High turnover rate of MPs tells tale of how an authoritarian party is run
Media and analysts fail to interrogate a silent leadership revolution that has made internal discipline paramount
Speaking to a media contingent at the conclusion of the EFF’s fourth annual planning meeting on February 5, EFF commander-in-chief Julius Malema made the following, remarkable statement: “The EFF is the only stable and genuinely united organisation in SA. Other political organisations are defined by internal strife, which evidently impacts on their capacity to lead society and provide sustainable and quality services to the people. Divided organisations have no practical capacity to provide leadership to society and should be rejected by the electorate.”
It is remarkable because it is patently untrue. An analysis of the turnover rate among EFF MPs demonstrates quite the opposite: 61% (19 out of 31) EFF MPs in the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces have resigned or been expelled from the party since 2014. Every 2.3 months, for 45 months, an EFF MP has resigned or been expelled. That is the very definition of instability.
That percentage dwarfs those of the other bigger parties. Both the ANC and the DA, with a combined 331 MPs between them in the National Assembly alone, each have an attrition rate of just 14%, on the same criteria. Bigger numbers would suggest the greater likelihood of discontent. The ANC, a factional mess of an institution, you might expect to at least be competitive with the EFF. Not so. The EFF stands alone, by some considerable distance.
There are a few observations worth making in response to this.
The first concerns the media and political analysts. How is it that the EFF can present to the media a statement so blatantly untrue without any fear of contradiction or cross-examination? In turn, how is it that the party has managed to orchestrate this silent, internal revolution without scrutiny or investigation?
The most likely reason is that the media does not generally engage in political analysis when it comes to the EFF, rather mere commentary. It is the party’s theatrics and rhetoric — so much of which revolves around ANC intrigue and the denigration of Jacob Zuma — that captures attention. For many in the press, the EFF is a PR machine, one that delivers headlines that sell. But that is all.
This attitude has in effect rendered the EFF immune to critical appraisal. Hence, Malema can so boldly make the claim he did, to the very people whose job it is to interrogate political assertions and promises, safe in the knowledge it will simply be indulged as all and sundry line up for the question-and-answer session and the juicy gossip that will inevitably follow.
But look beyond the external rhetoric, turn your attention to the EFF’s internal character and ideology, and there is a very different story to tell. There can be only one of two possible reasons for the extraordinary turnover rate of EFF MPs: either they are incompetent, and the party suffers a serious and deep skills deficit, or the party’s highly authoritarian nature has been used not just to dismiss those MPs who underperform but to quash internal dissent or difference.
Looking at the reasons for the various resignations and expulsions, there is evidence for both. Five of the resignations were in effect demotions, with the relevant MP being “redeployed” to local government at a far lower salary. No formal explanation is given by the party, but what small amount of information that can be gleamed from fleeting stories here and there suggests they were accused of “laziness” or “underperformance”.
Others resigned altogether, without any accompanying explanation or story in the press (Hlayiseka Chewane and Pro Khoza).
Others are clearly a result of some internal unhappiness or dispute (Magdalene Moonsamy and Mmabatho Mokause). Four MPs were expelled, most notoriously Mpho Ramakatsa, Andile Mngxitama and Khanyisile LitchfieldTshabalala in 2015, after a dramatic public fallout with the leadership.
It is hard to know the precise reasons in all of these cases, but then there is often little attempt to discover them. And that’s the point.
The EFF’s “code of conduct and revolutionary discipline” is a Stalinesque document. While there are the more common violations, such as “bringing the organisation into disrepute”, they are supplemented by a range of far harsher prescripts, ambiguous and all-encompassing.
These include the “deliberate gross misrepresentation and distortion of facts”, “spreading false rumours about another fighter”, “stifling democratic debate”, collaborating “in any manner” with “counter-revolutionary entities or agencies” and the especially vague “defining himself or herself outside the organisational structures and discipline”.
Malema, ever the contradiction, was expelled from the ANC for “bringing the party into disrepute” but as leader of the EFF he has engendered an organisational culture built around the principle of “democratic centralism”, in which internal discipline is paramount. Almost any kind of public disagreement or difference can lead to a charge for something. Simultaneously, the party hierarchy is constantly emphasised in internal documents as paramount, so often as to reach the point of redundancy.
The consequences of all this are obvious enough; Malema himself identified them in his statement. It “impacts on their capacity to lead society”. A relatively small national caucus, already stretched to the limit when it comes to parliamentary committees, can hardly be expected to excel when 61% of the EFF collective is in constant flux. Experience, knowledge and expertise are all lost in turn. A party cannot function effectively under these conditions.
Zuma practises exactly the same kind of organised chaos when it comes to his executive, to which he has made a staggering 125 changes since 2009. We have all experienced the effect on service delivery. But it affords him a certain kind of power: constant change means constant uncertainty. And that engenders deference in turn. The EFF leadership seems to have taken its cue from the president.
But then there is always that captivating rhetoric to fall back on. It is the ultimate distraction. If 61% of the ANC or DA caucuses had resigned or been expelled, there would be national media inquiry into the cause and effect and acute pressure relentlessly applied to the leadership. More importantly, there would be a desire to reveal the story behind it, to investigate and examine. Not when it comes to the EFF, because always there is the prospect of more ANC gossip and that is all that really matters.
Since 2014 the EFF leadership has in effect overseen a silent, internal revolution. And the public is none the wiser. The EFF says it wants formal power, that it is a “government in waiting”. If we are to understand what that entails, we need to pay more attention to how the party operates and why. The free ride the EFF enjoys needs to be terminated. Time to start focusing on what it really is.