Patronage group can split ruling party

The greatest barrier to an ANC that boots out corruption rather than ministers who fight it may not be the strength of those who want to take over the state, but the loyalty of their opponents.

President Jacob Zuma’s message to SA that “radical economic transformation” means firing ministers who look after the people’s money and protecting those who play games with the lives of people living on grants, has driven ANC leaders and activists to revolt. But what can they do to prevent the ANC and the government becoming the playthings of the patronage politicians? The answer is crucial: it may decide whether the attempt to turn patronage into the chief business of government is defeated before 2019, when voters can punish it at the polls.

Because the real victims of this reshuffle are the people, particularly those who need the state to keep poverty at bay, the obvious way to defeat it would be to mobilise citizens to demand a government that serves them, not a clique that uses radical language to make war on the poor. Democracies are strongest when the people can defend their rights without relying on politicians. But in SA at this time, millions will not take to the streets to force the government to listen.

Grass-roots people are absent from the anti-Zuma protests not because they like elites who look after themselves at their expense, but because protesters have failed to connect with poor people in a way that would offer them platforms to act. So, if the people are to defeat patronage, they may need to wait two years for the next election to do it. Much damage could be done in that time.

This does not mean public protest is a waste of time — people need to speak out. But whether patronage is stopped any time soon will depend not on citizens’ action, but on the strength of those in the ANC who oppose it. Some commentators insist Zuma and the patronage politicians have sewn up the ANC. But it is too early to tell which faction will win control of the ANC. And even if, as seems likely, the patronage group are favourites, their opponents have two options that could defeat them; both need them to break with ANC tradition.

South African Communist Party (SACP) leader Solly Mapaila has urged ANC activists to choose the people over the president. But the SACP and its allies may also need to choose the people over ANC tradition. Its remedy relies on protest, which cannot move the president. There are more promising options — if they are willing go against the ANC grain. The first is to support a vote of no confidence in Zuma. This would force him and the Cabinet to resign, paving the way for a new leadership.

ANC members voting against an ANC president is an extreme break with tradition.

Years of operating underground in great danger created a deep-rooted ANC culture in which siding with others against even unpopular leaders is unthinkable. But it may be the most effective way of winning control. It needs only a quarter of ANC MPs to support the motion, a far surer prospect than gathering a majority among ANC delegates, many of whom owe more to patronage bosses than voters. It would also make a democratic point because Parliament is elected by the people, while ANC structures are not. But, while this may be the obvious strategy, ANC tradition seems to rule it out.

The second is to signal clearly that if the patronage group takes over the ANC, it will face a split. This is less of a break with tradition: the ANC has split before both the past two general elections. But there is still great resistance to it, not only because emotional ties to the ANC are strong: breaking away also seems like a ticket to the political margins. But breaking with the ANC is no longer a political suicide note. The opposition controls Joburg and Tshwane because a breakaway party that wins only 8% of the vote can keep the ANC out of power. Since the ANC won about 54% in 2016, a breakaway would only need 5% to deprive it of a majority. It could be the breakaways who govern.

The threat of a breakaway could be a powerful bargaining chip and, if the patronage faction refused to listen, it could well lose power at the polls. ANC politicians who shrink at this option might care to think how at home they will feel in a party whose leader does not even bother to tell them who he is appointing as ministers.

Politicians are people and so emotion may ensure these strategies are not used. But the question is not whether patronage’s opponents have options: it is whether they are willing to use them.

SINCE THE ANC WON ABOUT 54% IN 2016, A BREAKAWAY WOULD NEED 5% TO DEPRIVE IT OF A MAJORITY. IT COULD BE THE BREAKAWAYS WHO GOVERN