EFF contempt for democracy is on show for all to see

AS SOUTH Africans are discovering, a state-of-the-art constitution does not of itself a thriving democracy make. Similarly, ersatz military ranks, red berets and Che Guevara slogans do not a revolution make.

The EFF’s radical rhetoric about the seizure of “white” land and the nationalisation without compensation of the mines is, at this stage, just sound and fury. That does not mean we should underestimate the insidious threat the EFF poses to a young, fragile democracy.

Their antics during last year’s State of the Nation Address, which went way beyond robust heckling, elicited much public and media delight. Everyone, it seems, liked to see the class clowns thumb their noses at authority, especially when the derision is directed at a widely disliked figure.

At this year’s address, the comic value of the EFF’s disruptions had worn somewhat thin. Parliamentary conventions exist for a good reason – they form the framework of minimal civility that is necessary for groups who loathe one another to be able to conduct the affairs of the nation.

That doesn’t mean MPs have to “respect” President Jacob Zuma, as Free State premier Ace Magashule demanded this week, failing which government “would act”. It does, however, mean respecting the office of president sufficiently not to howl down Zuma whenever he opens his mouth.

But the EFF’s abuse of parliamentary procedure is a minor matter and not what should be exercising Speaker Baleka Mbete’s and Ace Magashule’s minds. What they should be pondering is how MPs who have signed a parliamentary oath to abide by and protect the constitution can be allowed to get away with behaviour outside Parliament which flouts that same constitution.

Last week, Zuma’s controversial cronies, the Gupta family, went to court for an interdict forbidding EFF threats of violence against them and their employees at ANN7 television and The New Age newspaper. The court granted the interdict and also ruled the EFF was not allowed to prevent these journalists from attending public political events, including those of the EFF.

This was in response to the EFF warning that the “Zuptas” should vacate Gauteng and South Africa immediately, “otherwise the predictability of what could happen to them and any of their properties becomes a highly volatile matter”. If the Guptas did not leave voluntarily, they would be “physically driven out… by any means possible”.

Also, Malema had at a press conference made unambiguous threats against Gupta-employed journalists. They should “move out the way”, he said, for while the EFF “loved” its “sisters and brothers in Gupta firms… and don’t want you to be casualties… we cannot guarantee the safety of those printing The New Age and ANN7”.

In court, Malema disingenuously said these statements were not a call for violence, but simply part of robust political debate in an election year. This, while knowing full well his supporters were at that very moment demonstrating outside the Constitutional Court with placards saying “Guptas must go”, “We’ll fight fire with fire”, and singing “Shoot Zuma, shoot the Guptas”, the latest variation of Malema’s favourite ditty, “Shoot the boer, shoot the farmer”.

These are just the latest of many examples of Malema’s incendiary demagoguery. Several years ago when Zuma was facing corruption charges, Malema infamously promised “to kill for Zuma”, if the courts dared convict the man. Malema has since expressed regret, not over the threat to kill, but over his support for a man he now detests.

The kind of moral sophistry Malema displayed in the Pretoria High Court is dangerous, a disease that is clouding South African thinking. Increasingly, it is being used to justify the unjustifiable, which is necessary if one wants to lay the foundations for revolutionary violence.

These are the people who argue it is okay to burn art, on the grounds that it dates from the apartheid era, or it is okay to torch a university bus because it is a “symbol” of student oppression.

These are actions not far removed from our recent history when it was thought justifiable to place burning tyres over the heads of informers or even just those one disagreed with. For, as Winnie Madikizela- Mandela explained, “with our matchboxes and necklaces we shall liberate this country”. And liberation justifies anything.

The EFF has a thinly veined contempt for democracy and the law. They are useful mechanisms only in so far as they can be used to camouflage the EFF’s totalitarian and fascist intentions.

Malema’s response to the Gupta verdict is emblematic of this. “We must respect the courts… (but) the better option is for them to go… I had planned a surprise for them. Because we respect the courts, we will postpone the surprise. Once we appeal, we will give them their surprise.”

● Twitter @TheJaundicedEye