Responses to Zuma’s MK party ‘disruption’ are missing the point
Support for it points to the failure of the democratic regime to achieve liberty and equality for black people
Former president Jacob Zuma and his newly formed uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party drew large crowds in Mkhondo, Mpumalanga, as the ANC prepared for its annual January 8 celebrations in Nelspruit. Some observers believe this “battle of two ANCs” will determine the outcome of the upcoming national elections. Certainly, the ANC could face serious challenges in some of its traditional strongholds. The re-emergence of Zuma and his new party on the SA political scene seems to have caught it flatfooted, seeming to be devoid of a coherent response to this disruptive force. But the MK party’s success will hinge on Zuma’s ability to mobilise his former supporters and tap into the ANC’s legacy of liberation struggle.
In his 1967 seminal work Of Grammatology, Algerian-French philosopher Jacques Derrida explained that deconstruction serves as a mode of critical analysis aimed at interrogating the assumptions and underlying structures inherent in narratives and various forms of discourse. Thus, the primary objective of deconstruction is to unveil the contradictions and ambiguities residing within mainstream discourses, demonstrating how these intricacies disrupt the real meaning of situations or occurrences.
Politically, the emergence of MK signifies an attempt to revive the ANC’s armed wing as it existed during the apartheid era. Postapartheid developments are seen as a dream deferred, an unfulfilled potential and poignant reminder of what could have been if the black majority’s aspirations had been fully realised.
Political analyst Siphamandla Zondi correctly points out that the MK party is “in many ways just another faction of the ANC that has decided to operate from outside the ANC”. Like COPE, the UDM and the EFF, the new party “wants to implement the ANC policies, resolutions and plans”, and therefore does not need a distinct policy agenda of its own.
It is clear that the ANC fears losing votes to the new party. Secretary-general Fikile Mbalula has said the ANC will enforce rule 25 of its constitution, which mandates disciplinary action against members who join or support opposing political parties. It is also clear that Zuma is the primary factor driving growth in MK’s support base discontent within the ANC and with the postapartheid dispensation are secondary factors.
For many, the MK party is inextricably intertwined with the ANC’s historical narrative and the political aspirations of the black majority. The party’s name evokes the legacy of the original uMkhonto weSizwe, tapping into its symbolic power and the nostalgia of the liberation struggle. In mainstream political discussions the liberation struggle represents the past, hence the use of phrases like “previously disadvantaged”, “our dark past”, “postapartheid” and so on.
Racialised and gendered poverty and inequalities persist in the “free” and “democratic” SA of today. The black majority continues to experience marginalisation, and vestiges of apartheid remain intact. These issues are often denied or oversimplified by dominant liberal narratives, which fail to adequately address the deep-rooted causes, such as land dispossession, systemic racism and the legacy of colonialism.
Almost three decades since apartheid officially ended, the chickens are coming home to roost as neither democracy nor market-based solutions have proven effective solutions to SA’s deeprooted apartheid problem. Notwithstanding everything else, the advent of MK resembles a bad reaction to an aggressive skin allergy, lacking the systematic logic dictated by theories of participative politics.
The party is an impulsive and unsystematic response to a complex and deeply entrenched issue. Its emergence is a symptom of SA’s broader failure to adequately tackle the lingering effects of apartheid, and represents a desire for a more radical and transformative approach to achieving social justice. However, the country’s political oligarchy continues to ignore silent messages of discontent and focuses on individuals.
In the Daily Maverick Rebecca Davis commented sarcastically on the MK party’s launch: “But to think that Zuma is charming enough to launch a new party at 81 and have it win sufficient votes to eat the ANC’s lunch is bonkers. How could he possibly succeed without the aid of his former brother-in-arms Carl Niehaus?”
Derrida posits that language is inherently unstable, with meaning consistently deferred or delayed. Consequently, there is no singular, definitive meaning to a narrative; instead, meaning undergoes constant shifts and reinterpretations. Deconstruction endeavours to interrupt this meaning-making process by accentuating the contradictions and ambiguities embedded in discourses.
A pivotal concept within deconstruction is the trace, representing a mark or residue of something no longer present. In the deconstructive framework traces are perceived as destabilising forces that disrupt the stability of meaning. For instance, a word may bear a trace of its etymological roots, giving rise to multiple meanings or associations.
Listening to political commentary in SA it is evident that no-one is ready to engage the issues confronting the black majority. If the ANC is not a problem, Zuma is.
Another fundamental concept is différance, which denotes the manner in which meaning is invariably deferred or delayed through a process of differentiation. In this context, the meaning of a word is contingent on its difference from other words, and this difference can perpetually undergo deferral. Thus, Derrida s concept of
différance underscores the fluidity and uncertainty of meaning in mainstream discourses surrounding the MK party.
The party’s name, which evokes the legacy of the liberation struggle, is simultaneously deployed as a symbol of hope and a reminder of unfulfilled promises. This is a topic that the media and others would rather avoid. As commentator Aubrey Matshiqi has observed, black South Africans may have a numerical majority but remain an insignificant cultural or social minority.
The question that needs to be answered is: how long must we endure this situation? If no solution is found, phenomena such as the MK party will continue to proliferate in our political landscape. Before we know it, a devastating tsunami may crash upon our shores.
The victims of Nyobeni and Phoenix have not seen justice since black lives do not matter in Africa’s last colony.
This article employed the deconstruction lens to scrutinise the MK party’s political backdrop, illuminating the inconsistencies and complexities that permeate SA’s political landscape. If the current hype is sustained, this new political force’s emergence should prompt a re-evaluation of the dominant discourses and approaches in postapartheid SA.
Political analysts and commentators cannot interpret social phenomena other than through a tainted lens, risking failure to accurately predict and explain situations as they are rather than expressing their subconscious biases and
différance. In essence, pre-existing perspectives may influence their interpretations, hindering a truly unbiased understanding of complex social dynamics.
The main story that should be dominating headlines is an explanation of how SA’s most prominent political fugitive is poised to disrupt the political duet of the ANC and the DA, which have been considering potential coalition partners. A plan is in the works to create legal obstacles to prevent Zuma from deciding the game in the next elections. But what if it fails?