing “both sides” and accommodating “both sides.” This does not mean that there are only two sides, but let’s continue with the binary, if only because the choice before the electorate is between continuity and rupture.

One problem with the rise of coalition politics in South Africa is that coalitions form after elections when, it seems, coalitions become a sharing of the spoils. Perhaps it would be better if they met before the elections; that way we would know what to expect and make better decisions.

As things stand, the struggle to form coalitions after the polls becomes a kind of harum-scarum, which very often ends in short-term gains or, as we have seen across the country in legislatures, political who are mere occupants or puppets. . It may be a scary statement, “but it is what it is.”

Challenging the opportunity to do more harm

More than any election since 1994, this month’s election is properly a choice between rupture and continuity. Even that is not enough to make a statement. Not that “continuity” is ideal in this case; The evidence from the last 15 years paints a bleak picture. It is not possible for things to continue as they have been since 2009.

One might imagine, therefore, that a break is necessary to force a break between the last 15 years and the dreams that may come. In this sense, the main contest is who would do the least damage to an already fractured (and rebellious) society.

An immediate problem is that the loudest political forces, those that combined can garner the most support – enough to topple the ANC – are a threat to any future order that may emerge. Of course, they and their followers may disagree. This is the alleged coalition between the EFF and Jacob Zuma’s uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party.

It excludes right-wingers like Herman Mashaba’s ActionSA, the openly tribalist (and quite conservative) IFP and a group of actors promoting regional identity or politics.

The DA and Rise Mzansi sit comfortably on a broad swath of liberalism, classical liberalism and, when no one is paying attention, light touches of conservatism with hints of social democracy.

I’m probably being too simplistic about Rise Mzansi, but they don’t seem to be anything more than the DA with a handshake and a smile, or the ANC after using hand sanitiser and leaving the queue at the restaurant to eat as much as may be possible. You can buffet. It is hard to imagine the DA and Rise Mzansi getting more than 30% of the national vote by the end of the month.

The DA, in particular, is like a firecracker that has been sinking deeper and deeper into the water over the past decade.

In terms of numbers, the EFF-MK is likely to pose the biggest challenge to the status quo, and may find a home in the imaginations of university students, of KwaZulu-Natal and among Zuma loyalists and people who believe in either other than Cyril. . The EFF and MK share a platform which I have placed on the far right of a spectrum due to their politics of revenge, threats of violence, ethno-nationalism and the cult of personality that characterizes their leaders.

Perhaps naively, I have always associated leftism with nonviolence, demilitarization, social justice, with the sincere humility of “peace at home, peace in the world,” the protection of common-pool resources and (how can I avoid using a big word?) no. -utilitarianism and doing good for the sake of doing good.

The EFF-MK represents none of that.

Given, especially, the parallels with interwar fascism (see here, here, hereeither here) there is no doubt that they would be disastrous for the country.

The choice between rupture and continuity is not easy. It is like the metaphorical threat that runs in the Strait of Messina; Turn one way and you will be crushed, turn the other and you will be devoured. The only certainty is that continuity is unsustainable.

Much more can go wrong

South Africa has not hit rock bottom. Countries like Somalia and Liberia hit rock bottom when I studied their collapse in the early 1990s. Very little seems to have changed in states like Somalia, Liberia or Haiti.

South Africa is not a failed state either. The State is strong enough. The legal system is strong. The education system exists, but it is in an atrocious state; I still don’t understand how a college freshman is incapable of reading or writing a complex sentence.

The private sector is strong, but it is exasperated and its loyalty is rapidly approaching the end. My view of the capitalist system comes into play here. I believe that those who have money will hoard more and more of their wealth and place it on the black markets, strengthening the Bad economy and weaken the societies in which they are inserted.

In India, a research project concluded that the shadow economy was “devouring the guts of Indian society.” Read an introduction to Arun Kumar’s book, Understanding the black economy and black money in India. I’m not that positive about “correct or remedy” the problem.

The intelligentsia remains vibrant, but it is shrinking and continues to become the center of its own attention. I have a special interest in the role of intellectuals. At best, the intelligentsia fulfills two important functions in society: stabilization of the social system and critical analysis. South African intellectuals (although I’m not smart enough, I should probably count myself among the intellectuals) may be losing confidence in their claims to autonomy, while they happily engage in rivalries among themselves and, of course, promote single narratives on which their support. depends.

On the whole, South Africa is a democratic country governed by laws, almost all of which remain in force, and with agencies and institutions in place, although they are constantly being undermined and may not last to effectively serve the next generation of South Africans.

Pick a side and flip a coin

What will happen after the election and over the next few years is open to speculation and conjecture. It depends, of course, on our political, ideological, religious, pecuniary or other preferences.

It’s really that simple; You choose a side, but you can’t know which way the coin will fall. We should probably stick to basic or classical probability theories, but I’m tempted to say that the coin can fall on its edge if it is thick or wide enough.

This, anyway, is the sense one gets from the politics of radical populists, and especially from the idea that South Africa’s next finance minister could be the EFF’s Floyd Shivambu. There are at least four things to take away from Julius Malema’s suggestion that Shivambu would be the pawn in the compromise game that could emerge after the election. I actually don’t think that’s going to happen, but…

Firstly, by presenting Shivambu as the country’s next finance minister, Malema could be flying a kite. He shows up to gauge the reaction.

Secondly, as with most ideologues who want to achieve power without accountability, questioning or transparency, and are exceptionally good at performative politics, Malema may be making a demand that he knows is impossible to meet. You have to be a religious reader of sentimental greeting cards to “believe in the impossible.”

Third, let us assume that Shivambu is actually well-informed, insightful, visionary and sufficiently familiar with the political and technical workings of global finance. If this is the case, he will succeed. Except there is no evidence to suggest that Shivambu has any of the above qualities and attributes, and that he is a stable genius, whatever the records of the politics department at Wits University may be. can evidence.

Read more at Daily Maverick: Elections 2024

This brings us to the fourth point, which takes us back to the top. Most likely, a coalition government will be formed in the next elections. This government can be elected to ensure continuity (what most people in the private sector and civil society prefer), or it would be a government that wants to simultaneously break with everything and everyone associated with the last three decades, and especially with the compromise reached in the early 1990s.

Drawing on Malema’s revolutionary rhetoric, his opposition to the political settlement of the early 1990s and the consequent “losses” (which I previously detailed) we may have a complete reset of South Africa’s political economy.

This would effectively take us back to year zero of democratic South Africa, beginning with massive disruption and upheaval. The electorate’s choice can then be heads (continuity) or tails (rupture); Neither result is comforting.

Regardless of how good or bad we think of the compromises, there are some that force us to develop new and better coping mechanisms if we want to hand over to the next generation a country worth living in. DM