Is Azania 'n Kommunistiese Land, Of Nie?

SOUTH AFRICA 2025

For the sake of an open debate, the question is being asked:

Is South Africa a communistic or socialistic (read communism, socialism, nationalism, fascism, capitalism, or any other “ism” state one can care to define) or is it perhaps a democratic or autocratic or dictatorial state?

Democracy: President Mandela

According to prevailing world opinion at the time, in April 1994 South Africa changed from a repressive apartheid state to a Western type constitutional democratic state.

The reality on the ground was that an essentially nationalist government, which had ruled the country as a white minority for some 46 years was exchanged for a fully democratically elected essentially black government. Despite initially being a government of national unity (GNU), most of its cabinet were members of the African National Congress (ANC) and the South African Communist Party (SACP).

Most senior ANC cabinet ministers were also members of the SACP, thus simultaneously being members of two ideologically different political parties. Though it may be argued the ideologies are identical, this in reality is simply not correct as they do differ. This would need to be a separate debate in respect of these important differences and distinctions.

What is relevant in this particular narrative is that South African communist orientated government officials on all levels, over the following three decades progressively followed the Marxist-Leninist philosophy as their guiding principles in the governance of the country.

It can therefore be accepted, de facto, that almost all of the senior ANC and SACP cabinet and government officials, in private, if not in official capacity, held strong communist and socialist beliefs, views and orientation. This despite the election process being held as a democratic and constitutional process, as opposed to a seizure of power in an armed struggle followed by a dictatorship.

There was much debate at the time about whether President Mandela was a communist or not. In real terms it did not matter whether he was or was not a communist, for in practice he certainly tried to manage the country as a pro-democratic country, rather than as a communist or socialist state with dictatorial overtones. It must therefore be a logical conclusion to draw that overall, the ANC and SACP cabinet members kept their public rhetoric in check to avoid alarming the world to their ultimate and true future intentions.

That President Mandela stated that South Africa would determine its own foreign policy must surely be accepted as a sovereign right of any self-respecting country. That this policy was going to differ, and probably dramatically so, from the foreign policy of the former nationalist South African government must surely also be accepted as a given. After all, former President FW De Klerk had already turned South African national domestic and foreign policy on its head in negotiating a new and more equitable dispensation for the country.

Let’s not forget that the first democratically elected government comprised a Government of National Unity (GNU) and that it was the National Party under the then Deputy President FW De Klerk who walked away from the GNU. He later admitted it was a mistake to have done so at this early stage in the country, at the time still grappling with balancing democratic principles and socialist ideologies.

Too late for tears! The opportunity to positively and meaningfully influence government to remain on a pro-democratic path was lost in the process. The Afrikaans language has a wonderful expression to describe the result of this short-sighted and foolish decision – “slim vang sy baas”.

What undoubtably still held sway and assisted in keeping an even keel in troubled waters were the many former government and provincial officials from the pre-democracy era, still employed across the board in the new democratic government assisting with government, provincial and local administration in a very meaningful manner. This, without fanfare, and mostly devoid of disruptive political interference was in itself a credit to the new democratic government during the immediate post- apartheid years.

Democracy: President Mbeki

The second democratically elected president of the new democracy, Thabo Mbeki, was certainly more pro-democracy than most of the radical members of the ANC National Executive Council (NEC). Much like President Mandela he too was favourably looked upon by all Western democratic governments.

By all standard definitions, the government was thus still considered internationally as conforming to democratic and constitutional norms, albeit with a recognised desperate need to accelerate integration and rectify housing backlogs and provide services to a huge formerly disadvantaged black population. Much needed to change and that change needed to be tangible and urgently implemented if it was going to address the economic and social needs of the country.

Democracy: President Zuma

The real change in direction of the new South African government policy commenced after the ‘palace revolution” at the 52nd ANC National Conference in Polokwane in 2007 where the new National Executive Committee (NEC) was elected. This effectively replaced Thabo Mbeki and his supporters with Jacob Zuma and his allies as the new ANC leadership.

Though President Mbeki was not deposed at the conference, the writing was on the wall, the internal battle lines were drawn and in 2008 Mbeki was “recalled” by the ANC leadership. Jacob Zuma was then elected as the third elected president of South Africa.

From this pivotal point forward, the South African government was to begin to exercise a much more socialistic policy and started turning away from Western democracies in favour of relationships with socialist or fundamentalist or communist orientated countries.

Hard line, much more pro-communist-socialist orientated cabinet ministers and government officials were appointed into senior, important and influential positions. The net result of these major policy changes and inherent corruption which followed certainly spiralled out of control to the extent where it later became known as the infamous “State Capture” era.

Democracy: President Ramaphosa

The appointment of Cyril Ramaphosa as the fourth elected president was heralded as a hopeful “new beginning” with a return to a more democratically aligned form of government. This has turned out not to be so. His public image was definitely portrayed as that of a steadfast, pragmatic stabilising reformist. Unfortunately, that was and still is vastly different from that which emerged in reality over time.

Not only was this disappointing but it was quite a shock to those who had firmly believed he would stop corruption and appoint skilled individuals to important positions. That image was to fool the nation, including the majority of his own political voters as well as the international community. How short-lived was that manufactured positive image before it began to crumble, piece by piece, before the eyes of a surprized nation and the world at large!

Cadre deployment has all but crippled the government administration and the economy in equal measure. At one point it was openly alleged that more than half of the Members of the Executive Council (MEC) in KZN were reportedly unable to comprehensively understand the official documentation they were required to deal with as they allegedly could not read or write. One cannot expect anything other than mismanagement, lack of service and a disastrous situation for the country to flow from a situation of that magnitude.

The appointment of various new ministers over the past few years to the department of international relations and cooperation (DIRCO) has seen an alarming realignment of foreign policy away from that of good relationships with Western democracies to that of relationships with Russia, China, Iran and even Hamas.

This dramatic change in government policy alignment has been seen by Western governments as troublesome and worrisome. However, it is contended that far greater damage is being done by the constant deployment of cabinet ministers and officials, at all levels in national, provincial and local governments, who are simply not sufficiently skilled to be deployed in the positions to which they have been appointed.

The cumulative effect of these deployments has been nothing short of a total disaster for the country and for everyone seeking basic services and employment. The country balances precariously on the edge of a political and economic collapse, neither of which the country can afford.

Some Salient Points to Consider

And, to be sure, despite an abundance of prophets of doom and gloom, this is a country which still has an abundance of skilled citizens to be found in all walks of life. These individuals are simply not being given the opportunity to rebuild the country into an economic powerhouse and a place of much opportunity and growth for everyone.

These skilled individuals can be readily found across the whole racial divide and are definitely not restricted to any one or two racial groups. It is high time that this fact of life is universally recognised in South Africa. We suppress our collective talent and skills at the peril of progress and the upliftment of the poor and the creation of employment opportunity.

Political rhetoric might appease some individuals, but it does not put food on the table in millions of homes, nor does it place a dignified roof on any abode people can call home, nor does it offer any meaningful progress to a more sustainable economy.

The cliché of divide and rule applies. It is said that there are 609 registered political parties in South Africa. Yes, you read that correctly. Does that sound impossible? Well, according to the Independent Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) there are 383 national political parties registered and 226 provincially and locally registered political parties in South Africa. (correct data as of March 2025).

This can surely not be a sustainable or viable situation. Can this quandary in any real sense possibly provide any meaningful benefit to the vast majority of disadvantaged people in the country? This is surely not possible or beneficial except to those who wish to divide and rule.

Corruption still abounds to the point where the local news station E NCA recently stated that in a survey it was found that as many as 60% of housebreak-in cases in South Africa are simply not being registered with the police as the perception is that it is a waste of time. A South African TV news presenter coined the phrase ‘political theatre’ when describing the shenanigans of ministers and senior officials in explaining their official activities, or lack thereof. Political theatre has since become common terminology to depict attempts by government to cover up inadequacies.

Recently many government ministers and senior officials have become rather publicly vocal about their communist-socialist orientation. That said, one can hardly consider government to be a democracy in any sense close to what it was internationally considered to be in 1994 until about 2008. Whether one wishes to become academic and draw fine distinctions between socialism, state centralistic socialism, communism, or other ultra-leftwing orientated of states is not really important.

What is important is that South Africa, while professing to be a Christian country, is also without the slightest doubt a country being ruled by members of the ruling ANC/SACP/COSATU alliance. To repeat, most members of the ANC/SACP/COSATU alliance clearly identify themselves as socialist, if not mainly communist and who therefore do not prescribe to true democratic principles.

What is more alarming is that should the ANC lose the next election completely, waiting in the wings to take control probably by coalition is the even more radical MK and EFF political fanatics. That means that the real concern is not whether the ANC, SACP, MK or EFF rule the country, but whether the country has finally and openly turned its back on democracy as a means of governing the country.

With the white minority being just that, a minority of less than about 3%, it is a question of whether the black population wants to continue to be oppressed and poor and uneducated under a communist type of government or whether they seek a better life or better opportunity to raise themselves from their quagmire with a more pro-democratic government?

At this juncture there does not seem to be a black candidate on the horizon to lead them, or the country, down a different more hopeful and positive future path. I hope I am wrong and that such an individual exists! Actually, that is incorrect. Not only does such an individual exist, but plenty of intelligent and highly skilled people of all colour exist in this country who are more than able to take the country forward into a sustainable and far brighter future for all.

Indeed, there are more than enough pragmatic, educated, experience and world class academics, business men and women, technologists, scientists, educationalists, administrators, to mention but a few categories, ready and able to fill all the important cabinet and government, provincial and local administrative posts in desperate need of skilled management.

The real question to ask is when are these individuals going to be brave enough to stand up and be counted? This is not the time to stand by in the shadows. This is not the time to be shy. Bold, determined and pragmatic individuals need to make their presence known and to speak their minds with respect to a realistic, constructive and strategic road map toward an effective reconstructed future.

So, back to the original starting point.

Pre-Democracy

Prior to democracy South Africa was internationally condemned as an oppressive apartheid state which favoured a white minority over a vastly black majority. A so-called struggle “democratic revolution” was fought to rectify the situation and to bring about dramatic change in the country.

This “peaceful revolution” met the criteria for a democratic revolution in terms of the four basic notions; a significant transformation of an internationally recognised oppressive regime, the transition was accompanied by violence, the new government needed to be founded on popular sovereignty and fundamental rights of the people, a significant shift from oppression to that of equal rights for all.

Those conditions were present and dealt with through negotiation as opposed to civil war, hence the terminology “peaceful revolution” being used by some instead of the term “democratic revolution “used by others. Both terms seem out of place given the extent of the excessive and horrifying violence committed by the role players prior to democracy, during the negotiation process and even in the immediate post democracy period.

Post Democracy

In 1994, for all intent and purpose, South Africa was internationally considered to be a constitutional democracy. It ticked the proverbial boxes of power vested in the voters, thus government through consent of the voter, with the power of government being limited by the constitution, which recognised fundamental rule of law principles and also recognised the rights of individuals, while protecting the rights of the minority from being overruled by the rights of the majority and the constitution was recognised as the highest law of the land.

Quite a mouthful, but it was the foundation upon which the new nation was to be built. And it was steadily built that way for a number of years. As mentioned, that all changed subsequent to the palace revolution at the ANC NEC conference in Polokwane.

National Democratic Revolution

The Zuma presidency heralded the introduction of the so-called second phase of the revolution. That certainly took many South African citizens and the Western world by surprise. Most had thought the revolution had already taken place and culminated in the establishment of a democratic South Africa. How wrong that notion proved to be!

The second-phase of the revolution is termed the “National Democratic Revolution”. That terminology in its own right caught many off guard with the familiar terms national and democratic. What seemed out of place was the term revolution. So, what exactly is a national democratic revolution. Well, to begin with it is a national event. It is also a revolution. But it definitely is not democratic. In fact, if anything it is a philosophy and strategy and above all it is a drawn-out process guiding the country towards an autocratic or oligarchy state.

In simple terms the revolution is not over. Not by a long shot. It is only now under President Ramaphosa’s administration really heating up. And it affects everyone. Many non-white voters, who so eagerly and traditionally voted year after year for the ANC, have suddenly found they are being marginalised in the work place. In particular Indians now seem to be targeted for restrictions and exclusions. This has caught many people off guard.

Marxist- Leninist theory clearly defines the concept of useful idiots to be discarded once no longer considered of value to the revolution. That is a hard pill to swallow if you happen to be thus categorised. The first reaction thereto is disbelief, followed by excuses to explain away that situation, followed by the eventual realisation that you served your purpose and are now discarded. Many in this country are presently waking up to this situation and are as yet undecided regarding what to do. Waking up to reality might be a good idea!

To repeat and emphasise the point, the National Democratic Revolution is defined as a Marxist-Leninist theory for a two-phase revolution. Phase one is defined as the achievement of national and democratic goals and principles. This was the move to democracy and the administration of the country in broad terms under presidents Mandela and Mbeki.

Phase two came into being during the presidency of Jacob Zuma and is now broadly being expanded upon in all urgency by President Cyril Ramaphosa. Naturally it is not being marketed as a Marxist-Leninist government administrative theory but rather, some three decades later under ANC/SACP rule, as an urgent need to dismantle the legacy of apartheid and to irradicate racism.

It is contended that only the ill-advised would not realise, nor want to accept, that the National Democratic Revolution policy of the current South African government is a rejection of Western democratic and constitutional theory and principles agreed to in 1994. Marxist-Leninist theory is de facto the philosophy, policy and strategy of the government, at least until the next elections.

South Africa: A failed State?

That the world and many South Africans citizens now consider South Africa to be a failed state, lingering precariously between the last threads of democracy and autocracy seems not to overly bother government officials and ANC/SACP politicians. Relatively free elections are still held. Parliament exists. The Auditor-General and the Electoral Commission are still relatively independent. The Constitutional Court is still the highest law in the land so the country is still at least technically a democracy, if only just.

The question posed above was perhaps the wrong question to pose for the purpose of debate. Perhaps a better question would be to ask not whether or not we are a democracy, or a social democracy, but rather what form of dispensation do we wish to become. We hold our collective future in our collective hands. What we decide today will determine our future tomorrow. The people of this country need to make their collective voice heard. Political rhetoric has never benefited anyone except the politicians who use it to provide false hope to the poorest of the poor. Ask any politician, every vote counts. Use it wisely South Africa. Your future depends on it.