Campaigning has already begun in South Africa - so who are the hopefuls for 2014?

Next year's election is likely to be the most difficult the governing ANC has fought since it was first elected in 1994.

Campaigning for the election – expected to be called for May next year – is already well under way. It will be the most difficult the ANC has fought since winning power in 1994. The cards would seem stacked against the party.

President Jacob Zuma, who still has allegations of corruption hanging over him dating back to the country’s notorious arms deal, is facing embarrassing revelations concerning his luxury villa in Kwa-Zulu Natal. The threat comes from Thuli Madonsela, the Public Protector – one of several positions established under the constitution to guard the country’s new democracy.

Despite relentless government pressure, Ms Madonsela is insisting on publishing her investigation into the R206 (£13 million) million security upgrade for the complex at Nkandla. So worried is the government about just what the report may contain that they threatened to use apartheid-era legislation to prosecute anyone who published photographs of the complex. Newspaper editors responded by defiantly rejecting the advice.

While Nkandla, and President Zuma’s lack of popular appeal are a concern, the ANC has more pressing worries. Top of its list is the planned introduction of tolls on major roads on 3 December. The idea is universally loathed.  Everyone from small businesses to the Cosatu trade union movement has resisted their introduction. “This is a serious betrayal of workers and their trust,” complained Dumisani Dakile, Cosatu secretary in the Johannesburg area. “We feel that the government is not taking us seriously.”

But the union movement, until recently among the ANC’s most staunch supporters, is badly divided. The Cosatu general secretary, Zwelenzima Vavi, was suspended from his position in August, for an affair with a young woman in the movement’s headquarters, as well as allegations of financial impropriety. The claims are being investigated, but there is a strong suspicion that Vavi’s powerful attacks on corruption inside government may have triggered his downfall. Vavi, who is popular with the union rank and file, believes the attack was politically motivate. “There are people who think that Cosatu must just be a tool that can only be used to catch votes, even if that is not advancing the interest of the workers,” Vavi warns.

The tripartite alliance which links the Cosatu unions with the ANC and the South African Communist Party looks increasingly fragile. Leaders of the metalworkers union, Numsa, are reported to be threatening to leave the alliance and dissuade their members from voting for the ruling party next year. The union’s general secretary, Irvin Jim, has argued in a leaked paper that the time has come to seek an alternative to the ANC.

With his allies threatening to desert him, Jacob Zuma is facing a rising challenge from both left and right. Julius Malema, who led the party’s youth league was expelled from the ANC in April last year. He has re-emerged as ‘Commander-in-Chief’ of a new party, the Economic Freedom Fighters. No-one knows just how many votes Malema will take from his old party, but an internal ANC survey is reported to have warned that he is increasingly popular with young people.

Whether popularity turns into votes is, of course, quite another issue since young South Africans may not register: even if they do they may not turn out to vote. The same cannot be said for the growing black middle class, whose votes are being wooed by all concerned. Agang – the party newly founded by the former World Bank Managing Director, Mamphela Ramphele – is said to be winning some middle class support.

The ANC is dismissive of her chances, but is facing another challenge from the official opposition, the Democratic Alliance. The DA was born out of the liberal, anti-apartheid Progressive Party. Led by Helen Zille, it is attempting to shed its image as a party of white and Coloured (or mixed race) voters. The DA already controls the Western Cape, but is setting its sights on Gauteng – the area around Johannesburg.

The party’s challenge is led by Mmusi Maimane, a personable young politician already being referred to in the press as the ‘Obama of Soweto’. Maimane has borrowed some Obama tactics.  His campaign uses the slogan, “We can win.” DA posters have a stylised drawing of Maimane’s face emblazoned with the word “Believe,” reminiscent of Obama's iconic “Hope” poster in 2008.

Opinion polls suggest that the ANC’s vote could decline by as much as ten per cent. The party will win 56.2 per cent of the votes, down from 65.9% in 2009, Nomura South Africa predicted in August. They suggest the DA share of the poll will rise from 16.7 per cent to 27 per cent percent and predicts a 6 per cent share for Agang and 4 per cent for Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters.

These are – of course – just predictions and much will happen before polling day. President Zuma is an extremely sharp politician and the ANC has deep roots within the black community. The state-broadcaster, the SABC, with its pro-ANC bias, has a unique ability to use radio to reach rural areas that other parties cannot match.

And there is one imponderable, which could change the course of entire election: the fate of Nelson Mandela.  Should he die during the campaign the reaction would be colossal and instantaneous.  All party politics would end to be replaced by a state funeral. There would be universal grief and wall-to-wall coverage across the media. In the anguish at his loss there is little question as to the impact this shattering event would have on popular sentiment. The South African public would turn to the party whose card Mandela carried to his death - the ANC. 

Julius Malema, who was expelled from the ANC in 2012, is proving popular with young voters. Photograph: Getty Images.

Martin Plaut is a fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London. With Paul Holden, he is the author of Who Rules South Africa?

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Caroline Lucas: The Prime Minister's narrow focus risks our security

Military force may sometimes be necessary. But resorting to bombs and bullets comes at a high price to those caught up in conflicts abroad and, all too often, to the future security of people across the world.

The protection of national security is the first duty of any government. In the dangerous world in which we live -where threats range from terrorist attacks, to public health emergencies and extreme weather events – we all want to feel safe in the knowledge that the government is acting in our best interests.

David Cameron’s speech yesterday marked a change in tone in this government’s defence policies. The MOD is emerging from the imposition of austerity long before other departments as ministers plan to spend £178bn on buying and maintaining military hardware over the next decade.

There is no easy solution to the threats facing Britain, or the conflicts raging across the world, but the tone of Cameron’s announcement – and his commitment to hiking up spending on defence hardware- suggests that his government is focussing far more on the military solutions to these serious challenges, rather than preventing them occurring in the first place.

Perhaps Cameron could have started his review by examining how Britain’s arms trade plays a role in conflict across the world. British military industries annually produce over $45 billion (about £30 billion) worth of arms. We sell weapons and other restricted technologies to repressive regimes across the world, from Saudi Arabia and the UAE to Kazakhstan and China. Furthermore Britain has sent 200 personnel in Loan Service teams in seven countries: Brunei, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates – helping to train and educate the armed forces of those countries.  Any true review of our security should certainly have looked closely at the effects of our arms industry- and the assistance we’re giving to powers in some of the most unstable regions on earth.

At the heart of the defence review is a commitment to what Cameron calls Britain’s “ultimate insurance policy as a nation’ – the so-called “independent nuclear deterrent”. The fact remains that our nuclear arsenal is neither “independent” – it relies on technology and leased missiles from the USA, nor is it a deterrent. As a group of senior military officers, including General Lord Ramsbotham and the former head of the armed forces Field Marshal Lord Bramall wrote in a letter to the Times “Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism.”

The cold truth is that France’s nuclear weapons didn’t protect Parisians against Isis terrorists, and our own nuclear weapons cannot be claimed to make us safer than Germany, Spain or Italy. The unending commitment to these weapons, despite the spiralling costs involved and the flimsy evidence in their favour, seems to be closer linked to international grandstanding than it does our national security. Likewise the Government’s further investment in drones, should be looked at closely, with former defence chiefs in the USA having spoken against these deadly pilotless aircraft and describing their use as a “failed strategy” which has further radicalised populations in the Middle East. A serious review of our defence strategy should have looked at the possibility of alternatives to nuclear proliferation and closely investigated the effectiveness of drones.

Similarly the conclusions of the review seem lacking when it came to considering diplomacy as a solution to international conflict. The Foreign Office, a tiny department in terms of cost, is squeezed between Defence and the (thankfully protected) Department for International Development. The FCO has already seen its budget squeezed since 2010, and is set for more cuts in tomorrow’s spending review. Officials in the department are warning that further cuts could imperil the UK’s diplomatic capacity. It seems somewhat perverse that that Government is ramping up spending on our military – while cutting back on the department which aims to protect national security by stopping disputes descending into war. 

In the government’s SDSR document they categories overseas and domestic threats into three tiers. It’s striking that alongside “terrorism” and “international military conflict” in Tier One is the increasing risk of “major natural hazards”, with severe flooding given as an example. To counteract this threat the government has pledged to increase climate finance to developing countries by at least 50 per cent, rising to £5.8 billion over five years. The recognition of the need for that investment is positive but– like the continual stream of ministerial warm words on climate change – their bold statements are being undermined by their action at home.

This government has cut support for solar and wind, pushed ahead with fracking and pledged to spend vast sums on an outdated and outrageously expensive nuclear power station owned in part by the Chinese state. A real grasp of national security must mean taking the action needed on the looming threat of energy insecurity and climate change, as well as the menace of terrorism on our streets.

Military force may sometimes be necessary. But resorting to bombs and bullets comes at a high price to those caught up in conflicts abroad and, all too often, to the future security of people across the world. It’s crucial we do not allow the barbarous acts carried out on the streets of Paris, in the skies above Egypt, the beaches of Tunisia or the hotels of Mali to cloud our judgement about what makes us safer and more secure in the long term.  And we must ensure that any discussion of defence priorities is broadened to pay far more attention to the causes of war, conflict and insecurity. Security must always be our first priority, but using military action to achieve that safety must, ultimately, always be a last resort.  

Caroline Lucas is the MP for Brighton Pavilion.