Today President Jacob Zuma will, again, formally unveil his latest party trick: the presidential “hotline”. Our president, we know by now, has the magician’s knack of drawing the eye away from the trick. Should a fraction of his talent for getting himself out of trouble be deployed in some wider national purpose, South Africa would probably have conquered the universe by now. But a more historical — and less noticed — political landmark, I believe, took place last Thursday. For the first time, Cope and the Democratic Alliance, representing 25% of the electorate between them, held their first joint-press conference. The tinder dry subject of labour-brokering, while not immediately apparent, cuts to the fundamental dividing line of South African politics: the role of the state in a capitalist society.
Despite the inevitable disclaimers from both parties, the significance of this event will be if this press conference presages closer co-operation up till and beyond the 2011 local government elections. If the DA repeated their 2000 performance (22% of the vote) and Cope edge up to 8% (I think it will do much better) in 2011, the ANC will be in serious trouble. Key municipalities and metros like Port Elizabeth and even Johannesburg could fall like ripe apples into the opposition’s hands. A thirty percent plus alliance victory could also herald a sea change in South African politics. The term “sea change” in politics, political students will know, became popular in 1979.
In an election which truly was a turning-point in British political history, “Sunny” Jim Callaghan was succeeded by Margaret Thatcher. An astute reader of the political weather, Callaghan had sensed he was heading for defeat. As his car drove him round Parliament Square during the 1979 campaign, he observed to his senior official, Bernard Donoughue: “You know, there are times, perhaps every 30 years, that there is a sea change in politics. I suspect that there is now such a sea change — and it is for Mrs Thatcher.” At the moment, there is not a sea change for Helen Zille or any opposition leader for the prosaic reason, excuse my bluntness, that they have not yet captured the national mood like Mrs Thatcher did in Britain thirty years ago.
But the ANC is being dragged along by a riptide, and the opposition will benefit. And this is where the DA’s co-operation with Cope is crucial. I believe the “law of diminishing returns” is setting in for the DA: it is getting less and less extra votes for the additional doses of resources and expertise it is adding. This not to say that the DA is not doing well. The party is the Maserati of South African politics. Shiny, well-resourced, streamlined, quick response, sturdy and classy without being too sexy, the DA is the “bee’s knees” or, better still, the “cat’s whiskers” of political organisations. Attracting Oxbridge and Harvard graduates to its public representatives and professional staff, the party glides panther-like through the thicket of the political jungle (please don’t write witty comments asking if the panther is black or white).
Most worryingly for the DA, though it has consolidated its core constituencies and is growing, significant growth is constrained — unfairly in my subjective view — by its lack of appeal among black voters. The debate surrounding why this is so is well-known and I will not reproduce it here. Partnership with Cope could bridge the racial chasm. “Cope reaches the parts other parties cannot reach” to borrow Heineken’s famous catchphrase. The party, in April’s election, achieved more rapid growth in vote terms than any other opposition party had managed since 1994. After four months of being registered, Cope garnered 1.3 million votes, went from zero to 7.42% of the vote, and overtook the IFP as the third largest party. Not only does Cope have a national presence, it appears to have — and this is crucial — a multi-class and non-racial demographic base. In parliament, Cope has a nice feel to it. Fresh, enthusiastic without being too slick, it looks and sounds representative and, most importantly, its leaders have deep roots in the ANC. Parties calving parties — like the slow moving glaciers of Patagonia — is a normal political process in a democracy. In Britain the Whigs gave birth to the Liberals and they gave birth to Labour. The difference here is the breakneck speed with which the process took place.
Zuma’s government — as opposed to the ANC’s social democracy which reaches deep into the nation’s DNA — is done for. This administration’s political runes are more disparate and jarring than Joseph’s Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat. From a hipster’s “shoot-to-kill” policy to presidential “hotlines” to Shaiky intelligence to shady foreign policy and make-it-up-as-you-go-along economics, the government drifts anchorless on the Sea of Zumatranquillity. Yet, in their heart-of-hearts, while the party seeks to promote internal diversity, the DA knows it can only compete for national power when the politics of race-based voting is expunged as a “choice” from the voters’ menu: yes, race, the San Andreas fault-line of SA politics.
If there is any party that can stick two fingers up to the ANC and say that race is not a determinant of content character and merit, it is Cope for the simple reason that their leaders are hewn from the same part of the struggle woods as the ANC. The DA, I was heartened to hear, are approaching their Cope counterparts as equal partners. This is savvy politics. “Who dares wins” is the famous SAS motto. It will be fascinating to see if Zille, and whoever emerges as Cope’s leader after the elective conference, will have the courage to tell their supporters to vote tactically in the 2011 elections.
Could Zille bring herself to say to DA supporters, for example, in swing wards in the Eastern Cape “if you think they can win here, vote Cope”? This brand of leadership takes courage and risks and Zille, for one, possesses both. It is also too early to say if Cope’s recent unexpected by-election coup in Tembisa was a breakthrough or an “outrider”. In most other by-elections Cope has contested, I should add for reflective balance, it has suffered crushing defeats and critics of this blog might argue that I am underestimating the schisms within Cope.
In the 1997 election, for the first time, the British electorate voted sophisticatedly and tacitly to get the entrenched Conservatives out. Up to then, it had been the Conservative century because the centre-left always split the vote. A few egos here, I fear, will have to be swallowed to similarly shift the ANC. At tops, a DA-Cope led alliance could deprive the ANC of an outright majority in 2014. And bearing in mind South Africa is a young country with a conspicuous dearth of young leaders, if the new alliance could identify a young and inspirational leader — a Barack Obama aged 47 or a David Cameron aged 41 — South Africa should brace itself for a sea change in 2019. The most exciting outcome of all, for me, would be a born again ANC or, should I say, a return to the old ANC: the prodigal son who comes home to their fathers’ vision of non-racialism and egalitarianism.
Nice article.
Jon, another very interesting article, a few points.
Firstly, there’s no such thing as tactical voting in SA, even at municipal ward level. You get a proportionate number of seats i.e. De Lille got 11% in CT in 2006, winning only 3 out of 105 wards. But she got a ‘top-up’ of 20 PR seats. So winning/losing swing wards really doesn’t matter – in fact winning few wards is good because you’re less susceptible to mid-termby-elections.
(Check out http://www.iec.org.za – LGE Results 2006).
I feel you are right that the ANC will die – it will inevitably follow the route of ZANU-PF, KANU, SWAPO etc. Support for the ruling party will collapse. That is not in dispute. The question is whether this means that South Africa need follow the route of Zimbabwe, Kenya etc. This is in dispute.
I feel you’re wrong on COPE – it’s dead dead dead. The DA will grow – it tripled its votes in the black townships of CT between 06 and 09, and has impressive young black leaders.
The stayaway vote will be huge.
Meanwhile, the rise of civic, internet based and locally focused action groups is not far away.
Kind regards
Did you just refer to the DA as the “Maserati of South African politics”? LOL. That is so weird dude! The DA only attracts “Oxbridge and Harvard graduates” because their rich mummies and daddies who used to support the Nats could afford to send them to fancy private schools.
Cope’s performance in the last election was disappointing for many reasons. However, Cope is undoubtedly poised to become the next official opposition party. It does not make tactical or strategic sense for Cope to align to a dying, elitist, racist DA.
The problem with DA is that in the past, they participated in two alliance/pacts that led to their present name. The short lived marriages between the present day DA and Inkatha and the late New National Party proved to be nothing but marriages of convenience.
One may argue that, those were the days when South Africa had just turned a corner from a 100% white totalitarian regime to a supposedly non-racial, african led democratic admin, under the leadership of the “saintly” Nelson Mandela, which made it almost impossible to oppose the ANc in any forum, not because they were sound, but because they had the international good will.
The country has since seen two elected presidents and a caretaker one. The present Pres, has his own share of controversy, both in government and in his private life. Should the DA play her cards well this time she may score higher.
I quite agree that Cope has tremdously well despite their infancy as a political party, though a home of seasoned politicians from across the South African political and tribal devide.
Much as I believe in giving young people a leading role in issues of public interes, Africa I suppose is not yet ready for the people of Obama’s and Cameroun’s age. Let them take the back seat and assist the more experienced folks to lead. Isn’t that true with the dynamic Chinese admin?
the party was led
Good Analysis. You have struck all the right notes.
Indeed what this country needs is a sea change in politics.I share your sentiment that what you need is fresh young leaders who can point us to the future with little baggage as possible.
Democracy, as we know it, is under a lot of strain. Corrupt politicians, the world over, have generally lost the confidence of the voters. Participation of voters in general elections is often not more than 65%: “voting is a waste of time”!!
This voters lethargy is keeping the ANC in power as “voting ANC” has been made a habit, based on their so-called “struggle credentials”.
This can only be broken by a positive opposition, showing ways to improve the impasse. Giving proper advice to the ruling party, heaping some praise at times when things go right. A subtle way of undermining their power-base by creating credibility with the general public.
The old DA lost a lot of sympathy with their negative “fight back” attitude. Cope does not have this history but some of its top brass have other skeletons in the cupboard.
Hope you are right for the future!
Jon, is it true that Willie Madisha drove labour-broking proposal from the COPE side? If so, why did he duck the press conference? I understand the anxiety about holding a pressie in the DA caucus room -with DA branding and all, and the delicious irony of an ex-Cosatu president advocating industry self-regulation, but what of the strength of his convictions?
@Richard: well-argued and half-correct (your point on the proportionality top-up). Yes, of course, you are right that there is less scope for tactical voting (my observation was more of an aside) with our strict party-list system of proportional representation than in the Westminster FPTP system.
T
But it follows that if two parties, like the DA and Cope, split the opposition vote in a ward by-election, then of course, the ANC candidate will win. The DA, for example, did not contest the recent Thembisa by-election. If they had, they might have split the opposition vote and let the ANC cruise to victory. It was a closely contested by-election.
Again, I would contend, an argument could be made for the DA/COPE/IFP contesting KwaZulu-Natal (that other renegade province!) together for two reasons: a singular opposition brand might garner more votes (although the Coalition for Change in 2004 did not work), and, again, it might stop the ANC emerging as the largest party. The crisp point Richard is that building opposition alliances is more than a numbers game. This subject of what kind of brand this should be is the subject for another week. Yes, the DA will continue to grow and it is making modest inroads into the black vote (and impressive inroads into the WC’s Coloured communities) but I believe it will grow much faster working with other opposition parties like Cope.
DREAM ON!
Excellent article.
well written piece, I like your very last sentence about a born again ANC, I belive that the ANC needs to find its way home. Jacob Zuma sold our organisation and sadly not for the good of us all but only for his own selfish needs. The battle that Mbeki fought against SACP is teh same one that MAndela faced as well as TAmbo before him. JZ thought he should just sell us out like that.
but the real battle for now is not in the Multi party polls rather within the ANC as cosatu and sacp have swelled teh ranks and thereby not allowing the anc to do what it is meant to.
@Jean Racine
You got it right there, I dont think Wily Madisha is in the same line of thinking as DA and COPE on Labour Brokers.
As for this article, the author must have had a wet dream last night, having a menage a trois with COPE and DA.
We do not need these two as opposition but a completely new force that will be able to attract votes from the youth, rich and poor who seek an alternative and a completely new discourse of opposition politics not this DA/COPE nonsense. Cant we have a compltely new party that will just destroy these two and have two parties competing for elections and a third party on just to tackle the grey areas in our body politics?
Lets face it Multi Party Democracy is a failure, 15 yeras after democracy still our opposition party have not found direction, they merely have runaway factions within themselves over and over.
IFP, then Nadeco then from that Sadeco
Pac, then ID and APC
DP, DA then DA without NP, NNP is born then NNP joins ANC….and the list goes on and on………..
A bit heavy on the figurative language but a thoroughly enjoyable and well-argued article. Frankly, I’m surprised that it’s still a question in anyone’s mind that the DA and COPE should co-operate where it’s strategically and mutually beneficial.
I’m a true-blue DA supporter but if the configuration of a DA-COPE election agreement meant that it would be better to cast my municipal vote for COPE in 2011, I will gladly do so.
@Jean Racine – I’m obviously not privy to the DA’s and Cope’s joint-policy making process! But I do think it was a genuine joint-effort and, after all, Phillip Dexter led for Cope. He acknowledged the sober realities of capitalism – no matter how hard that can be for a social democrat to swallow so-to-speak.
On that note @Revolutionary, no wet dreams (about this anyway). The IFP National Council precluded itself from a formal electoral alliance and, to the best of my knowledge, were not involved in the negotiations. The IFP’s play it prudent approach is to work with the other opposition parties on an issue-by-issue basis.
Thank you everyone else for the nice comments…
I dont see this general enthusiasm about COPE. They are badly organized, are almost invisible. They are the “great hope” that has never been fulfilled. The infighting within COPE are similar to those of the ANC.Many who voted for them will never do so again.
really… when ur done with those rose tinted lenses of yours, let me know, i would love to see what the world looks like, when political opportunism is the only modus vivendi…