I was at Mbare township’s netball complex on Saturday April 3 2010 for ANC Youth League president Julius Malema’s rally. Mbare is Zimbabwe’s oldest high-density suburb and is also one of the areas that suffered tremendously from the Robert Mugabe regime’s shameful Operation Murambatsvina or Operation Get Rid of Filth, which left thousands of Zimbabweans homeless in the winter of 2005.
That fact was lost, however, to Malema’s hosts, members of the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF) youth league. Among them was Saviour Kasukuwere, minister of youth development and indigenisation whose rather unpopular and controversial regulations on indigenisation have virtually been confirmed as national policy. The youthful minister is unwavering in his bid for the state to takeover key foreign-owned business entities, including banks.
If Kasukuwere, on the rally day, dressed in a Zanu-PF t-shirt bearing the clenched fist of Robert Mugabe, blue jeans and a Fidel Castro-like military cap meant to communicate young people’s appreciation of the liberation struggle, then Julius Malema’s entrance was meant to speak to the expensive tastes those very same young people ‘growing up’ in the structures of revolutionary parties have acquired. Such is the neo-colonial trait of comrades who condemn all things capitalist while swimming in the very same luxuries themselves.
Malema arrived in a Mercedes Benz GL500. The sleek SUV bears personalised registration, “Zhuwawo”, and belongs to the Zanu-PF director of youth and politburo member Patrick Zhuwawo who is also President Mugabe’s nephew. Malema’s entourage – the usual suspects – followed behind in Range Rovers, VX Land Cruisers and S-Class Mercedes Benz vehicles.
The genius of young comrades like Malema and Kasukuwere is that they have, in the most cunning way, clutched at the regional liberation discourse even though they did not fire AK-47s or dodge landmines themselves. In addition to belonging to the right political parties, they have done one better by also amplifying how radical those who actually fought colonial and apartheid oppression were and arguing that change – political freedom – was won as a result of that radicalism and militancy, not negotiations in air-conditioned conference rooms.
Therefore, they insist that the new war of “economic freedom in our lifetime” must be guided by the very same principles and executed with the same military precision that defeated such oppression. In doing so, however, they willingly spread uncertainty, usher in speculation on the stock market and eventually shake investor confidence. Times have changed.
There was once a man just as young who had exactly the same ideas and radical approach. The only difference was that he was no hypocrite; he didn’t preach water while he drank expensive red wine and cognac in his private comfort. He became a living example of his ideas, delivered on his promise to bring prosperity to his country. I speak, of course, about Thomas Isidore Noel Sankara, the man they refer to as Africa’s Che Guevara.
At age 33, he seized power and had one motive: to flush French imperialism out of Burkina Faso. And he did it! In just four years, this man achieved for his country what some of these thieves and frauds masquerading as heads of state and modern-day revolutionaries can only but achieve in their wildest dreams.
Sankara devised socio-economic programmes that encouraged self-sufficiency, effectively giving the so-called experts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank fresh lessons on how Africa had the potential to succeed on its own, provided there was the political will to act in the interest of the people. A week before he was killed by an assassin’s bullet in a coup d’etat he had famously remarked: “While revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas.”
Malema and Kasukuwere, in their usual complexes, have said the same things but of course, acted differently, exposing their breathtaking double standards. They simply do not have the political will to see through what they preach because they are not prepared to suffer, like Sankara, the huge sacrifices that come with such desires.
In Malema’s case, however, things may pan out differently. He is already arguing that he has the political will to rid South Africa of its glaring inequalities but the ANC stands in his way because it has become complicit in undermining its own revolutionary aspirations as captured in the Freedom Charter, a sacrosanct document of the party.
Could it be the case that in the near future as we – a formerly oppressed people – search for newer and much more contemporary icons, and as the reality of how economically disempowered we are as a result of previous systematic oppression sinks deep, people like Julius Malema and Saviour Kasukuwere will become our struggle icons, economic freedom fighters whose messages resonate with our own aspirations as a people not only seeking restoration of human dignity but also looking to become captains of industry, business magnates and tycoons, people who own the means of production and have firm “acquaintance with the actual and potential resources of their country’s soil and mineral deposits” and are therefore able to speak eloquently and authoritatively on what exactly needs to be done in order to get such wealth working for everyone and not just a select few?
Are we edging closer to that point where we are willing to openly say, “I may not agree with Malema’s personality but the man does have a point”? If we are, then we also need to ask if we are prepared to deal with the potential chaos that will ensue, more visibly on the stock market as investor confidence shakes. And it will shake.
This is where talk of South Africa becoming another Zimbabwe comes in. I have previously argued that this will not happen. Yet, it will be dangerously naïve to assume that upsetting the status quo will not come with requisite consequences. One, therefore, should ask what needs to be done to minimise the damage and fallout to prevent “another Zimbabwe” before we can all scream “Eureka!”.
In South Africa, for example, the land question has made a safe landing among the black middle-class, a people who previously never seemed to care much about that resource but are now awakening to the fact that indeed, “the land is the economy and the economy is land”, to borrow a former Zanu-PF election slogan. The irony!
In both South Africa and Zimbabwe, the black middle-class is one that has given the harshest criticism yet to people like Malema and Kasukuwere. The African intellectual revolutionary, Frantz Fanon, describes this class as one that is “not engaged in production, nor labour; it is completely canalised into activities of the intermediary type. Its innermost vocation seems to be to keep in the running and to be part of the [capitalist] racket.” (That quote is worth another read.)
And perhaps this is what all those who have derided Malema and celebrated his expulsion from the ANC have missed. The same thing happened with Kasukuwere in Zimbabwe. And it happened also on April 3 2010 when those of us who are neither Zanu-PF nor ANC sympathisers were left intellectually and morally conflicted by Malema’s visit to Zimbabwe.
Although the media will throw the “prominence” news value on Malema as the reason why he still features on their front pages and news bulletins, they secretly know too well that he is onto something. If he was not, and since the ANC has said, for example, there shall be no nationalisation whatsoever, Julius Malema should not be making the news any longer quite frankly.
But he is, still.
For me, the most telling statement from Malema is one that was delivered at a certain church in Soweto, ahead of his initial disciplinary hearing. The gospel according to Julius Malema on that Sunday was wrapped around this: “The church must protect successful black people because today every successful black person is a criminal. When one of our own is under attack, instead of protecting that person, we join the chorus [of attack]. And you don’t know that actually, in joining the chorus, you are undermining the work of God, because these are products of God.” You will need to have been to one of the so-called prosperity churches to understand the power and relevance of this message.
Hence, the broad church of voices that has come out in support of Malema is not concerned with the well-being of the individual. Rather, all these voices feel quite aggrieved that their dreams, hopes and aspirations of someday driving a GL 500 Merc as owner of a plantation and not just its manager or worse, casual worker, are under severe threat from the very same people who pledged to get them there but seem to have now forgotten what the core mandate is. You do not need to be in the ANC to know what the core mandate is. You do not even need to like Julius Malema for you to know this mandate. Your own sense of economic justice as a person who was once systematically disempowered is sufficient.
Hence, beyond the entire hullabaloo, South Africa – and not just the ANC – will need to conduct some critical introspection, be brutally honest with itself and sastisfactorily answer the question of “economic freedom in our lifetime” for it remains unanswered, Julius Malema or no Julius Malema.
As for Zimbabwe, it needs to be pointed out to the likes of Kasukuwere that farming, for instance, is not done on television, radio on newspapers. Owning the means of production actually means producing something and these products – the real revolutionary gains – need to be seen and felt and not just heard as mere rhetoric.
A wonderful piece Levi. I like your honesty. You tell it like it is.
Brilliant piece Levi!!!
You have summed the thoughts and feelings of many in the so called black middle class.
I know nothing of Burkino Faso, for which I don’t apologise, so I checked from Wikipedia and found the following:
“…Upper Volta became an autonomous republic in the French community on 11 December 1958.
On 5 August 1960, it attained full independence from France.
The 1960 constitution provided for election by universal suffrage of a president and a national assembly for five-year terms. Soon after coming to power, Yaméogo banned all political parties other than the UDV.
The government lasted until 1966… military coup deposed Yaméogo, suspended the constitution, dissolved the National Assembly, and placed Lt. Col. Sangoulé Lamizana at the head of a government of senior army officers. The army remained in power for four years, and on 14 June 1970, the Voltans ratified a new constitution that established a four-year transition period toward complete civilian rule. Lamizana remained in power throughout the 1970s as president of military or mixed civil-military governments. After conflict over the 1970 constitution, a new constitution was written and approved in 1977, and Lamizana was reelected by open elections in 1978.
…on 25 November 1980, Col. Saye Zerbo overthrew President Lamizana in a bloodless coup. Colonel Zerbo established the Military Committee of Recovery for National Progress as the supreme governmental authority, thus eradicating the 1977 constitution.
Cont…
…
Colonel Zerbo also encountered resistance from trade unions and was overthrown two years later, on 7 November 1982, by Maj. Dr. Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo and the Council of Popular Salvation (CSP). The CSP continued to ban political parties and organizations, yet promised a transition to civilian rule and a new constitution.
Factional infighting developed between moderates in the CSP and the radicals, led by Capt. Thomas Sankara, who was appointed prime minister in January 1983. The internal political struggle and Sankara’s leftist rhetoric led to his arrest and subsequent efforts to bring about his release, directed by Capt. Blaise Compaoré.
This release effort resulted in yet another military coup d’état on 4 August 1983.
After the coup, Sankara formed the National Council for the Revolution (CNR), with himself as president.”
So that by the time Sankara formed the National Council for the Revolution with himself as president, Burkino Faso was already an independent state for 23 years, more specifically, independent of France, and even went through a stage of universal suffrage before ending up as a totalitarian Marxist dictatorship.
How is this account consistent with your claim that “…he seized power and had one motive: to flush French imperialism out of Burkina Faso”? Or is this just white, Eurocentric Grand Narrative?
Kabwato,
You have mentioned all most everything in a very analytical way. But I would like to hear what do you think is behind the rejection of some of the principles located in the freedom charter by the ANC? Talking about economic freedom in our life time is a noble thing and even fighting for it is still an ideal struggle but what I simply want Malema to tell why he does not speak about the negociation pact that the ANC signed in order for it to gain power?
I ‘m deeply convinced that the problem started from there.
Thank you Levi. Well summarised.
With my work, (agricultural sector consulting) I have seen loads from the governments plans that they are indeed interested in productive land usage and not mere redistribution. The food shortage globally is very real and will become more so in a few years time. To see the government willing to embrace the non-negotiable impact of productive land ownership, even if it is in parts, is for me very encouraging.
Let’s make it happen.
Jerome “French imperialism” can mean French influence not rule! so in a ways it would help to read again what was written instead of seeing skin colour. That’s the problem with most white people you always on the defence.
think you have ‘over-egged’ some key pojnts. One church’s backing does not mean all are behind. i suspect there are far more against that for the Malema.
Anyway, can we talk about something newsworthy now?
Great analysis!
I don’t know where it comes from that when people are fighting against poverty they should be poor themselves or pretend to be poor. I don’t know what was Sankara’s motivation to leave like a poor person when he could access the best things his country could offer him in accordance to his position. Did he expect or approve of any Burkinabe driving a German car? Me thinks anyone who’s gainly employed and can afford the best things in life should go for it. Politicians are employees as well, they deserve to earn a salary, and what they do with it is entirely up to them. Our hatred for corruption should not extend its tentacles to every aspect of life. Corruption should never be assumed but proven. As for black intellectuals, most are parasites who seem to believe that a degree should create space for them to become presidents, DGs etc. Their criticism is MAINLY motivated by the envy of goal getters who instead of moaning go out fiercely contest for what they believe in.
I meant to say live like a poor person.
A really good piece.
This is the best piece about SA politics i have ever read in a long time.
Our wonderful God has good plans for everyone. Is never too late for someone to be lifted from shame to be a super man. President Mandela ensured shame but what now, President Zuma endured shame but what now. President Mbeki was shamed but what about now.
Malema, allow shame to be super man. Just trust God, is difficult now, even when you walk out of your town, people might be laughing at you, calling you by names, BUT your God, is smiling with you.
Noza
@Sipho #, Malema was nothing but a cheer leader for Zuma led government and he was given all kind of privileges that most people in SA could never dream of. Malema was used by the ANC to travel over SA to praise Zuma every time he was criticized by the opposition parties. However, Malema thought that he had got bigger than Zuma and the ANC.so, he tries to take their power away from them. Which is not unique to SA alone, in Germany the YL leader tried to do the same thing and Hitler had him killed. Malema has no plans to eliminate poverty and give economic freedom in our life time. The only way SA and Africa can get economic freedom is to invest in wealth producing enterprises. Therefore, this country needs more Bill Gates, Oprah’s, Steve Jobs and other wealth producers because Malema is nothing but a fake.
@Feruzi, The Freedom Charter is not a legal document and it’s also dated.
I didn’t notice a single comment arguing with the notion of ‘economic freedom in our time’. We all seem to want it for ourselves or those who have not achieved it. That’s heartening.
Where JM fell down (in my opinion) is the means he determined would achieve it. Nationalisation, in a country where our too many state-owned companies already are not run efficiently and make a decent profit, should not be up for discussion.
JM’s a hothead who doesn’t understand economics well enough to do SA justice. Which puts him in the same league as JZ and company. Find us a decent leader who’ll listen and ask professional, relevant economists to draft an efficient strategy and plans and we could easily do it; we have the potential.
Apart from their utter financial naivety, the JZ/JM performance has lacked credibility, ethical honesty. Neither is sufficiently couth to deliver what SA needs for its people. And if I’m wrong on those points, you need to admit that they can only be disgustingly underhand; the lack of delivery proves it.
@Joseph, time will tell if the plans will work the government just released.
There are not enough educated and productive people to pay for all the uneducated and non productive people, and so it has been for many thousands of years. As more and more is taken from those who produce and given to those who cannot or will not produce, so the whole country slides more and more into overall poverty. With the rubbish education system that we have in South Africa, most youngsters face a future of strife as they fight to earn a living. The unions (Cosatu) fight for a living wage for some (their memebers) and nothing for everyone else. What Malema says and what he does are two very different things and it is clear to anyone who cares to look at him, is that he is fighting for JU JU and no one else. I feel that he should become an author and write books on how to build expensive mansions, drive expensive cars, wear expensive clothes and jewelery on a finite salary of R20,000 per month??
Julius Malema, like him or not, but somehow we all like and secretly admire him. That macho, gusto, energy and the nerve to challenge established capitalist oppression and unfairness. He proposes a solution where all the educated are blank as to which theory to follow. Malema is practical, and definately thats a big problem for people who read pleanty of books while having coffee.
Julius Malema is whining that he “submitted himself” to the disciplinary process. Except, what he doesn’t mention is that he submitted himself for the second time, and did not listen the first time. I don’t think the ANC have time to discipline him 100 times.
Plus he whines that the ANC did not expell members – very correct, they just killed them as “sellouts”, as became clear at the TRC.
Plus he keeps waffling on about nationalising mines – but is totally “stum” about the mess at Auroa/Grootvlei.
If Jacob Zuma’s nephew and Mandela’s grandson can’t run a mine – then who in the ANC can do so?
Well, it’s not only Malema’s message. A lot of people say essentially the same thing that he does about dealing with the country’s economic mess. Thing is, none of those people are in positions of power or authority. Malema just happened to say what everyone knew to be the truth, from a rostrum where he could not be ignored.
So he was smeared, and then destroyed. At least he wasn’t shot.
I quote from the article, “Malema is out but his message is the in thing,” posted by Levi Kabwato. The quote is, “The church must protect successful black people because today every successful black person is a criminal. When one of our own is under attack, instead of protecting that person, we join the chorus [of attack]. And you don’t know that actually, in joining the chorus, you are undermining the work of God, because these are products of God.”
This statement, quoted from the article, confuses or concerns me no end! Does it not call for some further explanation?
1. Does it mean that we must support any statement, opinion or action expressed or conducted by any individual simply because that individual happens to have the same colour skin that we have? Is that not perhaps looking at the world through a racist filtering mechanism?
2. Does it mean that since, as stated in the quote, all “are products of God” (remembering that selfish ambitions, hypocrisy and deceit etc are certainly not God’s products) then we must simply assume that their work is “the work of God,” and hence we must support them? In other words, does it mean that any behaviour by any individual has God’s approval simply because that individual is “the work of God?”
Possibly we all need to check the gospels again to determine what the work of the church is.
At the same time, we need to remember that all are created equal in the sight of God. He looks at the heart, not at the…
Malema might have gone through a formal discplinary process twice, but I think it very unlikely he did not get many informal warnings not to disagree with ANC policy in public, but only in private, which is the rule in ALL political parties.
It is an interesting psychological question as to why he did not listen.