South Africans may love or hate leaders, but we can’t stop fixating on them. This makes building a working democracy much harder.
The EFF, with the probable help of the ANC’s Zuma faction, have found a new strategy. Instead of resisting the fight against corruption, they have joined it loudly by denouncing as corrupt politicians who stand in their way. Nhlanhla Nene and Pravin Gordhan are, so far, their two targets.
This strategy brought populists to power elsewhere. If politicians who play by democratic rules can be labelled corrupt, people can be persuaded to become cynical about all politicians — except for the strong leader who can save them from the greedy and self-serving democrats. This works best when you can also paint people who are different as a threat.
In this country, it relies on the reality that many people are already understandably cynical about politicians. Despite mythology about the days when leaders were in touch with the people, few politicians here have ever built a rapport with grassroots people.
And there has always been a toxic relationship between politics and money: we are still waiting for the president to sign our first law forcing parties to tell us who funds them. And, given the huge role race plays, it should be easy to find a group to blame — there are few parties as eager to play this divisive game than the EFF.
Given all this, it is no surprise that politicians and commentators are nervous about this trend, fearing it could pave the way for our own populist nightmare. There is probably no reason to worry yet. The EFF, the campaign’s public face, has still not achieved 10% of the national vote in any election. While it is fashionable to claim it is growing, this is not what by-election results say. The ANC’s Zuma faction, which may be driving it behind the scenes, lost the ANC presidency because it became clear that voters would reject the ANC if they led the party.
Nor is there evidence that the campaign is winning converts. With the exception of broadcast journalists whose egos require them to endorse any cynicism on offer, the only people supporting the campaign are those who already support the politicians who are behind it. But this is no reason for complacency. As long as the political class remains distant from the people and money is allowed to infect politics, new opportunities will arise to play this game.
Another reason for worry is that in a divisive debate the only belief that unites everyone is the fixation with leadership. For some, the claims must be true because leaders they support say so. For others, they can’t be true because they are aimed at leaders they admire.
The cynicism of the rest also signals an obsession with leadership. People are cynical about leaders not because they think they don’t matter but because they believe they do, so much so that few if any live up to their expectations. They build idealised pictures of past leaders and dismiss any politician who does not match up to the myth. Politicians are always found wanting, strengthening the attitudes for which populists hope.
Democracy needs fewer people who are cynical about politicians and more who are sceptical about them. Sceptics do not expect perfect politicians; they know all politicians are flawed and that democracy does not depend on them. They know it depends on citizens determined to hold to account public-office bearers and strong enough to do this.
Democracy is not meant to produce perfect leaders; it is meant to give citizens the tools to control those who are imperfect. If we recognise this, democracy should survive here, whoever holds office.
• Friedman is research professor with the humanities faculty of the University of Johannesburg.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.