EFF appeal to youth is low on substance

Party manifestos have little bearing on the public’s view of politics. It’s the responsibility of the media and others in the know to dissect, evaluate and inform the public of the nitty gritties in the document.

Hardly anyone in the streets of East London is seen perusing the thick pamphlet. Political analysts say these policy statement have little impact on how the electorate places their vote.

So why do it? Why go through this expensive exercise, the pomp and the ceremony, with seemingly nothing to gain?

Associate professor of politics and international relations at the University of Johannesburg Mcebisi Ndletyana agrees that a miniscule portion of the voting population base their decision on having read the manifesto.

He clarifies their existence as being a “traditional part of the election” process.

But for a party manifesto to be used “you need a literary society, people who are in the habit of picking up books and reading”.

We do not have that literary culture. Also, people don’t really believe that politicians are going to do what is contained in their manifesto.

“There is a huge trust deficit. Politicians do it because its tradition and secondly to tick a box, but they are useless,” Ndletyana said.

This brings me to the EFF. Like any other party, the EFF released a bold, heavy-handed document early in February which promises relief for the poor and the working class.

I never expected anything less from the men and women in red. Many analysts have criticised the EFF for its political hyperbole.

In fact, what is clear in its manifesto is that Julius Malema knows how to play the gallery.

Appealing to the youth and the poor when the ANC is struggling to rehabilitate is probably one of their power cards.

Shortly after the final registration weekend in January, IEC stats showed that nearly half of registered voters, at 49.2%, are aged between 20 and 29, and 26% are 18-19.

Needless to say, win the youth, win the vote.

In my understanding, as an opposition party the red overalls have the luxury of being able to make vague promises which may or may not be practical.

This is clearly demonstrated in the EFF’s 170-page document.

Take for instance, the Eastern Cape. The province is mentioned 11 times in the manifesto but there is hardly any explanation as to how radical change will be effected.

In fact Nelson Mandela University scholar of political and conflict studies Ongama Mtimka believes while the EFF may have created a great manifesto, with some detail, “it’s largely a pie in the sky”.

In its first reference to the Eastern Cape, the EFF promises to declare “special economic zones with zero company taxes and a building allowance in exchange for each investor creating 2,000 full-time jobs, paying a minimum wage and pension contributions”.

In essence, the party is calling for a deeper proliferation of the economic zones.

With seven regions proposed for this radical change, the Eastern Cape, second to KwaZuluNatal, has the lion’s share of the number of economic zones proposed.

Regions that would reap the benefits from the proposal include Butterworth, Mount Ayliff, Mbizana, Cofimvaba, Graaff-Reinet, Mthatha, Port St Johns, Sterkspruit and King William’s Town.

In his research, Mtimka found that decentralisation projects, much like those the apartheid government undertook in the homelands, depended heavily on government subsidies.

When government spending ceases to exist, the projects are likely to fail.

“My biggest critique of the plan of the EFF is that it’s not a financially viable plan.

“They are not only talking about economic zones, they are also talking about doubling economic grants, increasing minimum wages, absorbing the civil service.

“To implement what they want to implement, you would almost certainly need three times more than the economy that we currently have.”

Mtimka adds that special economic zones worked in countries like China because the government invested heavily in infrastructure before attracting investment.

In Coega and the East London IDZ for instance, foreign direct investment has been slow because the South African government has timed infrastructure development to coincide with foreign investment.

“It limits the extent to which you can have vibrant inflow of foreign direct investment,” he adds.

What was rather curious to me was the manifesto’s promise to build schools in seven areas of the Eastern Cape as part of its plan to stamp out mud schools as well as eradicate pit toilets by 2024.

What informed this decision? Why these seven specific areas? How many communities stand to benefit?

This is not answered in the document and any reasonable person is left asking these questions.

EFF Eastern Cape leader Yazini Tetyane was of little help.

After talking to him about this, I was left with more questions than answers.

In his response, Tetyane told me their party members would be pivotal in helping them with an assessment of areas with a dire need for schools.

“The seven we decided to elevate because when we interacted with our people they said to us ‘we need you flag these ones’ – we believe they some have a historical inclinations.”

Confused as I am? Let me put this into perspective.

The Eastern Cape has over 400 mud schools, which the government promised to eradicate by 2024.

The late Eastern Cape education MEC, Mandla Makupula, in 2018 estimated the cost of eradicating these schools at R19.9bn.

At least 367 of the mud schools had been allocated to the Accelerated Schools Infrastructure Delivery Initiative launched in 2011 to deal with the school infrastructure backlog in the country.

This would not be the only stumbling block to the EFF’s plan.

Education department boss Themba Kojana last year told journalists they now estimated they needed at least R70bn to fix all Eastern Cape schools.

Which begs the question: where, pray tell, would the EFF get the much-needed funding?

My biggest critique of the plan of the EFF is that it’s not a financially viable plan