‘Ukhongolose’ policies at the centre of political discourse
Areview of the political party manifestos for the May elections shows that the umlungu vs ukhongolose divide continues to characterise SA.
Nelson Mandela Universitybased linguist Andiswa Mvanyashe explains that the word umlungu “can refer to an employer, a black person of a certain ethnicity with a lighter skin colour, someone of higher standing, a wealthy person — or simply a white person”. Preserving the socioeconomic status quo, and in some cases getting nostalgic for the past to one where a nonracial, nonsexist, unitary constitutional democracy prevails.
By and large the political parties agree that among the burning issues are creating employment and lifting South Africans out of poverty; reducing inequality, crime and corruption; and improving privileges of the past, is its service delivery. The difference default position. is how the parties see these
Ukhongolose, a colloquial being addressed. term to refer to the ANC and its The ANC’s slogan, “Let’s do traditions, depicts politics that more, together” emphasises the has its roots in the struggle all-of-society and national unity against apartheid and has an approach that has been the agenda to continually transform hallmark of the ukhongolose society from the vestiges of the tradition, while the DA’s “Ready to rescue SA” smacks of the paternalism of umlungu. Its right-wing alliance partner, the FF+, is trying to mobilise its base around “Restore and Rebuild” ,a not-too-subtle call to return to the “good ol’ days” of apartheid.
There is broad consensus on the need to maintain the social net until SA gets onto a job creation trajectory. This is indicative of universal acceptance of the ukhongolose position on the need to maintain the social grants to ensure that the majority of our people do not sink into absolute poverty.
The ANC’s manifesto emphasises its intent to maintain the social security net as a step towards a basic income grant.
Rise Mzansi, which remains avowedly rooted in the ukhongolose tradition, states in its manifesto that it will tackle hunger and ensure food security and affordable basic services, while tackling substance abuse and drugs.
Notwithstanding the misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic and violence threatening rhetoric of the MK party leadership, its modulated manifesto also commits the party to “transformative change across all sectors of SA society” by laying down “a clear path towards a more equitable, secure and prosperous future for all South Africans”.
At the extreme end is the EFF’s populist manifesto, which can be summed up in three words: “nationalise”, “double” and “scrap”. Its seven pillars and priorities call for the expropriation of land and the nationalisation of mines and banks without compensation. It commits to doubling social grants and the scrapping of student and electricity debt.
Notwithstanding the DA’s free market orientation, it has also realised that it needs to address the penury millions of its non-supporters face. Its manifesto commits it to lift 6-million people out of poverty and support some form of social grants. Its ideological fellow traveller, ActionSA, does not hide behind the DA’s niceties, pushing extreme free market positions while claiming to support “economic empowerment of black South Africans”, despite being critical of the government’s BEE policies. It also commits to support social grants.
At the extreme end of the umlungu spectrum, the FF+ emphasises the “restore” message, with its manifesto speaking of preserving groups in the name of selfdetermination and independence of communities. Clearly its ideal would be many more privileged Oranias across the country.
Eleven weeks to go: enough time to read the manifestos, compare them against the party leaders’ speeches and actions, and make up your mind which party is placing the needs of all South Africans first.