Categories
Daily Maverick Politics

The ANC’s election strategy: Blackmail

As submitted to The Daily Maverick.

One way of thinking about the upcoming local government elections is as a session of couples’ therapy. While some disaffected voters are frequenting their local singles bar, either genuinely unattached or maybe ‘just looking’, and others are actively fleeing a situation they quickly realised they simply couldn’t cope with, many voters are still trying to make their current relationship work.

The ANC might hope that the (roughly) 66% of votes it attracted in the municipal elections of 2006 came from South Africans who remain committed to that particular relationship. But from the outside, where I find myself, it is sometimes difficult to understand why that might be the case, as the relationship seems increasingly one-sided, and sometimes even abusive.

This is not to say that it can’t be fixed, if both parties put the effort in. And perhaps the relationship is simply undergoing a short-term wobble – a 17-year itch of sorts. But when one party in a relationship – the voter – is treated with the sort of contempt occasionally displayed by people representing the ANC, it seems entirely appropriate to question whether both remain equally committed to making the relationship work.

In February, President Zuma told us that when “you vote for the ANC, you are also choosing to go to heaven. When you don’t vote for the ANC you should know that you are choosing that man who carries a fork … who cooks people”. As Sipho Hlongwane correctly pointed out, statements like these seem little more than diversionary tactics, intended to distract attention from dysfunctional local municipalities, corruption and the like. As per those oft-misunderstood and abused lines from Marx, religion is here meant to serve as the resigned ‘sigh of the oppressed creature’, and an opiate for the masses.

Beyond the cynicism of exploiting the religious beliefs of your citizens to retain votes, Zuma’s statement was also a lie. Not only a lie from within the belief system he was appealing to (for where in the Christian Bible does one find God’s endorsement of the ANC?), but also a lie from outside of those beliefs, in that it is telling voters that factors besides government performance should determine which boxes you cross on May 18.

Jackson Mthembu responded to the criticism resulting from Zuma’s statement by telling us that it was neither blasphemous, nor to be taken seriously. “South Africans – both black and white – fully understand the use of figurative expressions”, Mthembu said, after which he pointed out that those perturbed by this statement “are probably driven by jealousy for not having thought of the expression themselves”.

© 2010 Zapiro (All rights reserved)
Printed with permission from www.zapiro.com
For more Zapiro cartoons visit www.zapiro.com

These are probably also lies. With approximately 73% of South Africans self-identifying as Christians, and in a country where many outside of the middle and upper classes still take sangomas seriously, the claim that we all fully understand the distinction between literal and figurative speech is difficult to read as anything but an attempt at damage-limitation, where an apology and a retraction would have been more appropriate.

It’s also worth pointing out that the majority of eligible voters in the upcoming elections still came through a system where educational resources were unequally deployed, and – regardless of how well or how poorly you think we’re being educated today – would probably not have been taught that references to eternal damnation by Presidents should not be taken seriously.

Mthembu’s jealousy statement is also likely to either be dishonest (or simply naïve), in that we can well imagine other political parties as being capable of imagining ways to threaten voters into supporting them. The difference, of course, is that they would usually choose to spend their time more productively, or failing that, to not deploy those threats at all. The ACDP is of course the exception here, given that they seem to think that God wants to micro-manage all aspects of our lives.

Tony Ehrenreich, the likely mayoral candidate for the ANC in Cape Town, also exploited voters with a similar lie on March 6, when he told a community meeting that they needed to choose whether they wanted to be “on the side of justice” (by voting ANC), or “on the side of the devil”, which is what a vote for the DA (specifically Helen Zille) would apparently amount to. Zille must therefore be a satanic monkey, if you put Ehrenreich’s statement alongside one of Malema’s recent outbursts, in which he asserted that Zille would not be out of place in a simian dancing troupe.

But just in case not all voters are Christians, and therefore aren’t fearful of Satan or his monkey-minions, Malema recently upped the ante by telling us that not only would a vote for anyone other than the ANC send you to hell, it would also contribute to the death of a flesh-and-blood icon, Nelson Mandela. You would, in effect, be committing murder – perhaps even something like patricide – by voting for the for an opposition party.

Last week, Malema told the crowd at a Port Elizabeth rally that “President Mandela is sick and you don’t want to contribute to a worsening condition of Mandela by not voting ANC. President Mandela will never endure if the ANC is out of power”. Just as with Zuma and Ehrenreich’s statements (and, probably, similar ones made at smaller and unreported gatherings), no apologies or retractions are forthcoming, even though these statements amount to treating voters with utter contempt.

Contempt, because they don’t treat voters as capable of making choices based on genuine political issues, such as service delivery or which up-and-coming dictators we plan to supply weapons to next. Instead, voters are simply treated as a means to the end of retaining power – which is why this relationship is dysfunctional.

If you find yourself in a relationship where persuasion occurs through emotional blackmail rather than appeal to evidence or mutual interest, then the chances are good that the relationship is an abusive one. Emotional blackmail uses fear or guilt to create the impression that you have no choice but to go along with the abusers’ wishes – yet elections are meant to be all about choice, not about threats and intimidation.

At a certain point in such a relationship, friends and family would no doubt counsel you to cut your losses, and end things before more harm is done. We’re often reluctant to do so – not only because of genuine commitment or affection, but also because of cognitive biases involving escalation of commitment (in extremis, as typified in Stockholm syndrome). So instead, we might try to make it work, and give the abuser one more chance.

And this is of course our choice, and our right. We should however remember to try and not be distracted by threats and accusations. Perhaps, we should also remember how it works in other relationships, where claims of contrition and a desire to change require evidence – or at least an acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

Postscript: On the day this column was published, ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe announced that they would not be announcing the names of mayoral candidates until after the election (except in Cape Town, where Cosatu has forced their hand. It’s a question of trust, I guess they might say. Others might say it’s evidence of confusion and disorganisation, and disregard for the interests of voters.

By Jacques Rousseau

Jacques Rousseau teaches critical thinking and ethics at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, and is the founder and director of the Free Society Institute, a non-profit organisation promoting secular humanism and scientific reasoning.

7 replies on “The ANC’s election strategy: Blackmail”

It seems almost certain given the massive disasters leading up to this election, countrywide, that the ANC will lose some power.

Things like the police brutality towards the now dead picketers, notable for the lack of concern that they were being recorded by more than one camera, and the lack of ANC response to that, accompanied by the attitude towards movements like the UPM MUST result in a loss of votes.

Otherwise what remaining faith people have in democracy must surely begin to dwindle away.

Your thoughts? I mean, if the ANC manage to retain anything near the percentage of the electorate they have held, surely some loss of faith in the democratic process(or the electorate itself) must come with it?

As usual in SA politics is the lack of a real, viable alternative, especially here in the EC, though the support for the DA is more immense than I can remember it ever being, I can’t really see them winning a large voterbase here, unless something rather drastic changes.

I think there will certainly be a shift, but am wary of predicting exactly how much of a shift it will be. But I will say that I think this election will reinforce my faith in SA’s democracy, in that there will be signs that at some point, people will start voting on performance rather than habit. As for EC – don’t rule out the possibility of a DA/COPE alliance winning Nelson Mandela Bay. Depending on which COPE shows up there, it’s a strong possibility.

Does a COPE/DA alliance inspire much confidence? I’m not sure. The financial mismanagement in PE is astounding though, the sheer amount that has been sucked from the coffers does begger belief.

I suppose I’ll live in hope, for now.

I suppose so, but I’m weary of giving them undue support, which, to some extent I think they’ve gotten.

In the end is the vote meant to be used as a punitive measure against a certain party? Surely that has implications about the nature of democracy we are entrenching here that, maybe, we should consider more carefully.

I suppose it’s a pity that all the political parties don’t seem to be interested in any real way in social change, rather than silly rhetoric that we see so often in our politicians.

As an aside of interest, as a young S. African that has, for all intents and purposes, lost real faith in our democracy, but also the forms that democracy has taken worldwide.

I kind of see what we have here as the McDonalds democracy, politicians make promises, fail to deliver, then bicker amongst themselves. Then, election time comes and more promises are made.

Take a look at a cretin like Obama? Promise after undelivered promise is made. Not all too far from a character like JZ, I recall a rather poignant Zapiro, JZ making a speech something like I promise to make more promises? You perhaps can recall better than I.

Either way, it seems it’s taken us around 20 years to do what took around 150 in the states. Where all that is needed is a politicain to make the right noises, not get too out of line when in office, just really keep it rowing along, and will thus get elected time and time again.

The pitiful ANC response to the beaten protester (Tatane) was horrendous. Yet there seems to be so little said publically, so little to suggest that people will change their votes, and even if they do, to who? I’m not as convinced the DA are capable to mount a serious challange, and I have NO hope in cope at all.

I suppose it leaves those with a rather different view on social justice (that the words actually have meaning!) in the lurch w.r.t. South African elections.

Anyway, I guess soon it’ll be national election time and then the real fun starts.

Question, no comment on the JM hate speech trial that is ongoing? I’m sure many others have written (at length) about it, but you’ve not mentioned it for a while. Unless I missed something.

I disagree with absolutely everything you say above, except for your comment about the ANC’s response to Tatane’s death. In fact, our opinions are so divergent that I wouldn’t even know how to start addressing them in a comment here. As for the Malema/Afriforum trial, it is the topic of my Daily Maverick column for tomorrow, and I’ll post it here a day or two after that.

Comments are closed.