EFF’ (blessee) & DA (blesser) Vat & Sit arrangement a bad deal!


What does the EFF offer of vote to DA really say?


The August 3, 2016 Municipal Elections have come and gone, we have lived through two weeks of anxiously awaited coalition talks, agreements, jet-setting in bargaining of parties on what they consider important. With an impending deadline on properly constituted councils looming large in expiry of 24hours municipalities since last week have begun to finalise their councils.


Today the DA speaker candidate Vasco Da Gama is confirmed with a victory of 145 – 126 beating the ANC’s Constance Bapela candidacy. We are eagerly awaiting the Mayoral voting outcome between incumbent Parks Tau and Herman Mashaba, by all indications the vote will go the same as what we have seen with the Speaker.


The EFF has dispatched its second in charge Floyd Shivambu to ensure a repeat of the Rustenburg Municipality vote outcome does not occur. I think the EFF is not as united as its leadership wants to advance. I would not be surprised if some EFF voters who voted for the DA Speaker will switch their votes and god with Parks Tau. Don’t forget the EFF wanted to force the IEC to accept it can vote and show whom they voted for, meaning they must be using this as a means to ensure betrayal does not take place. It tried to push that through as tactic arguing those who oppose can after the elections raise their concerns.


In the aftermath of the coalition discussions, deals and trading it is perhaps time to ask how clever was the EFF deal in not entering with the DA into a full blown coalition but opted to give its vote where its needed against the ANC. A coalition government we are told is a cabinet of parliamentary government in which several political parties cooperate, reducing the dominance of any one party within that coalition. The usual reason for this arrangement is that no party on its own can achieve a majority in the parliament.


An agreement as defined by the dictionary is harmony or accordance in opinion or feeling. It may also attest the absence of incompatibility between two things or a consistency.


A week ago, the EFF had chosen an open veld in the sprawling Alexandra Township to share with South Africa the outcomes of their coalition talks with essentially the ANC and the DA. The press statement concluded with SA hearing the EFF has failed to secure their 8 (essentially non municipal related) items with the ANC and thus they have opted for the DA with whom there are more consensuses. The EFF leader was quick to point out that they do have grave problems with the DA’s Mayoral Candidate of Herman Mashaba particularly for disparaging, irregular and thoughtless comments the ‘Black Like Me’, business man made about the poor, and by extension black people.


We heard that the EFF refused to do a proper coalition but entered a loose agreement in which it will vote for the DA against the ANC. They claim they not bedfellows but the DA has its vote.


It is here that I wish to postulate is the agreement of the EFF not a stronger deal in favour of the DA than the coalition agreements other parties entered with the DA?


At a surface and emotional level we heard the EFF does not want any positions, it believes it must be voted in as a government to appoint its people, not trade a for positions as a result of hung councils. At surface level this sounds a very noble and gallant stance yet it’s perhaps devoid of how politics as praxis is actualized.


What is the EFF saying by giving its vote to the DA?


  • Firstly by willingly giving their hand (vote) to the DA after being approached by the DA, the EFF confirmed a traditional male dominant – female inferior patriarchal notion and status of a young bride. This occurs in the month we pause to celebrate women and a democratic era where equality of gender is non negotiable. Yet the EFF in endorsing this archaic patriarchal society where male dominance rule, takes us all back in time where we simply left ages ago.


  • If we go back to the accepted definition of the word agreement, then the EFF shares ‘harmony or accordance in opinion or feeling’ with the DA. We must therefore ask what is the harmony or accordance in opinion or feeling? Maybe I can venture to say the harmony and accord of the EFF and the DA, is informed by a common agreement of anything but the ANC.


  • Thus the EFF with this agreement did not respect its claimed ideological stance; in fact it showed how flimsy its claimed ideological footprint is, for it was easily sacrificed at the table of anti-ANC punishment.


  • It equally confirmed its androgynous suspicious policy footprint. We all know the EFF is high on tactics to hog attention but low on policy input. Thus any relationship entered with a dominant policy footprint one, will confirm this known policy weakness on the part of the EFF.


  • The EFF in offering its vote to the DA, proverbially confirmed a marriage of convenience for the dominant partner in this vat-en-sit (a male and female partnership of no commitments) union, where the EFF signs what the senior double dating and philandering DA proposes. It involuntarily reminded me of the status of custom marriages under apartheid firstly they were not legal; secondly it had no legal standing as it relates to claim on the part of the woman. Thirdly the male figure was the dominant and only true decision-maker in the arrangement.


Often the woman derived an identity, essence and meaning in finality from being married to the dominant male.


  • Thus it can be argued the EFF’s agreement, is perhaps a short-sighted and ill-conceived idea because it expresses a desire to offer its most prized possession, the vote, to someone it does not really like or is in love with. It can be argued short-sighted because as teenager, gets angry and reaches a place of hate for his parent, so the EFF is angry with the ANC. This anger drives her into the arm of a much older modern blesser, who is in agreement with the teenager that her parent is an enemy and simply not good. The result is the teenager shares a room and a bed and sheets with the older philandering avuncular blesser.


  • It says the EFF is less concerned or interested in the accepted and acknowledged good work as confirmed as confirmed by even EFF leadership, exemplified in programmes, initiatives and trajectory for a transformed and spatially readjusted city region that was done and is being done for example in city of Johannesburg.


  • The EFF with their offer to vote for the DA confirmed the anger of blindness to punish the ANC. With this offer of votes the EFF says our anger is more important than what the voters decided, our personalised anger stands paramount and has pre-eminence.


  • By willingly giving their vote to the DA, the EFF despite raising justifiable challenges with the DA on its candidate Herman Mashaba a fundamental aspect, confirmed its junior status to kow-tow to the instruction of the DA as male dominant final voice on the subject matter.


  • The EFF has confirmed its youthfulness and innocence to the world of coalition politics of governance.



What does this arrangement mean for the DA?


  • The willingness of the EFF to offer itself in voting sense confirmed the dominant male status of the DA in this union, agreement or however defined. It proverbially confirms the dominant apartheid male status of the DA, though in era of democracy.
  • It also means, the DA will rise to power in places where the voters did not entrust them to lead. In the City of Johannesburg this is glaring, The DA secured only 38% of the vote. This is a clear confirmation that the DA is not the trusted party by far. Yet the EFF will ensure it obtains that much desired leadership.


  • It says on another level to the DA, that it can stop, stymie retard the current functional programmes and legacy initiatives for it has the blessing of an angry EFF to undo the very accepted good work.


  • This deal at another level says the DA is in charge and their policy will take precedence, particularly if the DA can find a away to structure it to remotely sound the opposite of the ANC. As long as they can hold the ANC up as the enemy the EFF will sign all the papers with their vote.
  • It furthermore says to the DA, you can share in the proverbial virgin choice collations of marriage. Because the EFF is the junior and the virgin bride in this marriage, the DA is an old hand at having affairs and has a married a number of other women. Do not forget the Patricia De Lille’s ID whom it chained, it smooched Ramphele’s Aganang to death, it had flings with Lekota’s COPE and even chased after an uncircumcised yet to be made a man Vavi because it saw potential. Not to mention all the one night stands in many places and hotels, formula ones a cross the length and breadth of SA. We cannot forget these include amongst others ACDP, FF and many others not known.
  • Now in this season this old hand, this skirt-chasing lusty DA enters its most hostile yet affair, but the DA has tamed this one too, because without the nagging legal agreement of marriage. The DA laughs because it got the EFF votes and they did nothing to earn it, they just need to be anti-ANC, for you are not kept accountable by this loose vat–en-sit arrangement as desired by the EFF.
  • You can have access to the choicest possession of this your girlfriend; she does not want a marriage, because she offered herself for your pleasure. Her only condition you must just dislike her parent.


I foresee a bumpy ride, as this vat-en-sit arrangement or case will end up in the public court of divorce. It would not be surprising, as this marriage grows older day by day that the EFF voters as they have begun to show, raise their voices in displeasure against their leaders who had entered into this bad deal.



Clyde N.S Ramalaine

Political Commentator


What does the EFF result really mean?


– don’t forget an ANC at its weakest ever produced this much-celebrated EFF results-


Let me firstly congratulate South Africa for again staging successful democratic municipal elections that is free, fair and transparent. Listening to the CNN broadcast on our elections will convince one the ANC has lost all political power, then again that’s CNN.


I also wish to congratulate the DA for their securing of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro, which confirms their aim to proverbially concur SA in elections from the Cape of Good Hope along its coastal line.


Let me equally congratulate the EFF for having grown its voting footprint albeit by a 2% margin. There is no question that the EFF is a new kid on the block if its age is considered the only yardstick.


In the aftermath of the now pronounced results as shared by the IEC, it is perhaps time to ask how do we interpret the EFF election and what does it mean in the bigger scheme of things.


I am on record as can be confirmed from an earlier opinion piece, where I questioned the continual existence of the EFF beyond its antithetical twin-personality of origin namely Jacob Zuma and Julius Malema. In such I maintained that the EFF primarily and fundamentally exists to dethrone Jacob Zuma in vengeance of a Julius Malema expulsion.


I stated when either of these two might for whatever reason leave the political scene the relevance of the EFF will prove obsolete. In case you think what is he smoking, because the EFF has performed so well. I still hold today the same stance. It is two years later l hold it is confirmed that the EFF cannot shed its original reason for its existence and remains trapped in such therefore muzzled in not finding policy relevance. The EFF simple cannot untie itself from a Malema as the epicentre of its daily life and he is entrenched as the EFF and the EFF is Malema.


Journey therefore with me as I try and make the case that we are not reading the elections results of the EFF in soberness of mind. We not looking at the time we are living in neither the state of the ANC in this election as its weakest ever in election history.


There are perhaps two important issues that are conveniently left in abeyance in our current elections results. One being the true state of the ANC and the secondly the new role of kingmakers for coalition government.


One does not mean to pour cold water on the performance of the EFF, for that would be completely uncalled for and made out as a form of sour grapes.


The success escapades of the EFF is pronounced in admiration of accolades and equally dovetailed with a claim of them being only 3 years old.


It is today the kingmaker in at least 3 Metro municipalities. Its status of kingmaker is today the talk of town, to the extent that they plausibly misread their actual election results.


What is perhaps completely forgotten, as fact is that the ANC came to these polls in 2016 the weakest it has ever been in any election before? It came to the polls with all sorts of own goals; a known failed often-reactionary communications strategy immanent in emptiness of synchronized message, theme or even strategy. It could not even muscle a proper read of all Madiba’s sayings on the opposition to stymie off the recasting of Mandela as DA member.


The ANC came on the back of an Nkandla bloody nose, a Constitutional Court ruling, violent unrests and a generally unhappy inside and outside voter. Admitted factions around twin personalities as Tshwane a month before the elections in violent infrastructure destruction and loss of life confirmed. Abrupt leadership change in Kwa Zulu Natal. Threatened court cases from some provincial leaderships personalized or organization based.


The ANC entered the elections with some preoccupied in jockeying for a coming 2017. The ANC started its campaign riddled with a barrage of unnecessary communication gaffes, retractions misstatements and a collision cause with SABC leadership. This was negatively crowned with unnecessary deaths of candidates from KZN and the Eastern Cape. It allowed the EFF to set the tone of filling stadiums as a subject of importance, something the ANC never has done before.


This season saw an ANC with list nomination challenges more prevalent than ever before.


It came to the polls with a Gauteng leadership as always preoccupied with national leadership with careless statements of ” don’t punish us because of Zuma”. (What confidence does any leadership exude to go to voters asking vote for us, despite our president). This clearly may backfire when provinces at the soul search and introspection Indaba are called to account for their mediocre election performances. It is fair to say the ANC entered the elections arena, punch-drunk and wobbling, in dizziness of having to contend with too many wars.


Considering the above affords me to conclude the ANC therefore was at its weakest in this season. Any party contesting an election with these aforementioned counting against it would naturally haemorrhage in that election and may even be completely without power.


Yet the final tally confirms the ANC secured 54% of the National vote, the DA 27% and the EFF 8%. The elections by municipalities attests the following the ANC confirms 168, DA 24 and IFP 6, with 26 smaller hung Councils. The rough claim can thus be made the actual drop of 8% on the part of the ANC from its 2011 Municipal elections is really that which the EFF today claim as theirs.


The EFF on average received 8,3% of the national vote meaning the EFF improved 2% on its debut it made in 2014 national elections.


The result of the EFF attests not a single municipality anywhere from the smallest to the largest. It is here I wish to postulate the EFF obtained 8% election result when the ANC was at its weakest ever.


I dare assert that the ANC will never be this weak again if sense prevail. This was also for record sake the official last elections that the Jacob Zuma factor had to be added into the equation.


Now if the EFF in such season as now can with all the grudge of ANC voters only amass 8%, how will it perform with a reasonably stronger ANC? In particular and ANC devoid of the undeniable weaknesses we have lived through?


The EFF must therefore ask itself notwithstanding claims of limited resources and a 3-year age why didn’t SA in this season of total ANC weakness entrust it with any of its municipalities if its message so much resonates with the claimed masses of SA in being unhappy with the ANC.


Is it possible that we have seen the best performance of this 3-year-old party, who clearly derives its meaning, purpose and fixation in a current ANC president who will never be present in any election by 2019?


The second aspect of my argument of an interpretation of the EFF elections performance vacillates on the fact that emanates from its king maker status.


We must equally ask how will the EFF perform when it is now a coalition kingmaker. We have heard its chairman Mpofu expeditiously in simplicity of claim pronounce they will have coalitions with all but the ANC. Clearly this was a shortsighted perhaps angry statement bereft of the reality of politics where there are no permanent enemies or friends.


Perhaps one may assert the EFF stands before its first real ideological and principal challenge. Is this its first proverbial Rubicon? It has never been here in its brief political life and has never had to engage the nagging but very real subject of coalitions which usually has a tendency to make the smaller party or dealmaker a add on of those it determined to go with.



They say history repeats itself; COPE perhaps the maximum symbol for ANC breakaway parties in vengeance was here too. It in another season of ANC vulnerability in recall of its SA President was birthed in anger and went on to score what was deemed a significant 7% in national elections. However COPE is today for all practical reasons history in relevance and the case can be made it exists today perhaps to maintain the retirement upkeep of its dwindled leadership. Is this the high moment of the EFF no dissimilar to that of COPE?


The EFF’s ideological challenge resonates in this that if it opts to go with the DA, it would have committed political suicide at least at an ideological level. They then will no longer be able to accuse the ANC of its early in democracy National Party agreements that resulted in the economic slavery of the black masses.


If it decides to go with the ANC, because it is known as light in true policy footprint will see it absorbed as advocating ANC policies. By the way the same policies they accuse the DA and ANC to share in neo-liberalism claims.


It furthermore runs the claimed reputational risk in the eyes of its voters of now associating with the very party from which it was birthed in vengeance. A party it has vilified, sold to SA as corrupt, its leaders self-serving and a party that betrayed the revolution for true economic emancipation. How will it’s voters trust it to be ideologically sound, reputational clean and functional in visionary outlook.


Thus the EFF’s success in this election may turn out to be its real Mt. Everest in highest moment of societal consciousness. It may become its true Rubicon and its defining new identity, which may see it gradually, decline, since its performance in this season was due to and ANC that was at its weakest. Also having to make bedfellows with both the DA and ANC does not help them in singularity of political relevance.


I hold the hope the ANC will never be in the foreseen future find itself in such weak position as evidenced in a toxic combination of own goals, lack of leadership credibility, recognised factions, a strive for material gain and a blundered campaign.


I hold beyond, campaigning and theatrical parliament games of insult and a Jacob Zuma fixation can the EFF live to see another day of elections (2019) when it based on its current success stands confronted in its first true existential ideological test and Rubicon this season.


Can the EFF live to see another day beyond a Zuma who has just participated in his last elections as a central figure? Can the EFF’s current hegemony around a Malema personality as its true north withstand the unforeseen but real implications of coalition governments? Will it too be finding itself tearing  itself in factionalism apart with court cases where personalities no dissimilar to COPE contested for leadership?



Aug 6, 2016



Entertaining sensational reporting only fuels political and economic instability!

Entertaining sensational reporting only fuels political and economic instability!


Please stop making office bearers messiahs!


The Sunday Times of the last two weeks carried very eye-catching, salacious and yet very precarious headlines. Two weeks ago it led with “someone is trying to kill me” accredited to the public protector Thuli Madonsela. This past Sunday it had “an imminent arrest of Gordhan” – the finance minister.


As things stand now the Madonsela murder plot has no substance. The informer whom it was reported Madonsela trusted implicitly is shown to be unreliable and known for manufacturing stories. The Gordhan arrest equally has no base; it’s done on a hunch of informants who claim they know the ANC internal politics better. The associate editor of the Daily Maverick, Ranjeni Munusamy is held up as a self-anointed guru of ANC internal squabbles and how this impacts the state of governance in SA.


One can draw parallels between the publicized reports of a public protector and the finance minister the one under threat for her life and the one for imminent arrest. These are two people key in our society who equally are soft targets to fuel chasms that perhaps supports a political agenda driven by an unseen hand as it plays out in our media. These reports are regurgitated as truth and are repeated by journalists, analysts and opinion makers across a wide spectrum.


The public protector no different to the minister of finance for doing her work became for some a political entity to be abused to wage political campaigns.


The challenge for the public protector was not her ineptitude of law and her office but perhaps her personality to allow her office to be questioned through perhaps unfortunate statements, blamed leaks and claims levelled against her behaviour.


What is indisputable is that uncertainty in regard to her reports in remedial action was for both her predecessors and the majority of South Africans including those in the judiciary a reality until the constitutional court ruled on the Nkandla matter. We all can with certainty today accept that her findings are not beyond reproach as binding in and of itself but may ONLY be challenged in tested and reviewed in a court of a law.



Yet a personality-cult emerged that portended to own the incumbent as diametrically opposed to what is deemed for some an illegitimate government. I had said in my critique of the current incumbent, she should have equally rebuked opposition parties who attempted to give her a political identity in opposition to the State. We will recall how some became defenders of the public protector and even called her the next president of South Africa.


We are back here because South Africans it appears are held hostage with the search for a messiah, one with a magic wand – the skew legacy of an iconic Mandela.


Our media in status of lone ranger has since December 2015 made Pravin Gordhan the individual the answer to our economic woes. In an earlier article published I lamented this erroneous need to make messiahs of those mandated to serve. Gordhan has overnight become an endangered species that must be protected against a villain State. In this narrative he gets the credit if the economy performs and the rand US dollar rate improves. He is however strangely exonerated if the opposite occurs.


Gordhan who is in his second coming in this office was not necessarily praised for the SA economy under his stewardship. There was widespread dissatisfaction on the structural aspects of our economy, which remains to this day. Granted these structural disparities are not of his making but perhaps a bipolar-nature of flaw in the ANC economic policy as a practiced reality.


There was outright condemnation from opposition parties on his performance as it relates to job creation, true empowerment etc. Tripartite alliance partners also were unsettled that Gordhan continued with the same trajectory of his predecessor and proved hardnosed on some aspects that they consider stumbling blocks for their aims.


We must ask what sits behind these orchestrated headlines and news reports? We must ask what agenda is being pushed? We must ask why some journalists exercise carte blanche a right to publish what can be deemed soap opera reports. They engage in drama reporting which have grave ramifications for South Africa.


It is the same media that tells us one minute how strong and bold Gordhan is, they tell us “Gordhan fights back”. They tell us he made this remark in direct aim of the president.

The next minute we must hear how emotional Gordhan is with a threat of an imminent arrest hanging over his head.



In a hypothetical sense let us for a minute assume that responding to the 27 questions, which had its own drama, resulted in evidence for further or an actual case to be answered. Should we assume Gordhan be given automatic indemnity because he holds the office of finance minister in a challenging time when politically orchestrated rating agencies full of moods and poor of equality of standards threatens a junk status down grade?


The same media tells us Gordhan asks for protection from us as citizenry. We hear Gordhan lament and protest his innocence. We the public still do not know why our finance minister is protesting his innocence because we see no case against him. Gordhan, at the time of the 27 questions exercised his democratic right to engage legal counsel. He also this season equally instructs attorneys to enquire from the Hawks and the NPA.


Perhaps what is missed is where innocence or guilt is tested in a democracy if not the courts? Our justice system is buoyant we know it from the Al Bashir case, we saw it in the Constitutional Court hearings on Nkandla, we experienced it when the Northrand Court ruled former NPA director Mokotedi Mpshe’s actions as irresponsible, yes we saw it with the Please call me case when the Concourt ruled in favour of the minion Makate against the mighty Vodacom.


If there is any claimed prima facie evidence for a case against Gordhan our justice system facilitated by the necessary courts with its track record ought to vindicate the minister. Any arrest in a constitutional democracy has a format.


My unsolicited advice again to the honourable minister of finance:


  • Sir, please get on with the job you were assigned in equality to all other honourable ministers.


  • Please desist being made a political or economic messiah by the very ones who did not trust you in your first term. The same who attempted to make the public protector a political player and saw to it that the office of this very important Chapter 9 institution appears compromised from within and without.


  • Kindly do not fall for the easy ride of assuming the story of you being a victim against a villain who is unseen somewhere and that you are in potential presidential contest.



  • Be cautious not to be seen as speaking on behalf of some even in the ANC regardless how camped.



  • Since you have complied in answering the 27 questions permit the institution that requested you to comply make its case if there is a case. You owe it no explanation to defend your innocence outside what was asked of you. Let your integrity stand and allow the courts to validate the person who you always have been as those who share with you a history know you to be.



  • Be careful as to who’s advise you listen to, at times even those whom one hold in high regard politically can be errant. Your predecessor is on record for having said if he were in your shoes with the issue of a SARS commissioner he would have fired the commissioner. You have since learnt that his advise is not helpful for it generates a perception of a finance minister that is self-appointed. You have since learnt regardless the differences with a SARS Commissioner are not important because both of you are to perform in your designated spaces. The same South Africa can attest you both have excelled.


  • The public spats confused for transparency, between the ministry and the SOE’s leadership is not helpful for it engenders more instability. One assumes there are correct platforms and means to address these.



  • Do not take easy comfort in a media that seeks to glorify you at the expense of a Movement that trusted you to serve in leadership. A media that berates your organisation who has no desire to take up its necessary role to work for the transformation of a South African society.


  • Do not get drawn into these personality cult sensational reporting of some in the media who has an opposite vision to your mandate.

I ask again in whose interest are these news reports generated? Reports that has no foundation yet is publicised on the front page of the Sunday times as fact.


It is perhaps only right to comfortably assume those who peddle these reports do so with an agenda of threatening our political and economic stability. Is it not time the so-called experts on ANC internal politics who publish at whim be taken to task for their agenda. An agenda that pretends to care about South Africa but in reality desires political and economic instability.


Clyde N. S. Ramalaine


A concerned citizen of South Africa

ANC, please discern between good and cheap agenda advice!

Advice or counsel is a necessary intervention in our daily lives as human beings. We often listen to counsel and are helped by it, yet counsel or advise is also relationship informed. It would be difficult to justify any advice defenders of apartheid proffer to victims of apartheid.


In the aftermath of the now snippets (the fullness of this not known or tested as yet) of revelations of the Gupta influence on the State immanent in a word not yet defined but bandied around of “state capture”, the ANC in this season is finding itself advised, by a crossbreed of groups. I do think we need to unpack this term “state capture” but that is for another time.


Advice is flying around hard and fast facilitated by sectors of the media. The ANC has in this season never looked more vulnerable as leading party than this hour. Never before has the ANC appeared this forced to listen to advise by those who exert themselves over what they have deemed a week ANC. It is as if the ANC is under siege if not constipated with advice from antithetical groups with diverse political agendas.


When so much advise and counsel is offered it can render one confused, hence it becomes important how the ANC entertain or pay attention to the advice extended.


Our context is further made volatile with a combination of an up and coming municipal elections and the ever lurking threat of junk status downgrade from rating agencies, critical agenda items for the last NEC meeting.


Is it possible that not all advice freely offered and demanded as extended to the ANC in this season is devoid of contamination?


It is perhaps important to dissect the sources of ANC advise in this season: Of those who feel it their right to advise the ANC in this season we find:


Opposition parties, 

  • The opposition parties led by the DA and EFF is all about effecting leadership change in the ANC through a consistent campaign of attack on the top six leaders as a collective with their primary focus the ANC’s president. It is no secret that this getting the ANC president removed has become the practical manifestos of these opposition parties.


The Media

  • The media has made its own contribution to advise the ANC. We know that some parts of the media is the unofficial voice of opposition, the media has waged their concerted effort consumed to blackmail the ANC into doubt of its leadership.



  • Veterans are an important group of an organization because it normally represents history, values and counsel. Yet in our conflated season and time laced with economic grip it also includes those who are not exempted from their own political agendas that in no other season had a felt a need to direct the NEC.


Public intellectuals

  • Some in this group have had little if any regard for the collective ANC leadership elected in its last two elective conferences. We know this from looking at an aggregate of their opinion pieces and analysis freely published. Yet they too today seek to direct the ANC in its choices of leadership.


Fired Ministers

  • Of those who in this day offer advice are former cabinet members of the Zuma administration who have been off-loaded for one or other reason. As fired ministers it is difficult to understand their advice devoid from considering also personal interest a sense of being aggrieved.


2008 Recall Hangover group

  • Some who cannot get over a deployed SA president 2008 recall and will not rest until old scores are settled. As often as the ANC categorically regretted this unfortunate incident in its past, these campaigners for a revenge will not rest. Hence their advice is simple recall this ANC president and we settle scores.


Ex – MK

  • MK the gallant past military wing of the ANC in this season is hardly a coherent group of ex-soldiers but in this season represents fragmented individuals who speak in divergent sense on behalf of a claimed collective of a historic MK. Many of these individuals today claim a larger than live relevance.  Some of these are now demanding new leadership. We must assume this leadership to mean all elected officials at the ANC 2012 elective conference held at Mangaung.


White Capital – Interest

  • Capita, yes even colonial and apartheid benefactor capital has equally in this season considered it their right advice the ANC.




With all this “advice” however coached the ANC appears vulnerable and thrust in a landmine littered field in which at anytime an explosion is possible.


The ANC must be very careful how they deal or entertain this advice from a crossbreed of groups with definite political interest.


If the ANC chooses to listen to all in this season it may surrender itself to be controlled by external diverse agendas that will deem it their right continue demanding to be listened to in the future.


Listening to this type of advice will make a mockery of those who trust the ANC in ballot. For if the ANC can listen to those who oppose it to influence it in choice of leadership it will fail not do so in the future.


The ANC must desist the easy way out to assess the choices currently bandied around, it must carefully deal with this landmine littered land of political agendas that in this season manifest as good advise.


Easy choices that attest “recall or fire a president and our problems are solved” are simply not sustainable. For this type of advice is not sensitive to the reality of how capital has infiltrated the ANC since the times of the first engagement with capital before it took power.


The ANC owes it to itself to honestly reflect on the role of capital throughout its 22 years of governance. It must ask itself how its leaders many who never were entrepreneurs became wealthy and to what extend this wealth has created an unintended buffer zone for capital to control the ANC.


The ANC did not arrive here overnight the fullness of this moment visiting upon us necessitates upon the ANC to make wise choices. Choices that may appear selfish but if it’s to preserve the ideals, values and core of its 104 year struggle and vision it warrants to rise above the noise and deal with the critical issues at hand.


Just merely caving in to pressure in this created moment will leave the ANC weak and irrelevant in a future.


Whatever choices are made cannot be emotional, factional driven, or in appeasement of make belief constituencies. Tripartite alliance members cannot lead; it has to be ANC choices.


The ANC must remain true to its voters and regard all less but it’s voters. It must engage its branches and listen to those who vote for it in trust of delivering the ideals its liberation mandate.


Lastly the “soul” of the ANC so often talked about is in season attempted as located outside the ANC with those who feel it their right to advise it be it in force advise or demands made by some from inside.


I hold the hope that sense will prevail and that choices the ANC a party I vote for makes prove not emotional, thoroughly thought through for the ramifications of these will live with the ANC and all of us for much longer than is currently imagined.


Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

An ANC Voter





Davidsonville: Perhaps, Identity-Doublespeak, not ‘Coloureds’ to blame!

Davidsonville: Perhaps, Identity-Doublespeak, not ‘Coloureds’ to blame!

Neville Alexander in arguably his last work poignantly reminds us “But societies and the global village have changed so radically that to continue to analyse and describe things as though we still living in 1848 or 1948 or even 1984 is to be woefully blind and self defeating”. (Neville permit me to add things and people)

The Roodepoort Primary School impasse is not a unique challenge but it is symptomatic of what we dealing with because we as a collective refused to deal with the thorny subject of political identity over the last 21 years.

Ebrahim Harvey in his City Press article bemoans the fact that it is 21 years into a non-racial democracy. It is exactly here that I wish to start arguing, this non-racial reality so easily advanced by all and sunder is never unpacked. Does non racial imply a doing away with race? Or does it mean we still have races? Is racism possible where there is no acknowledgment of race?

Perhaps it is as I have coined it the Democratic State engaging in “identity-doublespeak”. We not asking what a non-racial democracy means at experiential level, particularly since we in 2015 still use apartheid identity markers for our collective human agencies. No one is asking the 1994 Democratic State why it’s holding on to these denotations.

Let me also in the beginning condemn any racial slurs and attacks from any side veiled or bold, because that simply does not belong in our non – racial society.

Harvey commits the same error so many do to subject the Roodepoort Primary School situation in isolation to the intolerance of ‘Coloureds’. They accuse ‘Coloureds’ for not wanting an ‘African’ (Black) principal. Yet whilst this may or may not be the case, to pretend communities are no longer stratified as previously apartheid defined whilst we hold on to racial classifications for identity constitutes a major contradiction.

The second error committed by most who comment on this Roodepoort Primary School saga is the conscious denial of the community, which is known as Davidsonville. The denial of this geographic location is a central problem for it articulates a mind that says it is not Davidsonville its Roodepoort. When we let Davidsonville stand for what it is as a community maybe our approach will alter and we may find solutions. People take pride regardless to how their communities were formed. SOWETO for example will never become Johannesburg South; it has an intrinsic value that the people of Soweto attached to that transcends its apartheid description. Can we allow Davidsonville as a community to be afforded the same respect?

The third error committed is on the part of the MEC Panyaza Lesufi. In an earlier note I had to caution the MEC that he cannot call the Davidsonville community racist, but identify rather elements in the community. The MEC furthermore is on record for having expressed his confirmed opinion on the ‘Coloureds’ of Davidsonville who intent to remove ‘Black’ officers currently operational at the police station. I had to caution the MEC that he should have left this to the MEC of Safety and Security to pronounce because his utterances on safety and security matter as MEC for Education further racially polarizes this unfortunate situation.

Another mistruth advanced is that only ‘Coloured’ parents refuse their children to go to the designated Lefureng – Protea School. This sophism fuels the belief that it is the ‘Coloured’ community who proves troublesome, when ‘African’ parents were interviewed on SABC who for no dissimilar reasons expressed their displeasure with the closing of the school and the bussing of pupils to others schools.

I concur with Harvey that the Department has to answer questions on the process for the appointment of the principal. The department equally must explain why an acting principal was not considered fit for the job irrespective of his/ her racial identity The department must explain why the process for appointment is claimed as flawed and not according to standard procedure. This may prove the legitimacy of a the impasse.

What is perhaps lost in the translation is the subject of political identity in a non-racial post apartheid society.

It is my submission that we cannot expect to hold on to the apartheid racial classifications for our collective human agencies (black, white, coloured and indian) and expect this dream of a non-racial reality. All these terms are necessarily racist and entrenches the praxis of racism.

Race as a formal construct is not thousands of years old, but was captured when Immanuel Kant produced his German ‘rassen’ articles in 1785. Kant had much opposition when he categorized people in this race classification strata in which the ‘white’ colour proves superior, yet Kant’s stance found friends until we in 2015 undeniably believe in race for identity. It is important to note that by the end of 1945 Eugenics was long declared defunct and race as scientific notion proven non- existent.

Our problem is the Democratic State of 1994, has yet to lead in affording people space and time to engage on the issue of political identity.

The 1910 Segregation State identified its ‘client’ until the 1913 Native Land Act spoke. The 1948 Apartheid State equally identified its ‘client’ until Act 30, of 1950 Section (c) declared people that always existed ‘Coloured’.

The Democratic State of 1994 is not expected to do exactly what its previous States did, but has the responsibility to break with the markers of (black, white, coloured and indian) for identities. In my assessment the 1994 State ought to have leaned on the 1955 Freedom Charter, which proved unambiguous when it articulates ‘ THE PEOPLE’.

The 1994 Democratic State talks about non-racial reality yet it addresses, serves and continues to identify its people with the outdated apartheid markers for identity. Whilst one may speculate the reason for the Democratic state holding on to these apartheid racial classifications as a means to measure or track progress, I contend when we afford an opportunity to frankly engage the subject of political identity as afforded by the State we will develop the vocabulary to reconfigure identities and find new expressions.

Our Constitution speaks in Section 1 B of this non- racial reality. The African National Congress as the leading party prognosticates non-racialism, but its in praxis a lived experience of multi-racialism, which unequivocally acknowledges race for identity.

This identity-double-speak is not escaping even the DA as official opposition. Its Vision 2029 states ‘we see a non-racial south Africa where all races are recognised’.

Thus, Davidsonville and the Roodepoort school impasse is perhaps the fulcrum of our identity challenge and symptomatic of a much bigger and brewing reality that is being stirred and education is not the epicenter for it manifests in other areas.

For as long as we engage in this identity – double- speak in refusal of engaging on the pertinent subject of political identity in South Africa we will have the incidents and unfortunate occasions of Davidsonville.

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine
Political Commentator & Writer

Is the EFF a party defined by chaos ?

Marinos the philosopher contends, “true learning flourishes in chaos”. Chaos is generally defined as “a condition or place of great disorder or confusion.”

The question is what are we learning from the chaos around the EFF? Perhaps some have been oblivious to admit this chaos because they are overtaken to see the EFF as on course to rule South Africa soon. Some, in recent days have welcomed the behaviour of the EFF in parliament as the new praxis. Those who attest this a necessary new way of engaging argue that parliament needed this because it is lethargic and lacks energy as dominated by a ruling party.
The EFF leader is on record to have said that they will use every opportunity they get to campaign. There is nothing wrong with campaigning after all it is the oxygen of political parties. Yet a careful analysis may lead us to understand there is real chaos within the EFF. The common denominator of the EFF appears to be chaos in undergird and in fruit of presentation.

Can we attempt to argue the nature of the chaos as accidental or endemic? EFF members are increasingly questioning the leadership style of its leader. Some have labelled him a dictator that listens to none but his trusted lieutenant Shivambo. These claims may be true or false and may be brushed off as hogwash, yet what cannot be argued is that the proverbial EFF-boat, bereft of due structures, leadership and necessary programmes is in organisational raging choppy waters and may even already have taken some water. Perhaps the chaos in parliament as led by the EFF is symptomatic as an extension of the chaos that rules this party.
Its recent Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, and Gauteng meetings to elect leaders ended in utter chaos. Police had to be called in to defuse tensions among those who attended. In some cases private security were summoned to lend a hand to defend EFF from fellow EFF members. The more you read about the events the more a clear picture of chaos emerges.
The party despite its 6% May 2014 election windfall has yet to find a footprint in functional structures across the country. It struggles to become an entity that can in a meaningful sense engage and contribute formidably.
I opined months ago that the true reason for the EFF’s existence is not economic freedom but the antithetical twin personalities of the object of its hate (Jacob Zuma) and the subject of its love (Julius Malema). Perhaps the obsession to deal with the ANC leader as its primary raison detre  has rendered the organic growth development of the EFF dysfunctional.
After 6 months of the 5th Parliament of SA in democracy the contributions of the EFF in constructive engagement in the committees of parliament remains outstanding. The problem is parliament is a democratic institution to which one in membership swear allegiance in respect as an elected member of your respective party. The EFF members like all elected members also pledged that same respect but fail to make that respect count.
Which leads us to the question, can the EFF out of its chaotic mind-set ever comprehend and accord this respect of parliament, the short answer is no because bullying is what the EFF knows well and bullies do not believe anybody else has a right but them. Its only obsession is to create chaos in parliament with the hope of embarrassing individuals more so the president and deputy president. It seems the party is happy hitting headlines for its chaos rather than its needful contribution.
It seems the EFF cannot escape the true reality of its birth being chaos and thus remains trapped in unseating Zuma, therefore proving a party in utter disarray. The same we said if ever attained will render the party obsolete in future existence. Regardless to how they protest an economic freedom mandate, it is a party held hostage in chaos. As the days unfold, we should expect more and more chaos from this party.

So what are we learning from this chaos,

EFF voters are learning that the EFF leadership is not open for transparent organisational engagement. Its leader addresses disgruntled EFF members as ‘these boys’.
We are learning one cannot fix the crack in the wall if the foundation is questionable or compromised.
We are learning there is a huge difference in being an opposition party in a democracy and being oppositional.
We are learning that often those who accuse others of dictatorships practice this as natural.
We are learning it takes more than a name to be a party, economic freedom may sound great a theme but emulating true fighters is another story.
We learning the EFF struggles to embrace a constitutional democracy, the same that saw affords its very  own existence.
Yes, true learning flourishes in chaos!

Why Opposition Parties get it wrong in SA Elections?


Opposition parties will help themselves if they can learn to respect the voting masses as thinking masses-

Trevor Noah SA’s finest export in modern day stand-up comedy is famous for quipping, in his THAT’S RACIST show ‘you gonna learrrnnnnn….” I involuntarily thought of this when I surveyed the behaviour, messaging and tactics of our Opposition Parties in this season of elections.

Voting has for all intends and purposes begun in this our 5th National Elections 20 years on in democracy. The international registered and vetted voters have exercised their democratic franchise and the special vote category is voting between today and tomorrow.

In 36 hours from now the official May 7, 2014 Elections would be in full swing I would have cast my vote and be readying myself to wing out to cross the Atlantic Ocean to attend to some speaking engagements.

This occasion affords me time to assess what Opposition Parties are up to as measured by the respective campaigns they ran. The aim is not to give an in-depth analysis of each opposition party but to look at trends and to understand it in collective definition.

It is my contention that the collective of Opposition Parties in SA remain bereft of true respect for the Voting Masses if their tactics, messaging and themes constitute the yardstick for assessment. I will argue Opposition Parties have confirmed preconceived notions that are cast in stone on who the voting masses are and how they must be approached.   This is leading to the perpetual missing of the proverbial bulls-eye.

I have distilled 12 errors Opposition Parties make on the SA voting populace because their campaigns and tactics exhibit these trends.


The first error the collective of Opposition Parties made was to abandon their respective Manifestos. We must also hasten to add that is if these manifestos have existed in the first place.

They rushed to tag their entire election campaigns on the emotive public topics such Non- Service Delivery and the long awaited Public Protector report on Nkandla (the security upgrades at the president’s homestead).

The Opposition Parties somehow fell for the untruth that service delivery is not happening in SA, this despite every authentic report of an assessment of SA over the last 20 years attesting and confirming tremendous delivery.

In fact the City Press at one point in 2013 ran a story in which they captured this administration as led by JG Zuma in ascribing him a title of MR DELIVERY.

How the host of Opposition Parties allowed themselves to fall for this when they know basic services have been consistently improved over the length of ANC governance defies logic.

The second aspect was the PP Nkandla report. The DA has spent millions on its Gauteng media campaign driven purely by this as anchor theme. It is my view their Manifesto suffered because it took a backseat to this topic which in the greater scheme will have no true impact on the elections outcome.

The DA’s dream of an impeachment (the word does not exist in our Constitution), drove them to appeal to the Speaker for an Ad-Hoc committee to look at the report and the President’s response.

Hats off to the speaker of parliament for respecting the request, yet the DA had attempted to make this ad-hoc committee a court and quickly found out, that they in a proverbial cul-de sac and constricted zone because they will get nowhere with this campaign.

As we speak now the ad–hoc committee was absolved and therefore has no bearing in claim of desired influence on the May 7 elections. This was a major blow to the DA because it pinned its hopes on getting a ruling from this before the elections. What wishful thinking?

Nkandla as emotive and sentimental it may portend, simply cannot become ones whole Manifesto.


Nkandla, I have argued is perhaps the most dishonest debate we have had and we might repeat it because we have not allowed ourselves to rise in thought beyond the noise. We easily paint people into corners of for or against, and thus drum out to the necessary opinions of others who share not our confirmed views on the subject matter.

It is for this reason that I hold we are prone to repeat it again because we are not affording ourselves the candid and necessary engagement of the subject matter in order for us to learn from it.

Opposition parties have proverbially hatched their bets on the damning impact an Nkandla will have on this election, yet those who think along these lines constitute a specific sector of our society defined as a public in publics.

The thin and often overexerting chattering class are spoiled to assume that when they see it a certain way, the masses must equally see it similar way. The president tonight stood up and spoke frankly without any written speech (I somehow think he always does better when he has no script with him) on the subject and in his own colloquial way captured my assertion, ‘ Nkandla does not concern the people it is a topic for the clever people Nkandla has become the concern and interest of a vested group making up the middle class who erroneously assumed that this matter is a critical matter for the masses.

When we argue this here we are not advancing a moral judgement on the wrongs that occurred but we are arguing the salience in relevance for this issue to affect and impact the ANC’s march to its 5th consecutive beyond 65% victory. You simply cannot superimposed this occurrence as preeminent to the consistent good story we people have lived through in the two decades of democracy.

To assume that the masses of SA citizens are uniquely concerned with Uganda’s most recent laws on homosexuality is to misunderstand the voting populace of SA.

Regardless to how strong a lobby group for a certain subject may be resourced, it is no guarantee that it will alter the cause and direction and outcome of the elections.


The collective of opposition parties in SA as led by the DA continues to make the ANC the departure point and end- point of all their campaigning. In defence of the opposition parties’ one must hasten to add, it is almost impossible to ignore the ANC as ruling party in your contest. The challenge however is if you narrow and hone your entire campaign on the ANC mistakes errors and wrongs you really act as an amplifier of the prevalence of the ANC in the minds of society.

A classic example of this is the ANC in its manifesto has committed itself to create 6million job opportunities. The DA then challenged the ANC so much so that it even attempted a staging a march to COSATU -House to blackmail them to agree on what they term 6 million real jobs.

The DA’s campaign then became ‘6million real jobs’ which means the DA is not even original in the number of jobs as a target bit borrows this directly from the ANC. No one in the DA was conscious of the fact that if they had for example said 8 million real jobs they would have been dislocating them from the ANC directive of a 6 million job opportunities.

The DA has declared this the elections of JOBS. Hence this means for this party this is the flagship issue at stake for 2014. You would have thought that since they made this their flagship they would have proven leading in defining this distinct and separate from the ANC who has concluded 5 aspects in its Manifesto of which job creation is one of the five.

The negative side of this when you spent all your time and energy telling us what the ANC does wrong, without telling us what you will and can do in a systematic and coherent sense, reduces one to whinger who rants and raves at anything therefore empty of true input.

This aforementioned issue of 6 million jobs cited is a classic approach in trapped state of tactics as to how opposition parties think, internalise and actualise their role and meaning in our society.


The fourth error opposition parties as led by the Bantu Holomisa of the UDM made was to attempt claiming the IEC as compromising for the presence of its election chairperson as not fit to lead this pristine entity.

Now the argument Holomisa raises is not a wrong one, yet where he blundered was to overextend this claim in an almost attempt of arguing the elections will be compromised because Pansy Tlakula is the head of it thus potentially rendering the elections as cooked.

This when Holomisa and all those who constitute the 5 opposition parties know is a complete sophism because the IEC as a Chapter 9 institution has since inception been an exceptional entity and has delivered elections devoid of any compromised claims. The integrity and performance of the IEC was always above board and a cooked election has no true context of defence.

The error here on the part of the Opposition parties is the emotional campaigns they attempt almost in a sense of blackmail.


Another error opposition parties committed is to try and run campaigns on victimhood. We have seen how the EFF led this charge in which it wants to blackmail any and everything including the SABC arguing they must be afforded equal space on broadcasting time. The truth is the EFF and Agang-SA has never been voted by anyone into any office and therefore cannot pretend as if they already have attained this place of significance.

Regardless to all the collective mass rallies of varied conflicting numbers in attendance, as we sit here today, the EFF and Agang-SA and all new parties have no right to argue they are a party as tested in election embrace. Therefore to pretend victimhood in claims of the ANC being advanced by the SABC is a false argument. The voters understand this and to assume they do not is to not read the voters correctly.

Concerning those parties who have already participated in elections they fully understand that they are not competing with the ANC in attempt of dethroning it but for a space to be a part of the voices of opposition.


The opposition parties in SA have developed campaigns, themes and messaging around what I choose to deem a convenience of distinct segmentation of the SA voting constituency.

We have seen the strong focus on the youth as claimed by those who thought they could get the 656000 votes of those born after the dawn of democracy. Forgive me I cannot legitimise the notions of ‘born –frees generation’ because I fully understand we will never be equal and apartheid gave some a head-start that my generation will never be able to wipe out.

We must desist the temptation to assume that targeting these voters can automatically result in great success almost in a vacuum for their parents remain poor and struggling hence the issue of economic equality as corrected by a post-apartheid birth is sophistic to say the least.

The bigger error with segmenting a voter populace in classed definition is also a misconception, whilst we may have present middle class of varied degrees you can hardly make these a unique target when middle class so broadly exists in experiential reality.

The DA in Gauteng has decided to go after the middle-class. Agang-SA’s whole existence is in claim of this middle class construct. The truth is segmentation is necessary yet you don’t do it overtly and singularly in focus, The ANC understands the class hierarchy too but it refuses to be overt about it and continued a campaigned in which it advocates it is for all.

The segmentation of voting populace inherently leads to a polarisation of voters which I the least of the core issues for a party seeking the voting populace. The challenge is the party that adopts the overt stance cast itself into a mould of being seen and experienced as middle class based. A shackle it will struggle later to undo.


Perhaps the biggest error that opposition parties consistently make in SA is premised or informed by a view that people that vote for the ANC do so without thinking, and thus not conscious to choose clearly. This error has a precarious double edged internal stream; on the one hand it fundamentally argues the majority of voters are illiterate. On the other hand it assumes the votes can be swayed on emotions because they believe the voters vote the ANC in power informed by pure emotion and no effective and causal reasoning.


Another error Opposition Parties made is to mislead them to be in the running to unseat the ANC. Each of the opposition parties are no differently to the EFF inebriated with the idea they can rule SA.

Opposition Parties have not been realistic neither honest to accept they not campaigning against the ANC but against those who have been playing in the sphere of influence they operate and remains constrained.

This utopia of thought and dream is paraded and fundamentally the cornerstone of all opposition lifeblood. Opposition parties have spent unnecessary resources time and energy on the wrong focus.

They equally have equally erroneously convinced themselves that they can mislead the masses that they can unseat the ANC, unfortunately the voters do not agree with them and shows them exactly the opposite.


The collective of opposition parties have not consistently underestimated how serious the voters of Africa’s last freed country take this franchise.

Not only has the collective of Opposition parties been taught to a lesson on how serious voters take the hard earned long fought for democratic franchise, but they also told those who advocate spoiling the votes as highly irresponsible.

Anyone who attempts assuming the SA voting constituency make light of the right so many fought and died for is not in step with SA as an evolving constitutional democracy. Our people know what the democratic franchise in right to vote means, they respect their right to vote and they will not entertain anyone who refuses to think along the same lines they do.

Our voters are analytical and seldom vote in emotional blackmail.


The conundrum Opposition Parties found them in is the reality and undeniable truth that SA is a better place today than 20 years ago or as we comfortably can say then under apartheid.

The conundrum is informed by a narrow interpretation of this undeniable good story that wrongly dictates they would have to give the ANC credit, the one thing they certainly do not want to do. Also

They opted to rather run a negative campaign to speak in an emotional sense on the themes of corruption.

Yet where they erred with this stance is when they deny the good story of the ANC, they deny their own due role in that good story, and they equally deny the voters convictions that SA is a better place today.

Opposition parties try and tell the SA voters there is no good story they try and tell them you were are all deceived and the ANC has been lying to you.

The challenge with this that South Africans that lived in this country and even those outside its confines confirm in many senses this good story.

The DA’s Mmusi Maimane very late in his multi-million rand campaign attempted in half-hearted sense acknowledge the good story and almost broke with the mundane stereotypical every day yawns of opposition parties about SA being a failed projects.

Agang-SA is trying tell SA we are a failed state in education, COPE is telling us we are failed state in governance. The EFF tells SA voters a constitutional democracy is not right for this country and they will create a complete new system. UDM tells us nothing except Pansy Tlakula is a threat to the elections when he knows that is not true.


It is true that in many ways Mandela ensembles the iconic status and moral meridian for South Africans as the champion of our democracy.

We may argue this for many valid reasons yet his presence wrongly or rightly looms large in the SA constituency and voting populace. All opposition parties understood this, yet they missed it in trying to dislocate and divorce him from the movement and party that made him.

The DA attempted to reinvent Mandela as belonging to all in absence of history and negating how he became the president and what party made him president and his loyalty to the ANC. The DA went as far as attempting to give Mandela and Mbeki the credit for having done a good job and the current ANC destroying all the gains.

What this notion misses is that the ANC is rolling out what was agreed over time at all the conferences in manifestos and we are now at this stage because we have had the previous eras who laid certain foundations.

The biggest error they commit on Mandela is to bastardise his political roots to falsify him into an identity that came from space and therefore has no roots in political definition. Mandela is dead, yet he lives in SA, but he does not live outside the Movement that made him and any attempt to divorce him from the ANC is rendering you a suspicious imposter who simply doesn’t deal in truth.

Opposition Parties misunderstood the Mandela factor that does not lend itself to convenient misuse, particularly in denial of the lived experience.


There is a grave misconception on the part of opposition parties they naturally assume SA Voters need help to be rescued from an impending danger lurking in the party it votes for.

The second aspect of this error manifests in seeing them as the saviours of these blind and deceived voters. They assume their assignment is to free the voters from their wrong thinking in still voting for the ANC. It is nothing but patronising to saythe least on the part of opposition parties. When opposition parties can first respect that voters are free and exercise that freedom every five years and has no need to be freed.

Opposition parties come to the SA voters with the singular intent of rescuing them and nit to be rescued, they come to the SA voters to tell them and not to listen to them. The approach the SA voters less as if they do not have a history of voting. The conclude so much in assumption and is held carceral by their own picket fences.

In conclusion for as long as the collective of opposition parties share this conclusive prism exemplified in gross misconception of the voters of the SA elections as oblivious and voting with no sense of thinking, they will learn how much the masses think.

For as long as they hold on to these preconceived notions of SA voters as easily misled in the road trudged, they will be punished in the polls.

If the argument is made that we need a re-haul of ruling party the similar counter argument can be raised we need a remake of what is defined as opposition parties in SA.

It is perhaps befitting to conclude in asking what informs the role of Opposition Parties in a democracy.

Bishop Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

Independent Observer & Analyst

Founder of TTMoSA (The Thinking Masses of South Africa)