Cults contrary to core values of democracy
ults of personality are poisonous to democracy.
They shift the focus of voters away from policies and accountability, turning elections into popularity contests instead of a contest of ideas and substance.
The use of personality cults to cloud the real issues has worked very successfully for many movements in the past, and continues to enjoy success today.
There is no doubt that the strategy suits some political parties and movements, especially ones that would prefer voters to not look too closely at their actual platforms or their record on delivering on election promises.
The South African political scene has witnessed the rise and fall of many cults of personality over the centuries, and by the look of recent events, it’s not a habit we are going to grow out of any time soon.
ANC stalwarts who back President Jacob Zuma and Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) upporters who have thrown in their lot with Julius Malema may be mortal political enemies, but they have at least one thing in common: an apparent blind devotion to a leader who can do no wrong in their eyes.
According to reports at the weekend, the EFF is rallying members to protest outside the Limpopo High Court in Polokwane today, where Malema is set to appear on charges of fraud, corruption, money laundering and racketeering.
There is something both deeply ironic and disturbing about seeing people who have left the ANC due to perceived corruption and tenderpreneurship protesting in support of a man accused of the same.
Malema has not been found guilty of any crime, but it would make a lot more sense to wait for the trial to run its course. To protest against bringing a case with prima facie evidence to court makes no sense – unless, of course, people are being motivated by a cult of personality instead of by policies and principles.
Yesterday, in a story about the ongoing Nkandla report debacle, spoke to eight residents of Nkandla to find out if the contents of the report would have any impact on who they will vote for in next year’s general election.
Most felt the president should pay back any taxpayer money improperly spent but, perhaps unsurprisingly, none felt Zuma should be forced to step down if the Public Protector’s report confirms wrongdoing.
Some said Zuma was perfectly entitled to use public money to ensure his safety.
In both instances, supporters seem to believe their leader should be held to a different standard than everyone else.
This goes against the core values of democracy, and if the majority of the electorate feel this way, it raises the question of whether it is even possible for us to have any sort of healthy democracy.
Other weekend reports suggested infighting in the Democratic Alliance was centred on factions supporting either Lindiwe Mazibuko or Mmusi Maimane as preferred successor to Helen Zille. If this is another battle of personalities, instead of a debate about policy direction, it will end up weakening the party even more than their recent flip-flopping on BEE policy may have done.
If we are to keep our democracy viable, there needs to be a renewed focus on asking ourselves what we’re voting for, instead of whom.