GARETH VAN ONSELEN: What analysts said at the EFF’s formation

News that expelled former ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema intended to form his own political party first broke on June 11 2013. In a story titled Malema Ready to Bounce With New Radical Party, The Star reported that Malema intended to organise "radical militants" within and outside the ANC, "to come together and talk about an alternative platform".

Just more than a month later, on July 27 2013, the EFF was formally constituted. After overcoming an inane objection by from the Freedom Front Plus, the party was later registered with the then Independent Electoral Commission (on September 5) and, on May 7 2014, it partook in the national and provincial elections, finishing with 6.35%, 1,169,259 votes, 25 seats in parliament and 30 seats among the nine provincial legislatures.

The EFF and Malema himself have been hard at work advertising the party’s upcoming five-year anniversary. On Twitter, the party has made much hay out of a 2013 analysis that was dismissive of the party’s prospects.

In the period between news of Malema’s intention to form a new political party and it being formalised, the media was rife with speculation as to his prospects of success. What follows is a look at the nature of the general sentiment among political analysts and commentators in the print media. It is not comprehensive but fairly covers the relevant themes that defined the time.

Malema has a few friends who can support him, but I doubt if his friends will be enough to elevate him to a level where he can compete with other political parties

—  Prince Mashele

Straight after Malema had made his intentions known, on June 12, in an article titled Juju Will Battle to Get Support For His Forum — Analysts, The Citizen quoted University of the Witwatersrand political analyst Susan Booysen as saying of Malema: "Even though he is not the only one in this boat, his name has been exposed" — a reference to Malema’s tax and corruption difficulties at the time — and that "many people would not want to be associated with the forum".

In the same story, University of Pretoria political analyst Prince Mashele argued: "Malema has a few friends who can support him, but I doubt if his friends will be enough to elevate him to a level where he can compete with other political parties". He elaborated: "Malema has made many enemies. His conduct has offended the public of the country. I doubt if he will attract the general public of the country."

Independent political analyst Ralph Mathekga said: "I think Malema has potential. It will be a challenge, however."

Also on June 12, The Star quoted political analyst Somadoda Fikeni as setting out the obstacles to the formation of a new party. He said: "You need millions, as even registration costs quite a bit. If you are a small party, you need at least R5m to have a serious campaign." He concluded: "If he can pass the hurdle of mobilising resources and get the party institution he needs, it will be viable."

With regard to the party’s potential constituency, Fikeni said: "A person attracted to the DA is unlikely to be associated with Malema. On the ANC, it may make a marginal dent, which may not be important now, but in the local government elections where one or two [percent] becomes important."

This concern about money would become a defining objection to the idea that Malema might be able to succeed. Many commentators and analysts would use it as the primary basis for their scepticism.

In an editorial in Beeld on June 13, titled Malema se Party het Geen Kans, the paper argued, "Suid-Afrika is basies ‘n tweeparty-demokrasie waarin die ANC ’n gerieflik groot meerderheid het en waarin eers die NP en nou die DA beduidende steun het. Die IVP [IFP] het ‘n streekparty geword wat nie meer 'n belangrike speler is nie. Die PAC en Azapo was en is randeiers. Die ander klein partye word nog kleiner.

He identified a number of concerns, including an element of 'personal desperation' on Malema’s part; the potential for Malema to mobilise around tribalism and the possibility that his return was 'designed to exploit growing citizen disenchantment'.

"COPE het belofte getoon, maar die gebaklei tussen sy leiers het alles beduiwel. Teen die agtergrond lyk Malema se kans om hond haaraf to maak skraal. As hy ’n party gestig kan kry, kan hy dalk genoeg stemme in Limpopo bymekaarskraap om ’n LP te word, maar dis onwaarskynlik."

As part of a tongue-in-cheek letter to The Star, on June 14, Pieter-Dirk Uys wrote: "Go for it, Juju. If we do our homework, we will be ready for whatever you unleash on us. We will just Google ‘Weimar Republic’ and ‘Adolf Hitler 1929’ — he was also sneered at as a loser and has-been. Five years later he was number 1."

University of Cape Town politics lecturer Anthony Butler warned in Business Day on June 14, that Malema’s move was a "portent of unsettling changes". He identified a number of concerns, including an element of "personal desperation" on Malema’s part; the potential for Malema to mobilise around tribalism and the possibility that his return was "designed to exploit growing citizen disenchantment".

On June 16, Moshoeshoe Monare argued in the Sunday Independent that "Malema’s populism will be applauded". He opened with the following: "Don’t underestimate Julius Malema’s dangerous populism".

Later, he would balance that with the following observation: "However, his following and support will not necessarily translate into votes. He is politically naïve and always miscalculates the political mood and overestimates his power."

Nevertheless, he argued, one shouldn’t write Malema off: "There is a politically homeless constituency out there hungry for hollow oratory. There is an apathetic constituency, yearning for a hero, a political messiah, a real populist to say what they want to hear."

On the same day, in the Sunday Independent, in an article titled Analysts Don’t Set Much Score by New Party, several political analysts downplayed Malema’s chances of success outside of the unemployed.

Efficient Group chief economist Dawie Roodt identified the unemployed as probably open — at least to some extent — to Malema. The article says the following about political analyst Prof Steven Friedman’s views: "Friedman believed that Malema simply wasn’t as much of a political threat as many imagined."

Economists.co.za director Mike Schussler argued that disaffected ANC voters were more likely to not vote, as opposed to vote for Malema.

Friedman reiterated his concerns in The New Age on June 18. "I don’t see him making headway. You also need money to form a political party. And I don’t see anybody giving him money." The article reports Friedman as arguing that "figures of support for Malema’s platform were too little for the former ANC Youth League leader to be able to make a significant impact on the political scene".

I have doubts about Malema’s ability to implement his party’s plans. It is one thing to grab a headline by trumpeting bold intentions, and quite another to carry them out — a publicity trick Malema has played before."

—  Allister Sparks

The New Age article also quoted Prof Andre Duvenhage as saying, "Malema took a huge knock since his fight with the ANC. He does not have support and I cannot see him being a significant factor on his own."

At roughly the same time that Malema had announced his intention to start a new political party, Mamphela Ramphele had done the same thing, floating the idea for what would later become AgangSA, a political project that would implode in a spectacular display of political naivety and egomania. Nevertheless, many analysts, in trying to contextualise Malema, would play off his dire reputation against that of Ramphele, the latter seemingly embodying everything Malema was not.

Writing for the Cape Times on June 19, Allister Sparks argued: "I have doubts about Malema’s ability to implement his party’s plans. It is one thing to grab a headline by trumpeting bold intentions, and quite another to carry them out — a publicity trick Malema has played before."

By contrast, he said, "Ramphele’s party plans are an altogether different proposition … I think that while she may be a bit unconventional she may well play a significant role." Later he would suggest that Ramphele was capable of winning between 5% and 10% in 2014.

On June 19, in an excoriating column entitled Malema Hype is a Symptom of Middle Class Fear, Steven Friedman would again argue in Business Day that Malema was enjoying disproportionate attention. "If winning elections depended on impressing journalists and commentators, Julius Malema would be president next year. Since is requires gaining the support of voters, he will be lucky if he makes it into Parliament."

Friedman again put his concern about money front and centre. He said, "there is no evidence Malema has much voter support" and, with reference to the inherent hypocrisy of Malema owning two large houses, "a politician so cut off from the lives of the poor is unlikely to win their support".

"There is a gap in our politics to left of the ANC", Friedman argued, "but Malema cannot fill it: he has no support among the poor and no sense of how to speak for people at the grass-roots." He continued: "Those who lost out at Mangaung may leave the ANC and form a new party. But Malema is incapable of leading them — his role has been to listen to senior ANC politicians in his camp, not to tell them what to do."

Finally, Friedman would say of fear that "a demagogue will arise who will whip the poor into a frenzy of retribution, urging them to seize the goods of those who have what they lack", that this was no more than a fear harboured by "middle-class people". This was the reason, he argued, "why Malema’s popularity is so vastly inflated".

On June 20, in The New Age, head of politics at Stellenbosch University Amanda Gouws was reported as saying (in the New Age’s wording): "Malema would probably get 1% of the votes from disaffected young members of the ANC". Friedman was quoted again, as concurring with Gouws, and saying, "Malema’s party will also struggle to get votes. I can’t see them [AgangSA and the EFF] making an impact. The big story for me is whether ANC voters will come out in the elections and vote or will stay at home."

In a totally anecdotal bit of pseudo market research, based on no more than random cellphone calls but covered in the media as authoritative and without any reservations about its methodology, the company Pondering Panda released the results of a "survey" on June 27. It found, according to the New Age, that 26% of respondents said they would vote for Malema’s party and 15% said they would vote for the DA.

Writing for the Sowetan on July 9, William Gumede said that "The EFF is likely to take votes from the margins of the ANC — rather than the opposition parties. It is conceivable that with the youth vote alone, the Malema party could secure at least 5% of the national vote — if they can persuade angry youth to actually turn up and vote."

On July 11, the EFF unveiled, at a media briefing at Constitution Hill, its founding charter containing its "seven non-negotiable pillars". It also set out its "command structure", including the make-up of its national leadership and the leadership of its provincial structures. The document provoked another round of analysis.

On July 13, in an editorial, The Weekend Post argued in somewhat contradictory fashion that "As a bona fide workers’ party, the EFF — should it contest next year’s general election — will no doubt garner a significant measure of voter support. But whether hot-headed Malema will be able to lure diehard ANC supporters or other constituents who embrace a more leftist view, remains to be seen".

In its own editorial on July 13, the Independent on Saturday warned Don’t Ignore Malema Omen, arguing that "he symbolises a desperate and building anger among the majority of the people in this country about the bitter, or nonexistent fruits of freedom … and of their manifest desire for a better life…. The best way to silence Malema and his cronies is to cut the ideological ground from under their feet".

On July 15, also in an editorial, titled Juju’s Party, The Witness wrote: "Malema’s main disadvantage is that he is bankrupt, in ideas and in financial terms. What he will be able to trade in is the disaffection among many voters, especially young people, who are looking for something that will fire up hope for the future… Crudely put, it is much more likely that the electorate at large will have a clear idea of what Malema’s party stands for than the more noble Agang. His value may lie in the need for every pack of cards to have its joker."

Research fellow at the Helen Suzman Foundation Aubrey Matshiqi said in a Business Day column titled "Red Berets Unlikely to Trouble the ANC or DA" on July 15, that he was "excited about the launch of Agang and the EFF", as both were a welcome anecdote to the single-party dominance of the ANC. However, he argued, "it is my contention that neither formation constitutes a political game-changer".

Matshiqi set out a range of challenges for the EFF, including the need to translate political interest among young voters into political action on election day, if it were to succeed. In turn, that the EFF needed to decide whether it was going to position itself "as a so-called modern political party, a social movement or both". But whatever it did, he concluded, "I do not think the ANC and the DA should worry too much."

On July 26, in Beeld, Prof Willie Breytenbach, from the University of Stellenbosch’s politics department, argued that if Malema could stay out of jail, his party might win between "1% and 4%" of the vote.

On July 26 and 27, the EFF convened a "national assembly" at Uncle Tom’s Hall in Orlando West, Soweto. A total of 1,200 delegates from all nine provinces attended, joined the party and adopted the party constitution and its founding manifesto. Floyd Shivambu declared: "I then officially declare EFF a new political organisation that will contest the 2014 general election."

There followed in the proceeding months, all the way up until the April 2014 election, much more speculation about the EFF, subject perhaps for another column. But, immediately preceding its formal declaration of intent, a number of opinion pieces followed.

For example, Prince Mashele, on August 5, argued in the Sowetan that "Malema’s EFF is all empty talk" and that his party, if it is able to capitalise on discontent, will soon descend into inevitable hypocrisy as soon as it wins votes. "Once they are in Parliament, they will no longer wear red berets. They will wear suits like Buti Manamela, who now drives a luxury car — thanks to a salary from Parliament."

Mashele warned about the many dangers inherent to Malema’s ideology and policy programme and concluded by warning young people, "vote for the EFF, but do not say you did not know".

Elsewhere, Stephen Grootes, writing in the Daily Dispatch on August 24, in answering his own question about whether Malema could "rise magically from the ashes of his tragically ill-judged career", said, "No. He won’t. He cannot. It’s not going to happen", before setting out his reasons. They ranged from there not being enough time for him to organise ahead of the election and, again, a lack of resources available to the party.

"To lead an organisation," Grootes wrote, "takes at least three things, by the bucket load. You need confidence, brains and EQ. Think Gwede Mantashe. He has all three. So, in a different form, does Zuma. Massively. Malema? Not so much. His mode of showing displeasure is to push and shove, and shout and scream until the person just can’t take it anymore."

Grootes concluded that the establishment of the EFF was not really about politics at all, but a clever way of avoiding all the legal difficulties Malema faced: "In the final analysis, the motivation for starting the EFF in the first place was not, in fact, political. It was not to win power and change the country. It was simply the most political defence of a criminal trial ever mounted in South African history."

His solutions are whacky and destructive, but like all populist solutions they are very appealing in a climate of hopelessness… There are millions more, young and old, who thirst for the hope that Malema offers.

—  Mondli Makhanya

But perhaps the final word should be left to Mondli Makhanya, who, in a Sunday Times column titled Ludicrous as it May Seem, Malema’s Siren Call Will be Heard, said the following on July 28:

"There is a segment of the population that feels it has hardly felt the economic results of the 1994 political settlement. With poverty rampant, inequality at unacceptable levels and wealth clad in a distinctly pale colour, they are questioning the benefits of political liberation. Into this breach has stepped Malema, who is preaching the gospel of economic redemption….

"His solutions are whacky and destructive, but like all populist solutions they are very appealing in a climate of hopelessness… There are millions more, young and old, who thirst for the hope that Malema offers. His instant solutions for SA make sense to many on the margins of society. Those millions may not necessarily vote for him and his party in next year’s election — if he is not a convict by then. But his message will be taking root and his stature — or infamy — may be even stronger than when he was in the ANC."

On reflection, it is probably best described as a mixed bag. There were some terrible and terribly wrong predictions, as well as some deeply insightful and prescient commentary. The concerns seemed threefold: first, that the EFF would not have the money or resources to succeed; second, that although there was market for Malema’s appeal to the disaffected, he would not be able to capitalise on it; and third, that Malema himself was unable to lead a political party successfully.

There is probably some truth to each of these, but many of them were presented in extreme fashion, rendering them somewhat foolish with the benefit of hindsight. In the other direction, some of them, which evoked Germany and Hitler’s rise to power as an illustration of the power inherent to demagoguery in an environment defined by desperation, probably exaggerated his power.

One thing almost everyone got wrong was Malema’s natural instinct for political leadership.

It’s a tough business, political analysis. You live and die by the sword — just like politics. Malema proved a lot of what was said about him and EFF wrong. Much else remains a very real and ongoing concern.

• Van Onselen is the head of politics and governance at the South African Institute of Race Relations.