Esteemed journalist Max du Preez put pen to paper last week to once
again express his views on the Economic Freedom Fighters – many of which
have been disproven over the past four years since the inception of
this young dynamic movement.
Du Preez’s first bone of contention is the growth of the EFF since 2013. He seems to dispute the idea that the
EFF is on a fast enough growth path, noting that the popularity of the
movement is only “perceived” and drummed up by the media and not by the
voters. But he goes on to mention that the party will probably only make
a 10% showing in the 2019 election from 2014’s 6.3%.
It is not clear how Du Preez does not see this as growth in simple
arithmetical terms. But his contention is clearly with pace of growth.
It would seem the party is not growing fast enough for him.
He seems to have missed that on top of being the third biggest party in
less than a year of inception, the EFF also amassed in excess of 800
councillors in less that three years of its presence in formal politics.
The EFF’s astronomic growth is not a matter of dispute in the body
politics. It is a scientific fact.
But he betrays his leanings by quickly comparing it with the DA, which
he predicts will probably make a 30% showing in 2019 – an anecdote that
was not only irrelevant to his article, but also not supported by any
facts.
But perhaps his missed-calculations are more informed by his staunch
belief that the commander in chief of the EFF, Julius Malema, is a power
monger. “He wants power,” Du Preez asserts in his veiled attack on the
EFF leader.
There is no clarity as to why Du Preez believes this so inexorably. He
has been repeating this line since as far back as one can remember. In
the absence of concrete facts, it is difficult to see how he comes to
this definitive conclusion. And he again betrays his disdainful views by
saying “Malema’s [and other leaders] views are not as raw as in the
early days”, which he patronisingly passes as a compliment.
This reminds one of the missionaries of the 1700s who to referred to
their African converts as the “more civilised” ones, polished of their
rough edges. So it seems the rawness is what bothers the esteemed
stalwart about the EFF.
Yet if Du Preez had kept his ear to the ground, he would have heard from
beyond the distant horizons that the “rawness” has been hailed by
ordinary South Africans, not the media, as “the truth”.
There is no polish or refinery for truth. It is either raw, or it is modified, and if it is modified, it is no longer truth.
Du Preez then draws particular attention to a statement Malema made in
which he said white people were supremacists. He seems to defend the
principle that there are some white people who must be exempted from the
inhuman supremacy against blacks in general by a collective white
minority.
He reminded me of some of us black men who sought to be exempted from
the patriarchal violence on women we are witnessing today, qualifying
that there are some among us who are not violent. I was one of them, and
I have seen the error of my ways.
The conversation was a lot deeper than the narrow individual interest.
Du Preez himself is highly vocal in the white community conscientising
them on taking “collective” responsibility for the effects of white
supremacy on the collective black mass. What then is the difference when
the same gospel is preached by Malema?
He then strangely criticises the EFF’s constant engagement on race
issues. One would think Du Preez would know that race relations in South
Africa are far from resolved and that walking on egg shells has not
assisted – it has fermented latent racism.
Rwanda imploded precisely because of this avoidance of pertinent issues. So did Zimbabwe.
The EFF is encouraging an open discussion on race matters that too many are afraid to engage with publicly.
Surprisingly, Mr Du Preez himself is an ardent advocate for dialogue on
race relations. So ardent that he has been vilified by racists himself
for being too harsh on Afrikaners.
That he dismisses the land question does not deserve much attention. He
relegates it to “a popular slogan, but this is more about symbolism and
assertiveness than reality”, he says. I’m certain someone else inserted
that line in his absence and he didn’t care to proofread it. It cannot
be Max du Preez who dismisses such a core struggle agenda in such a
crass manner purely because of his personal feelings for a party
advocating for a more serious discussion on land.
Where is our hope of brave white people who will dare speak without fear
on the land question and explain cogently to fellow whites what this
struggle is about.
This is totally reckless from a stalwart journalist. For his benefit,
there is now a healthy discussion among professionals from economists to
judges who are deliberating on the effects of expropriation of land and
nationalisation of mines.
Du Preez’s own conclusions on the subject are not the final word by any
stretch of the imagination. And if Du Preez strongly believes the EFF’s
submissions must not be tested because they have failed elsewhere, then
by this global logic, no one should try anything after it has failed
elsewhere.
By this logic, Karl Benz should not have attempted building a car after
Frenchman Nicholas Joseph Cugnot failed dismally with his “fardier à
vapeur”, not to mention the host of other failed pioneers who lined up
in between them. Where would the automobile be today?
And it is rather peculiar and crude to compare President Jacob Zuma’s
rhetoric on land with the EFF’s well-considered arguments that it makes
in Parliament and engages local and international minds on.
The EFF is not a bunch of naïve rascals who just “want power” as Du
Preez puts it. This is why he will never fathom its longevity. He still
has to understand its internal and internationalist machinations which
are yes young, but highly sophisticated.
Interestingly, from Pixley ka Isaka Seme’s accounts, this is the kind of
criticism that was levelled at the South African Native National
Congress from Doubting Thomases who perpetually predicted it would never
see two years in existence.
In 2013 critics predicted the EFF would not see its second birthday, Du
Preez has benevolently extended it to six. Perhaps his benevolence will
persist at the sixth birthday and extend it to 10. The EFF is eternally
grateful for his graciousness.
But Du Preez’s other criticisms are petty and lack the kind of
sophistication we’ve come to expect from a professional of his calibre.
He squirms at the EFF’s going to visit King Goodwill Zwelithini and
dismisses it as “sucking up”. For a man who has seen as much politics as
he has, this is below par and disappointing. Does he not know that
societies are captivated by certain individuals of perceived power or
influence? And that in order to access such societies, one of the
effective channels is such individuals?
Because the EFF has ambitions to grow beyond his projected 10%, how else
will it penetrate KwaZulu-Natal, some of whose sway is firmly in the
influence of the king.
Did he dismiss the number of times Nelson Mandela went to visit the very
same king as “sucking up”? My guess is he did not. Then one has to ask
if he perhaps harbours a certain particular disdain for the EFF and why.
Du Preez makes the serious allegation that the EFF is violent in
Parliament. He says: “Many citizens are entertained by the EFF’s violent
shenanigans in Parliament.”
If Du Preez cared to exercise restraint in his bias, he would have noted
that it is the EFF that is the victim of violence in Parliament. If
this humble fact is not satisfactory enough for him, perhaps he would be
satisfied by the court judgment in the EFF vs Baleka Mbete case in
which the courts found that the decision to violently eject the EFF from
Parliament was illegal.
Du Preez would have also followed on social media that Parliament had
increasingly and illegally armed itself with special forces to
administer violence on the EFF’s members. The organisation has a
constitutional right to defend itself.
The statement he makes is insensitive in light of the violence on the
many women of the EFF, many of whom had to be hospitalised because of
this underhandedness of the state. For a seasoned and stalwart struggle
journalists such as himself, this deliberate oversight is perplexing and
tasteless.
Perhaps Du Preez can take a leaf out of another veteran journalist’s
book. Fred Khumalo wrote, a day before Du Preez put his thoughts
together, in an article titled I salute the commander in chief on his
march to the presidency.
Khumalo starts by admitting what Du Preez fails to, which is that he
should be eating his hat for undermining the longevity of this movement,
which many South Africans – not the media – now see as their eyes and
ears on matters of truth.
Khumalo makes no bones about his distance from the EFF and notes his
continuing criticism, but he is fair enough to at least acknowledge the
obvious growth of the young movement. Du Preez fails dismally at this
rather basic benchmark.
It is not beyond the vicinity of possibility that Du Preez’s denied but
unwavering belief in the EFF is his own Achilles Heel in his rather
erroneous analysis of the party.
If this is even remotely possible, then it is this belief in the party
that has led him to mistakenly assert that it has the capacity to be
government in 2019.
He has lost patience and is bitterly disappointed in realising that this
may not be reflected in the numbers he has been witnessing in the last
two polls. But Du Preez must exercise patience. Rome was not built in
five years.
The EFF is young, it acknowledges the fact. It is growing, but it is
young. The commander in chief of the EFF has continuously said the EFF
will not take power through the back door; that it will build slowly and
patiently through branches and persuasion.
The party did not hasten to desire to govern metros in the 2016 election
when it had the bargaining power to do so. It instead opted out of the
power games and rather elected to go back to the ground and build.
It is now speaking to the same youth Du Preez claims it is not engaging.
It has taken a well-considered decision to build in the provinces not
only of Limpopo and North West, but as well in KwaZulu-Natal and the
Eastern Cape where Du Preez correctly notes that it was not strong.
This is clearly a movement that is more patient with its growth and does not “want power” as Du Preez continues to believe.
Evidence through scientific numbers in polls and in public opinion have
clearly shown that the ANC on the other hand is on a downward
trajectory. Why would a dynamic and growing outfit such as the EFF want
to go back to such decay.
The EFF is democratically contesting power through the ballot and has
adequately demonstrated that it will not take power “by any means
possible”. It is precisely in that spirit of its politics that the ANC
is not even a remote possibility. The party will be a majority party
without a shadow of doubt, but it will do so with patience and
persistence.
P.S. Dear Du Preez. It is time to change your stance on the EFF. You do
not have to like it, but at least speak the truth about it. You are a
man who has dedicated his entire life to chasing the truth. We expect
nothing less from you. You once asked in an article you wrote, why the
“democrat” Fana Mokoena joined the EFF. It is because he got tired of
dancing around the truth that was there for all to see.
Change is not happening for Africans. We have been polite about it, but
it is simply not coming. It is more than frustrating, it is painful.
That pain is growing every day we see our parents, family and friends perpetually descend into the abyss of poverty.
It is because that pain is growing that the EFF will keep growing
because it is the only party that speaks the “raw” language of that
pain. You may not like its leadership, you may not even like its
politics or its tone, but at the very least, recognise the truth of the
pain it represents. If you at least bring yourself to that fact, you
will surely know it is a formidable and unstoppable force whose time has
surely come. Salute
0 Comments