Thursday, August 3, 2017

100 years ago African-Americans marched down 5th Avenue to declare that black lives matter




File 20170722 28515 16wxxmn

Silent protest parade in New York against the East St. Louis riots, 1917.
Library of Congress



The only sounds were those of muffled drums, the shuffling of feet and the gentle sobs of some of the estimated 20,000 onlookers. The women and children wore all white. The men dressed in black.

On the afternoon of Saturday, July 28, 1917, nearly 10,000 African-Americans marched down Fifth Avenue, in silence, to protest racial violence and white supremacy in the United States.

New York City, and the nation, had never before witnessed such a remarkable scene.

The “Silent Protest Parade,” as it came to be known, was the first mass African-American demonstration of its kind and marked a watershed moment in the history of the civil rights movement. As I have written in my book “Torchbearers of Democracy,” African-Americans during the World War I era challenged racism both abroad and at home. In taking to the streets to dramatize the brutal treatment of black people, the participants of the “Silent Protest Parade” indicted the United States as an unjust nation.

This charge remains true today.





Several thousand people attended a Seattle rally to call attention to minority rights and police brutality in April 2017.
AP Photo/Ted S. Warren



One hundred years later, as black people continue to insist that “Black Lives Matter,” the “Silent Protest Parade” offers a vivid reminder about the power of courageous leadership, grassroots mobilization, direct action and their collective necessity in the fight to end racial oppression in our current troubled times.

Racial violence and the East St. Louis Riot


One of the great accomplishments of the Black Lives Matter movement has been to demonstrate the continuum of racist violence against black people throughout American history and also the history of resistance against it. But as we continue to grapple with the hyper-visibility of black death, it is perhaps easy to forget just how truly horrific racial violence against black people was a century ago.

Prior to the “Silent Protest Parade,” mob violence and the lynching of African-Americans had grown even more gruesome. In Waco, a mob of 10,000 white Texans attended the May 15, 1916, lynching of a black farmer, Jesse Washington. One year later, on May 22, 1917, a black woodcutter, Ell Persons, died at the hands of over 5,000 vengeance-seeking whites in Memphis. Both men were burned and mutilated, their charred body parts distributed and displayed as souvenirs.

Even by these grisly standards, East St. Louis later that same summer was shocking. Simmering labor tensions between white and black workers exploded on the evening of July 2, 1917.

For 24 hours, white mobs indiscriminately stabbed, shot and lynched anyone with black skin. Men, women, children, the elderly, the disabled – no one was spared. Homes were torched and occupants shot down as they attempted to flee. White militia men stood idly by as the carnage unfolded. Some actively participated. The death toll likely ran as high as 200 people.

The city’s surviving 6,000 black residents became refugees.





Ida B. Wells.
Library of Congress



East St. Louis was an American pogrom. The fearless African-American anti-lynching activist Ida B. Wells traveled to the still smoldering city on July 4 and collected firsthand accounts of the aftermath. She described what she saw as an “awful orgy of human butchery.”

The devastation of East St. Louis was compounded by the fact that America was at war. On April 2, President Woodrow Wilson had thrown the United States into the maelstrom of World War I. He did so by asserting America’s singularly unique place on the global stage and his goal to make the world “safe for democracy.” In the eyes of black people, East St. Louis exposed the hypocrisy of Wilson’s vision and America itself.

The NAACP takes action


The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People quickly responded to the massacre. Founded in 1909, the NAACP had yet to establish itself as a truly representative organization for African-Americans across the country. With the exception of W.E.B. Du Bois, one of the NAACP’s co-founders and editor of The Crisis magazine, the national leadership was all white. Branches were overwhelmingly located in the North, despite the majority of African-Americans residing below the Mason-Dixon line. As a result, the NAACP had largely failed to respond with a sense of urgency to the everyday horrors endured by the masses of black folk.





James Weldon Johnson.
Twentieth Century Negro Literature



James Weldon Johnson changed things. Lawyer, diplomat, novelist, poet and songwriter, Johnson was a true African-American renaissance man. In 1916, Johnson joined the NAACP as a field secretary and made an immediate impact. In addition to growing the organization’s southern membership, Johnson recognized the importance of expanding the influence of the NAACP’s existing branches beyond the black elite.

Johnson raised the idea of a silent protest march at an executive committee meeting of the NAACP Harlem branch shortly after the East St. Louis riot. Johnson also insisted that the protest include the city’s entire black community. Planning quickly got underway, spearheaded by Johnson and local black clergymen.

A historic day


By noon on July 28, several thousand African-Americans had begun to assemble at 59th Street. Crowds gathered along Fifth Avenue. Anxious New York City police officers lined the streets, aware of what was about to take place but, with clubs at the ready, prepared for trouble.

At approximately 1 p.m., the protest parade commenced. Four men carrying drums began to slowly, solemnly play. A group of black clergymen and NAACP officials made up the front line. W.E.B. Du Bois, who had recently returned from conducting an NAACP investigation in East St. Louis, and James Weldon Johnson marched side by side.

The parade was a stunning spectacle. At the front, women and children wearing all-white gowns symbolized the innocence of African-Americans in the face of the nation’s guilt. The men, bringing up the rear and dressed in dark suits, conveyed both a mournful dignity and stern determination to stand up for their rights as citizens.

They carried signs and banners shaming America for its treatment of black people. Some read, “Your hands are full of blood,” “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” “Mothers, do lynchers go to heaven?” Others highlighted the wartime context and the hollowness of America’s ideals: “We have fought for the liberty of white Americans in six wars; our reward was East St. Louis,” “Patriotism and loyalty presuppose protection and liberty,” “Make America safe for Democracy.”

Throughout the parade, the marchers remained silent. The New York Times described the protest as “one of the most quiet and orderly demonstrations ever witnessed.” The silence was finally broken with cheers when the parade concluded at Madison Square.

Legacy of the Silent Protest Parade


The “Silent Protest Parade” marked the beginning of a new epoch in the long black freedom struggle. While adhering to a certain politics of respectability, a strategy employed by African-Americans that focused on countering racist stereotypes through dignified appearance and behavior, the protest, within its context, constituted a radical claiming of the public sphere and a powerful affirmation of black humanity. It declared that a “New Negro” had arrived and launched a black public protest tradition that would be seen in the parades of the Universal Negro Improvement Association, the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s and the Black Lives Matter marches of today.

The “Silent Protest Parade” reminds us that the fight against racist violence and the killing of black people remains just as relevant now as it did 100 years ago. Black death, whether at the hands of a Baton Rouge police officer or white supremacist in Charleston, is a specter that continues to haunt this nation. The expendability of black bodies is American tradition, and history speaks to the long endurance of this violent legacy.

But history also offers inspiration, purpose and vision.

Ida B. Wells, James Weldon Johnson and other freedom fighters of their generation should serve as models for activists today. That the “Silent Protest Parade” attracted black people from all walks of life and backgrounds attests to the need for organizations like the NAACP, following its recent national convention, to remember and embrace its origins. And, in building and sustaining the current movement, we can take lessons from past struggles and work strategically and creatively to apply them to the present.

Because, at their core, the demands of black people in 2017 remain the same as one of the signs raised to the sky on that July afternoon in 1917:

The Conversation“Give me a chance to live.”

Chad Williams, Associate Professor of African and Afro-American Studies, Brandeis University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

How human rights are faring in South Africa two decades after democracy




Image 20170314 10759 a9ctny

Mass funeral for the victims of the 1960 Sharpeville massacre.
Flickr



Every year South Africans celebrate Human Rights Day on March 21 to commemorate the 1960 Sharpeville massacre when police opened fire on a crowd killing 69 unarmed people. They were protesting against the humiliating pass laws that controlled the movement of black people.

Besides a reminder of a dark period in the country’s history, this day also celebrates South Africa’s unique and highly acclaimed constitution. Its Bill of Rights guarantees human dignity and equal rights to all citizens.

But, despite the constitutional protection of human rights and its relative success at providing basic services to citizens, the government struggles to meet demands for socio-economic rights. For example the pace of delivery of housing, water and sanitation, health care and education, which are provided for in the constitution, has been slow since South Africa’s transition to democracy.

The biggest concerns for many South Africans, according to Human Rights Watch, include: access to treatment for people with disabilities, unemployment, corruption, freedom of expression, police brutality and violence.

What South Africa has going for it is its constitution. This needs to come to life by protecting human rights across the board. This can only happen if laws are made real, by for example, cases being taken to court to set precedents that protect rights.

Human rights challenges


An estimated half-a-million children with disabilities have been shut out of the country’s education system according to Human Rights Watch.

Unemployment remains stubbornly high. In the third quarter of last year it reached 27.1% after averaging 25.37% from 2000-2016. This has led to high levels of poverty. According to Stats SA’s Quarterly Labour Force Survey 8.9 million people who want to work don’t have jobs.

And corruption

threatens the rule of law, democracy and human rights

South Africa is ranked 64th out of 175 in the 2016 Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. It ranks countries and territories based on how corrupt their public sectors are perceived to be.

In addition, people who try to report corruption are often intimidated or muzzled.

Media freedom, free expression and the free flow of information are vital to a healthy democracy. These have all been hard-won in the country. Although it’s not all bad news on this front, the Right2Know Media Freedom & Diversity movement, which focuses on freedom of expression and access to information, notes that:

Compared to most of our neighbours, and indeed many old western democracies, our press freedom record is not all that bad, but this is only because with every attempt by the powerful to restrict media freedom, the public is able to keep pushing back.

Another persistent problem is police brutality and use of excessive force, especially against protesters. In its submission to the United Nations in 2016, the South African Human Rights Commission reported that

South Africa has witnessed a tremendous increase in the number of protests, particularly those relating to the failures of local government to deliver basic services.

Another major concern is that South Africa remains a deeply violent society. For example, violence against women, including rape and domestic violence, remains very high. One in every four women is physically abused by her intimate partner. According to Professor Naeemah Abrahams, Deputy Director at the Gender and Health Unit at the Medical Research Council, a woman is killed every six hours by her current or former intimate partner.

A study conducted by the World Health Organisation in 2012 found that 65% of women in SA had experienced spousal abuse in the year before the research was conducted.

Thankfully, South Africa continues to play an important, although at times inconsistent role, in advancing the rights of LGBTIQ+ people. It was the first country to protect sexuality in its constitution and is reckoned to be a champion of gay rights. Yet in June 2016 it refused to support a landmark resolution on LGBTI rights at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Fixing the problem


To address these shortcomings South Africa must focus on the judicial enforcement of human rights. A right without a remedy raises questions of whether it is in fact a right at all.

Although there are other ways of protecting rights, judicial enforcement has a clear role in developing an understanding of these rights. Test cases can lead to systematic institutional change to prevent violations of rights in the future. This has already happened in some important landmark cases such as the Constitutional Court ruling that set the bar for protection of HIV positive people.

Other possible solutions include: education, constructive dialogue, exerting pressure to bring violations of human rights to public notice and to discourage further violence and curbing corruption by protecting whistleblowers.

The ConversationBut two questions remain: do South Africans have the perseverance and are they strong and morally bold enough to stand up for these rights? And, if necessary, to challenge the powerful (government) in court where they are threatened?

Chris Jones, Academic project leader in the Department of Practical Theology and Missiology, Stellenbosch University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

South African business must own up to its part in the corruption scandals





File 20170802 6912 ryzxrt


Shutterstock





South Africa is reeling from a string of scandals involving state owned enterprises and the Guptas, a family with close ties to President Jacob Zuma. A trove of recently leaked Gupta emails exposed the involvement of prominent businesses in the extensive corruption networks. Sibonelo Radebe asked Mills Soko to explain the implications of the scandals.

What do you make of the situation?

If nothing else, the Gupta leaks have shown us how perilously close South Africa is to losing everything so many people fought so hard for. Not only does corruption divert capital allocated for public services away from the poor, it hollows out important state institutions and, ultimately, frays the social and economic fabric of the country. It threatens the hard won democracy and political stability.

The ongoing revelations around state capture and patronage are giving South Africans an unprecedented and frightening glimpse into the machinery of corruption. The most unnerving element of the emails is how many of the transactions appear blatant and almost casual. The absolute cynicism and lack of ethics revealed in this correspondence is breath taking.

What we do with this knowledge as a country is going to count for everything. As a business community we can look away and call these tales of corruption isolated incidents – or we can step up to ensure that our organisations hold themselves to a higher standard. Most critically the law must take its course.

What does it tell us about the role of business?

The emails remind us that in any corrupt interaction it takes two to tango. And while governments and public money are so often at the centre, the enablers of corruption are not in government but in the private sector.

With the Gupta’s at the centre of the rot, prominent international companies like accounting firm KPMG, consulting giant McKinsey, ICT player SAP, engineering company Liebherr and capital equipment manufacturer Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries have been implicated in the mounting scandal. It’s worrying to see that companies of such calibre can be involved in such nefarious activity.

Corruption is, of course, not a new phenomenon – and nor is it unique to South Africa, as the Global Corruption Index shows. But certainly, the scale of what is going on in South Africa right now is unprecedented.

How do you rate the responses by the implicated businesses?

Companies have scrambled to distance themselves from the reputational firestorm that the Gupta leaks have unleashed. McKinsey acted promptly to suspend Vikas Sagar, a director in its South African office, to allow an internal investigation to proceed. For its part SAP, which originally denied the allegations, has similarly suspended South African staff while launching a full anti-corruption investigation , which is to be carried out by a multinational law firm and overseen by its executive board member Adaire Fox-Martin.

It’s convenient to blame these incidents on bad apples. But this doesn’t get below the surface of what is really going on. The scale of the corruption and the apparent ease with which it has been unfolding speaks to the fact that something is very wrong with the system. And it highlights an utter lack of business ethics and governance failures. This isn’t something the country can afford.

What should be done to root out the corruption?

While all of this may seem overwhelming, what is unfolding also presents the business community with an opportunity for some introspection. Calls have been made for greater purpose and responsibility on the part of South African leaders.

But how can we make sure these fine words and intentions are internalised? How do we make sure as a country that our business as well as our state institutions are committed to not allowing this to happen ever again?

Educational institutions, business schools in particular, are positioned as a first-line duty in making sure that graduates are equipped to recognise and reject corruption in any form. The country needs business leaders who are committed to building sustainable and profitable businesses but who are also mindful of their social and ethical obligations.

Citizens as workers and consumers also have a significant role to play. As individuals working in companies and purchasing goods and services from companies, they can condemn unethical behaviour from companies. This was partly reflected in how the general public put pressure on Bell Pottinger the UK based public relations firm which did work for the Gupta’s.

By rounding on Bell Pottinger, effectively causing the company to lock its Twitter account and issue a formal and unprecedented apology to the country (even though they also blamed the fiasco on bad apples rather than the system), South Africans have shown the power they can wield when united against wrongdoing.

But the country needs to go further. While government and business have not enjoyed the best relationship in recent times, they need to bury the hatchet and come together to fix the inequalities in this country. Deep divisions have laid South Africa open to the kind of racist exploitation that Bell Pottinger unleashed.

The ConversationUntil the country rights this situation, it will continue to remain vulnerable to these kinds of nefarious influences. South Africa needs to be united in the spirit of building a country that works for everyone – not just a select few. Things are broken, yes – but it’s not impossible to repair the damage.

Mills Soko, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Why South Africans should resist an amnesty deal for Zuma





Image 20161102 27231 vkzr2r

South African President Jacob Zuma. Granting him amnesty would send the wrong signal.
Peter Foley/EPA



As the roof of Jacob Zuma’s presidency begins to cave in, there is the suggestion that, to save South Africa and the continuing damage that his incumbency is doing to the economy, he should be given amnesty.

It would seem this is meant to give Zuma a cast iron assurance that the charges pertaining to his involvement in corrupt dealings around the arms deal be dropped. It would also serve as a guarantee that charges will never be reinstated.

With such assurances, it is suggested, he can be pensioned off as a former president to spend the rest of his days watching over his chickens and lazing around by his firepool in Nkandla. South Africa will then be able to get on with the job of restoring its brand and getting the economy going again.

At first sight, the idea is a tempting one. But probe just a little bit deeper and it becomes clear that it’s a very bad idea.

When amnesty is justified


Granting amnesty to dictators and warlords can be justified as a legitimate option if it serves to bring an end to brutal civil wars, halt killings and restore peace. If dictators identify their continued occupation of office as necessary to ensure their physical survival and guarantee their freedom from arrest, they are likely to do everything within their means to hang on to power. So the killings continue.

This sort of logic prevailed in the case of South Africa’s own transition. Provision was made for amnesty to be granted to those, on both sides of the conflict, who were guilty of crimes against human rights which could be proved to be politically motivated.

This process was never carried through very thoroughly, and there are still some very unpleasant people at large who have never been prosecuted for brutal crimes. This continues to make many South Africans very uncomfortable. Yet, over the long term, most would conclude that a somewhat unsatisfactory peace is better than the war that might have engulfed the country if the (often unsavoury) deals around the political transition had not been struck.

But considerations such as these should not persuade South Africans to think of letting Zuma off the hook.

Most political commentators agree that the Zuma presidency has done enormous damage to the quality and institutions of democracy in South Africa. Details were revealed in Thuli Madonsela’s final report as Public Protector, which dealt with state capture and was released on November 2 after a legal battle. The report addresses, among other issues, alleged corrupt deals involving the Gupta family and well as the removal and appointment of ministers. The report investigated whether this resulted in “improper and possibly corrupt” awarding of state contracts and benefits to the Gupta family businesses.

Along the way, “capture” of state institutions such as the South African Broadcasting Corporation, the National Prosecuting Authority, the state utility Eskom and South African Airways led to the corrupt diversion of resources towards individuals and companies related to the Guptas, at a major cost to the exchequer. It also led to many bad decisions being made. One notable case is Eskom’s attempt to commit the country to a nuclear future.

So why not step in now, wave Zuma goodbye, perhaps even give him a golden handshake, and stop the rot?

The simple answer is that it would not work.

The problem extends beyond the presidency


Getting rid of Zuma is only part, albeit a major part, of any solution which will seriously begin to tackle the scourge of corruption.

What about the Guptas? And what about Zuma’s extensive Gupta-connected patronage network? Are South Africans simply to concede amnesty to all, merely in the hope of better behaviour in the future by those who have so blatantly abused public office?

Or if South Africans were to demand a cleaning out of the Augean stables, would they be happy to prosecute merely the foot soldiers while their former generals were allowed to go free?

South Africa is a very violent society. But, thankfully, it is not a country in civil war. If it was, and getting rid of Zuma would lead to peace, there would be solid grounds for peacemakers striking a deal with him, however unpalatable. But South Africa is not at war and does not have to reach for extreme solutions.

Indeed, as a constitutional state, the country has the architecture and the instruments to prosecute wrongdoers at the highest level, and to justify the mantra that “everyone is equal before the law”.

Of course, for this to happen, there is the problem of getting the governing African National Congress to agree.

Zuma and the ANC


The momentum within the ruling party for a change at the top is growing day by day, and it seems increasingly unlikely that Zuma will be able to see out his term as president of the party, which ends in 2017. He is less and less able to guarantee the safety and security of his cronies as the wheels begin to come off his presidency.

As more and more prominent individuals within the party and its allied trade unions begin to call for his head, the weaker his control over the National Executive Committee of the ANC, and the more likely that he will be asked by its power-brokers to stand down. Yet he is likely to bargain hard, demanding amnesty for past and current crimes – and the ANC might be tempted to grant it to him.

After all, if Zuma were to face trial (indeed, he could face several), then the ANC’s dirty washing would be hung out to dry over a considerable period of time. So if the point of getting rid of him would simply be to secure the ANC’s re-election in 2019 – the scheduled date for national elections – this would be as politically costly as it would be embarrassing.

In short, the grant of amnesty to Zuma looms as a very real possibility. But civil society should not allow it to happen. And if those within the ANC who are calling for the party to reform itself are genuine in their demands, they should argue for the ANC to face the consequences. No pain, no gain. Unless there is a cost, there is the danger of replacing Zuma as a person and not as the head honcho of the system of wheeler-dealing and patronage that he has put in place.

Symbolism of a president in the dock


Prosecuting Zuma would send out the message loud and clear: that South Africa remains a constitutional democracy.

The symbolism of a president in the dock would be enormous. It would be enormously popular in the cities and towns of Africa, even though the serried ranks of African leaders would regard it with alarm and horror.

It would send out a warning to all those enjoying political office that corrupt dealings carry a high risk of costly consequences. It would restore faith among South Africans in a state whose reputation is at its lowest point since 1994. It would encourage ordinary people to pay their taxes, and restore their confidence that these will be well and honestly used.

The ConversationIt is not enough that Zuma should simply vacate office. He must face the music for his alleged crimes, for his misuse of office, for his assault on the constitution. Those who connived in all this must face the music alongside him too.

Roger Southall, Professor of Sociology, University of the Witwatersrand

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Jacob Zuma likes to be cast as a man of the people – but is he?





Image 20151113 10393 195bfks

President Jacob Zuma took over as leader of the ANC with a promise to reconnect the party with the people. His legacy suggests otherwise.
Reuters/Sumaya Hisham





The twilight of Jacob Zuma’s controversial leadership of the governing African National Congress (ANC) and the country finds both in a parlous state. The party is in decline and centered on Zuma’s personality, while his flawed leadership undermines its ability to govern competently. I explore these themes in Dominance and Decline: The ANC in the Time of Zuma. This is an edited extract from the book.



President Jacob Zuma’s entrance ticket into his Polokwane 2007 election was “reconnection with the people”. He was “the man of the people”, close to those who, the Zuma camp argued, then-president Thabo Mbeki had alienated. The evidence of this having been achieved is ambiguous.

Judged by general citizen sentiment expressed at the grassroots, Zuma failed to bring the ANC closer to the people. My research has shown substantial alienation between the ANC and the communities:

  • On general democracy issues citizens felt aggrieved that they frequently only saw their elected representatives at election times, and that ANC leaders care more for themselves than for the people. In election campaigns they are flooded with ANC visitors, leading to another round of “empty promises” and appeals for support for the “liberation movement”.
  • In ANC structures and meetings there are two trends: the insiders that speak glowingly of the great work of the movement; and those who regard themselves as ANC supporters (and often are ANC members), but feel excluded, for example not welcomed into branch meetings.

Research decimates the Zuma camp’s argument that the people do not care about the Nkandla scandal, involving the use of public funds on his private residence, and similar issues. The people greatly care and deeply begrudge the new political elites and their president for greed and consumption of public resources. My research project showed hardly a word of pardon or praise for the president. Instead, there was a wall of condemnation and ridicule.

The research findings contrasted with ANC staff and workers on the 2014 campaign trail, for example, testifying how Zuma was welcomed with accolades and warmth when he went campaigning. Such images were also beamed across South Africa when Zuma’s community appearances were televised.

Zuma’s “people charm”, bolstered by the general pull of power, was his great redeeming factor in his relentless quest to get into and retain presidential power for all of his second term. The Jacob Zuma Legacy Special advertising campaign put together by the state-transporty company Prasa proclaimed that he has “mainly endeared himself to people through his personal charisma and magnetic charm”.

In an interview with Business in Africa in 2009 on the eve of becoming South Africa’s president, Zuma singled out Oliver Tambo as one of his role models in becoming “a man of the people”:

While Tambo was a great thinker, he was very simple. There is nothing
he did not do … When people came to him he attended to them. He would even attend to somebody who comes to raise the issue of the shoe that doesn’t have shoelaces, he would ensure that the shoelaces were found … I am not a great man. I am a man of the people. I believe in people and I think that the people are everything. Once there is disconnection with the people you have problems …







Wits University Press



Zuma’s connection with the people is partial. At least two major events, in Gauteng and in Limpopo (one was Nelson Mandela’s memorial service), saw Zuma being booed by large numbers in the audiences. ANC strategists, subsequently, carefully managed Zuma’s exposure to avoid public embarrassment.

Some “closeness to the people” was evident in the audiences Zuma has entertained at his residences in Pretoria and Nkandla. Across class, aspirant “tenderpreneurs”, (the name given to entrepreneurs who have created businesses from government tenders), and modest community members with pension and social grant issues rub shoulders while waiting for and then consulting with Zuma.

Many of the after-hours visitors are put in touch with relevant government departments. These meetings give insights into the Zuma presidency’s creation of personalised patronage networks, the other side of the formal government networks and operations. Aspects of the meetings also resemble traditional leadership community meetings.

In refutation of Zuma as the president of the people who understands their
culture, my research reveals popular ridicule of the president. When focus group
participants from across the demographic spectrum received the positive
prompt of “Zuma is a leader, a man who understands our culture”, there followed scorn, laughter and comments on polygamy and showering.

Further prompts encouraged participants to abandon this tone, to no avail. Both this project and others confirm that voters separate their opinions of the president from their willingness to vote ANC (at least at the time, in 2014).

Zuma has nevertheless carved a safe personal net with many South Africans, especially those also of Zulu origins. Little had the Mandela-Mbeki axis of the 1990s imagined that their deployment of Zuma to get peace in the war fields of KwaZulu-Natal (and bring the province into the national post-liberation ANC) would have the repercussions it did. They helped create the platform on which Zuma would rise into power.

The ANC KwaZulu-Natal as electoral giant awoke late, and then sustained the ANC when it started declining in other provinces. Without the KwaZulu-Natal performance in the national elections of 2009 and 2014 (largely facilitated by Zuma) the ANC would have looked pitiful even if still winning.



The ConversationDominance and Decline: The ANC in the Time of Zuma is published by Wits University Press.

Susan Booysen, Professor in the Wits School of Governance, University of the Witwatersrand

This article was originally published on The Conversation.