In a recent ANC Today post, President Kgalema Motlanthe rehashes an article he wrote in the run-up to the 1999 elections in which he criticised the then DP’s calls to prevent a two-thirds majority as “a fear of democracy”. In that decade-old piece he said:
Lacking a coherent or realisable vision for a better South Africa, these parties have fallen back on the promotion of fear to erode the ANC’s support and to generate a mood of resistance to meaningful change.
The ‘swart gevaar’ and ‘rooi gevaar’, now devoid of their previous menace, have mutated into the two-thirds gevaar.
If fear is the opposition’s most enduring weapon, then a two-thirds ANC majority is their latest ammunition.
He adds a postscript:
In the decade since this article was first published, the ANC has in fact held a two-thirds majority in Parliament. In all this time it has not used this majority to change the Constitution in the way that these opposition parties predicted. It is has no intention to do so now. This is the Constitution for which the ANC fought, and we will continue to do everything we can to defend it.
That is a blatant lie. With cabinet’s approval of the 17th constitutional amendment bill, we can see why the electorate depriving the ANC of its ability to change the Constitution is imminently sensible and vital for the sustainability of our democracy.
The bill seeks to grant wide-ranging powers to central government to intervene in the operations of local government, thereby wholly undermining local government’s constitutionally-mandated autonomy. Government is claiming it will use the bill to speed up service delivery and force municipalities to accept the role of regional electricity distributors — until now, these have been reluctant to do so, as they buy electricity straight from Eskom. But the problem with the bill is that it would give power to do much more than that. As a Sapa article mentions:
Asked why the proposed amendment did not limit itself to letting central government intervene on electricity, Maseko said the State might later need greater powers in other areas and did not want to change the Constitution constantly.
“We don’t want to amend the Constitution on an almost annual basis. If we did, it would stop providing certainty. So we thought it was better to give government the powers and trust … it will not use the powers willy-nilly.”
Past behaviour is no guarantee for the future. Just because the ANC hasn’t substantively changed the Constitution in the past does not mean that it won’t do so in the future. This much is illustrated with the current amendment bill, where the resulting unwarranted accumulation of power in the hands of central government could prevent opposition-run councils from governing unimpeded by central government interference.
With the ANC having tried their utmost to topple Cape Town’s opposition-run council (including a bid by former Local Government MEC Richard Dyantyi to strip Helen Zille of her executive mayoralty), the DA has every reason to be worried. Its Stop Zuma campaign aims to turn out enough people to prevent potential abuses of power that a two-thirds majority — and hence the ability to change the Constitution — would thus enable. Unfortunately some people claim this is irrational hysteria — “swart-gevaar” tactics by any other name. To the uninformed or the blindly bigoted, it may come across that way. But it’s not.
The DA’s track record and vision proves that its vociferous campaigning against a two-thirds ANC victory is for the right reasons. Unfortunately, though, in focusing so zealously on Zuma — which doubtless is of vital importance — an insufficient emphasis on the DA’s ideals, vision and manifesto has resulted.
For people to know that the DA isn’t the reactionary, racist minority party that Motlanthe and the ANC like to depict it as, the DA needs to work harder to put across its vision to the millions who (by dint of the SABC’s propaganda and insufficient access to information) remain unaware of what the party represents.
In advocating an “Open Opportunity Society”, the DA aims to achieve sustainable transformation by encouraging innovation not by rewarding party loyalty. Its policies, especially with regards to the challenges of dismantling the legacy of apartheid (which the ANC has entrenched), is informed by “a clear acknowledgment that there is a long history of racial discrimination and oppression in South Africa, that it was wrong and that positive action is now required to make it right. That positive action must be targeted at individuals who still suffer the effects of discrimination, not at groups. It must provide opportunity to the disadvantaged without shutting off opportunity to the advantaged”.
This is why the DA is a proponent of an income grant of R110 per month for people earning less than R46 000 a year. This is why it proposes a voucher system “aimed at giving the most academically promising 250 000 children from low-income families the opportunity to receive a better school education”. This is why it suggests giving “young South Africans who meet certain conditions an opportunity voucher, which will allow them to subsidise study costs or start a business”.
And if the proof indeed is in the pudding, then its record thus far as the largest party in the City of Cape Town’s ruling coalition is very promising. The City wrote off R1.5 billion worth of debt owed to it by the poorest of the poor. It has provided free water and electricity to impoverished areas ignored by the ANC when it was in power. It has also more than doubled the rate at which council housing is being delivered.
Both its manifesto and track record of governing Cape Town prove that the DA is a viable, principled alternative to the ruling party — far from being an ethnically-based minority party seeking to deny apartheid’s painful legacy and only promoting the interests of one population segment.
Campaigning to stop Zuma from potential abuses of power is important and should doubtless be a key part of the DA’s campaign messaging. But if the DA is to ever build critical mass, it needs to focus on getting the message through to the electorate that not only does it oppose Zuma, it is a better alternative to him and the party he leads — better for poor people, better for rich people: better for all South Africans.
Alex,
You would defend your party, the DA, wouldn’t you? If you said any different, I would be shocked!
Here’s a thing now. Last night, I watched your leader failing to string three sentences together without mentioning Jacob Zuma. To this day, it is POSSIBLE that the DA has good policies, it is POSSIBLE that they even know how to mobilize the public servants to implement them. But I don’t really know about it because your party has failed to communicate.
On the other hand, I heard a very articulate Bantu Holomisa say some very interesting things. Even the IFP’s Narand Singh was articulate.
There in lies the rub. Parties that do not know how to communicate with potential voters about what they are going to do, deserve the results they will achieve at the polls.
As we speak, there is a distinct possibility that a 4 month old party could become the official opposition after Wednesday. Whom are you going to blame for that?!!!
Well said, Alex!
And thank you for putting the DA policy positions so clearly. The DA is the only party with a demonstrated record of consistent delivery. They also accept criticism without resorting to hysteria of the Jesse Duarte variety.
The country needs rational leadership; not appeals to the limbic system that by-pass the neo-cortex!
Each person who votes should remember this:
NO CONSTITUTION; NO COUNTRY.
Alex, The DA is an inherent racist party. You conveniently forget their racist “fight back” campaign and now history repeats itself with the “Stop Zuma” campaign. What electorate are you refferring to that will deprive the ANC from gaining a two thirds majority? You propably refferring to the white voters! In case you forget, this is democracy where the majority’s views hold sway! In other words, the ANC cannot use its mandated majority to change where change are needed? The masses want change and that change start at local govt. regardless of the fears of a racist minority!
The DA and COPE want constitutional changes as long as it suit their misguided agendas! We cannot subvert democracy because a small minority want to retain the staus quo. Intervention is needed at local govt. level because in Cape Town massive resources are ploughed into suburbs like Claremont, Constantia, Pinelands and other predominantly white areas but in the areas like Lotus River, Grassy Park, Manenburg and others, your heroic DA does not demonstrate the same commitment to service delivery! Let me assure you, the masses will not be fooled by people like Madam Zille.
Alex Matthews, it’s your democratic right to punt and defend a party of your choice but you also need to grant us the right to criticise and villify your choice. Why the need to quote Motlanthe to prove your point, why not just spell out the virtues of the DA and let us decide.
Lack of service delivery is often blamed on the ruling party, so what’s wrong when the ruling party seek a legal avenue to intervene where service delivery lacks. The nation can’t be held hostage by the need of the DA to preserve its Western Cape enclave. Is this an admission that the Da would never come to power in the forseeable future on your part? Why should the wishes of the DA take precidence over other parties’ wishes?
Manifestos are critical vehicles to enlighten the electorate about party policies. I remain baffled by your reasoning relating to the two-thirds campaign. If that is what the electorate espouse to,is that in itself not democracy? Surely by now you know that you dont have monopoly of wisdom to dictate what is democratic or not, unless you subscribe to the pseudo-intellect of Holomisa et al,who derive wisdom from calling people a lynch mob! The “lies” that you quote must not be a self serving agenda of your ilk,cause we in the ANC understand and respect the mandate bestowed on our leadership, and we take pride to remain true to the constitution of the republic.
Motlanthe’s not very bright and he is very worried that his party’s ineptitude and corruption is off-putting. Playing the race-card is what desperate people do.
Pity the DA’s marketing campaign is playing right into the ANC’s hands. The DA’s head strategist needs to be fired because this is a truly shocking stategy from the point of view of swaying heistant voters.
Concentrating on Zuma only puts off people, the DA should have concentrated on their delivery record and explaining how their manifesto benefits the average South African more than the ANC’s.
It’s quite obvious that the DA just never understood how “Fight Back” became “Fight Black” in the blink of an eye.
Psychology 101 might be a good place for the DA to start.
Thoughtful essay.
The national/central government should not have total or near-total control over provincial and local government.
Federalism has been imperfect in Nigeria (to put it mildly) but the “idea” of federalism should be more common on the continent. In countries where a three-tier federal system won’t make sense, a two-tier structure (with power properly devolved to cities and rural districts is still possible).
South Africa should have a constitutionally defined three-tier federal structure. And if some parts of this structure are governed by second and third parties, so much the better. A one-party state, de jure or de facto, will be the worst thing that could happen to South Africa.
I have always been buffled by the strategies that are employed by the DA. Too much mention of the ANC a case in point any marketing book will tell you that. The other point is to try to duplicate Cape Town as a model for a better SA. I am not from Cape Town, but recently there after a long time. The city is very hostile towards black african, in bars a resturants if that is the model to be replicated them, I will urge anyone with enough brains not to vote for the DA. I have only noticed the entrenchment of white privillege that I have not seen in any other town in the country.
It is okay to protect a particular group but not at the expense of others. ANC is going to win convincingly and that is a forgone conclusion.
With all due respect, Two-thirds gevaar is racist because the counter-strategy as implemented by the DA is purely racist in nature. It goes against any mathematical logic.
KZN is the province with the biggest population. The ANC is likely to increase its support because the DA is not making a stand there. Only the IFP will challege the ANC in KZN. However, the ANC has campaigned in previous IFP no-go areas (1994). If the DA’s message were universal, I see no reason why they would not make a brave effort in campaigning in KZN (ANC Orania). I suppose DA does not need 20% of national voters because only 13% of English is spoken (vs isiZulu 81%).
The DA is only planning to win the Western Cape, solely based on targeting the demographics of white and coloured voter -Afrikaans (55%), English (19%), isiXhosa (23%) . Western Cape contributes merely 10% of the population at number 5. DA’s stop Zuma campaign is the 21st century reincarnation of the “Great Trek”- bringing civilisation into the dark and corrupt South Africa.
The most visible and effective measure of a non- racist campaign is how well is it aimed and is persuasive to diverse voters. In other words, the DA should disprove racism by winning Gauteng. The most diverse province and the second biggest ito population size -isiZulu (21%), Afrikaans (14%), Sesotho (13%), English (12%)
Targeting limited racial and cultural groups and only receiving support from targeted group is racist.
The last time I criticised the DA for their relatively decent policies and completely rubbish marketing, I was told (by Lyndall I think) that their ‘Fight Back’ campaign was a product of some American strategist/thinktank as if this was something to be praised. All I can think is they’ve got the same useless okes in charge of their current marketing and it’s just as useless as it was the last time. Pathetic bunch. Who cares what their policies are after reading their ‘Stop Zuma’ posters? They don’t even seem to themselves if those are anything to go by.
Which is a shame because, contrary to popular belief, the DA has ploughed some fair amounts of resources into disadvantaged areas – clearly not enough but let’s be honest, nothing in this generation is likely to be enough. And besides, as we all know, Grassy Park and Khayelitsha are not all alone. They have their twins all around the country, logically mostly in ANC-led areas since most areas are.
It always amazes me that Cape Town (indeed one of the most unequal cities in the world) is criticised most loudly for being so by those of a new elite who live in Sandton, with a nice view across the road. And yes, of course new capitalists and others are entitled to their houses…only they should be careful if they are made of too much glass.
Given that when a white guy critises a black guy, other blacks close ranks behind the black guy no matter what he has done based on the notion that if whites don’t like what a black guy is doing, then the black guy nust be doing something good for black people.
If the DA wants to stop the 2/3 majority then it should disban so that black opposition can prosper as the DA is what unites the ANC no matter what the ANC does.
Hopefully whites will choose to support a black leader this election so that we can create healthy future based opposition parties that have the power to unseat the ruling party.
Bongo and Sipho
Nearly every single local government has been run by the ANC since 1994. If there have been failures, why not ask the omnipresent ANC why they haven’t stepped in and fixed things by “deploying loyal cadres who care for the poor and service delivery”? Or is it all just a lie when you scratch the surface?
Also, why should a local government, with a locally derived majority mandate be subverted by another party who lost out in those local elections? Is this not taking power away from the people?
Why is the ANC so fixated on 2/3rds? What is it in our consitution that is offensive to the ANC that they need 2/3rds and not just a simple majority? What rights that have been entrenched are now offensive and need to be removed?
The local government issue is very recent and just exposes the ANC’s lie that it doesn’t intend changing the Constitution to suit itself.
What else lies in store for us? Saying “We’ve had 2/3rds for a while now and not been bad” doesn’t mean that having another 2/3rds will save us from abuse by the State.
Please Bongo and Sipho, please enlighten me.
Hi Alex
Not much to say but i have ffg observations. Every time i’ve logged onto TL in the past few months everyone tells me why i shouldn’t vote ANC. People tell me 2/3rds majority is evil. DA claims track-record and ground=shattering achievements in Cape Town.
Now i have a few questions as i think about above.
1. What can the DA do for me as a 28year old black voter who perceived Cape Town racist for the mere fact that i struggle to get a job irregardless of how qualified i am.
2. To the guy who lives in Nyanga and at risk of being murdered or mugged on a daily basis for looking at a 17year old Gangster from the “Palestinians” funny, reduced crime stats in the CBD don’t count for anything
3. Your average voter doesn’t really undestand this 2/3rds threat everyone is yammering about. Put it in plain english. Go from door to door. Stop attacking Malema and JZ and promote the DA.
I can’t remember which TL contributer, but he said something about ANC being like Shoprite. Everyone knows its cheap and you can get all your grocery there. DA is like Woolies; look nice, speaks fancy, stocks the same merchandise, but its too expensive and fancy
If anyone from the DA is reading this take notes. I’ve said it one time too many
Bonginkosi: Agree, the DA should have stick to their more positive campaign and governance record in Cape Town. In the next election, if they win WC and more municipalities, they would be able to focus more on their “proven” track record.
The focus on Zuma (even with good principals behind it) from the opposition is a result of not having much else to talk about. Plus, ANC themselves elevated Zuma in their election campaign by choosing him as their candidate and is guilty of stereotyping the opposition and just rehashing the same old policies/rhetoric.
The ANC will continue to stereotype the DA and play the race card as long as the DA has senior white leadership (even with a black leader). Look at the MDC in Zim. It works politically since many believe/buy into this perception (not helped by some of the DA’s election strategies).
This poses a dilemma for the DA which has to decide between their liberal principals and political imperatives. Do they window dress and get a black leader or do they stick to their policy of whoever is “best” lead the party? (If that happens to be two woman (-2008), let it be so rather than impose artificial political engineering).
Their future lies in building a bigger black membership (key to attracting black leadership) without compromising on key principles or simply window dressing. This should help retain and attract new members. However, can they grow enough with a liberal ideology in SA?