ANELE NZIMANDE: We want to be hopeful, but ...

The Jacob Zuma presidency is behind us. It’s now time for South Africans to reflect on what lies ahead for all of us.

Zuma’s refusal to step down as president proved to be a spectacular show of form that almost tore the ANC apart. It demonstrated that “unity” in the ANC is absent.

The party, through the person of secretary-general Ace Magashule, was unable to provide reasons why it was recalling Zuma. This is an important issue, given the fact that before his resignation Zuma survived several motions of no confidence in parliament with the aid of the ANC. The party used its majority in parliament time and again to make sure the motions did not pass. Former secretary-general Gwede Mantashe famously said the ANC had to take “collective responsibility” for Nkandla.

The failure to provide Zuma with clear reasons for his recall creates the impression that this entire spectacle is simply intraparty jockeying between two factions. But there is something flawed about the debate around President Cyril Ramaphosa and Zuma, because it’s infused with a kind of false morality. Ramaphosa has proved to be a handy fig leaf for the ANC.

Many of us want to be hopeful about what a Ramaphosa presidency will do for the majority of South Africans. However, history tells us that hope in ANC leaders will not give us any meaningful returns. Inequality has grown since 1994 as leaders in the ruling party have turned SA into their personal fiefdom. Over the years, we have witnessed a hollowing out of our democracy. Voting has been turned into an empty ritual. Voter turnout as a proportion of voting-age population has declined by 29 percentage points since 1994, despite increased political competition.

Democracy has sold us the idea that leaders who are democratically elected are inherently more trustworthy and better than those who are not. But when you have leaders who are allied to hegemonic powers, conditions of inequality will persist.

Government inaction

Millions of poor South Africans continue to be excluded from economic participation. This happened under Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki and Zuma, and it will likely continue under Ramaphosa.

Marikana offers an interesting case to support this point.

A perfect storm of related factors is combining to drive up the bargaining power of those at the top of the economy, who own large companies. Corporations are consolidating their power by offering incentives to politicians, and effectively driving down the bargaining power of those at the bottom.

It is corrosive to democracy for parties to have direct relationships with big business.

When it comes to Marikana, the question of whether Ramaphosa influenced the killing of mineworkers by labelling them “criminals” and calling for “concomitant action” is an issue I will not delve into here. The facts are: Ramaphosa had a stake in Lonmin, regardless of how small it was; and it was in his interest to protect Lonmin’s profits, as someone who would benefit from them.

This conflict of interest is not unique to Ramaphosa. Political leaders accept positions as directors, board members and CEOs of big businesses while claiming to be on the side of the working class and the poor. This conflict affects what people can demand — and get — from government in terms of effective service delivery.

The onslaught of poverty, along with the unacceptable influence of elites on our government, must come to an end.

According to Oxfam, the incomes of ordinary workers around the world have risen by an average of 2%/year over the past decade while billionaires’ wealth has risen by 13%/year. Young people in SA are in a precarious position, with youth unemployment sitting at 38.6%. This presents a bleak future for the country.

People want meaningful change — the novelty of having a black government, even in the person of Ramaphosa, has long worn off. Economic inequality is not only inefficient but is also associated with higher levels of political instability and crime, and lower levels of trust in government from the electorate. Despite this recognition, our government is failing to act.

Ramaphosa-linked businesses were named in the Panama Papers for the use of tax havens, which contribute to the problem of illicit financial flows.

Though most of our criticisms are directed towards the ANC as the ruling party, none of the major political parties should be spared from scrutiny. I, for one, have a sliding scale of cynicism for each of the major political parties. This is healthier — blind optimism and loyalty got us to where we are. We should know better. Our political leaders have fluid identities that can change based on what suits them tactically. May we all continue to rattle the plutocracy’s cage until we have leaders who are truly on the side of the people.

• Anele Nzimande is a legal researcher and television producer for The Big Debate