As uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party celebrates its first anniversary, its rapid rise in South Africa’s political arena has taken many by surprise. With more than 14% of the electoral vote, the MK party’s swift ascension under the leadership of former president Jacob Zuma has disrupted the political status quo, but it has also raised significant concerns.
While Zuma’s enduring influence is undeniable, questions about the party’s long-term viability and Zuma’s role in shaping South Africa’s future have become pressing. The MK party, named after the armed wing of the ANC during apartheid, carries Zuma’s name and legacy, but recent decisions raise alarms about the future of South Africa’s political stability and democracy. Most notably, the party’s adoption of a constitution that grants the president total power to appoint and recall individuals in both the party and government structures reveals the party’s troubling centralism.
While these concerns over the party’s internal organisation are significant, they obscure a deeper, more critical question: what is Zuma’s core message in the current political climate?
The nation is grappling with severe economic problems, a growing divide between political parties, and an uncertain international policy position. For Zuma’s voice to resonate now, it must transcend mere symbolism and offer a clear, actionable path. Yet, as it stands, Zuma’s voice appears increasingly disconnected from the needs of the nation.
Zuma’s advocacy for black unity and his calls for the empowerment of South Africa’s historically marginalised black people have been central to his current political persona. These ideals, undoubtedly significant, seem to lack the urgency one would wish to see. While unity remains important, the country has far deeper and more complex issues — rising inequality and unemployment, as well as systemic corruption, to name a few, that demand more than a call for unity. The MK party, despite its populist appeal, has struggled to articulate a coherent vision for tackling these pressing national issues.
What is missing from the MK’s narrative? While the party garners significant support from Zuma’s loyal base, its messaging falls short of addressing the broader South African populace. The MK party’s appeal often seems to revolve around Zuma’s personality, rather than a substantive policy platform. In this sense, the MK party risks becoming little more than a vessel for Zuma’s personal brand rather than a political force that can offer solutions to South Africa’s structural issues.
Zuma’s current rise to power was grounded in the defiance of the political establishment, a narrative that resonated deeply with many South Africans. But, as the MK party rises, its foundation appears fragile. Zuma’s defiance no longer offers a cohesive alternative to the ruling ANC or an innovative approach to governance; instead, it is becoming a personality-driven movement that distracts from the real problems. South Africa’s citizens are left wondering whether the MK party can transition from a movement built on personal loyalty to a viable political alternative with a clear and actionable vision for the nation.
Further complicating Zuma’s political standing is his silence as a former state president on international discourse, such as the question of Palestine. In an era where South Africa’s foreign policy is under the international spotlight, Zuma’s silence on key global issues raises questions about his understanding of South Africa’s place in the world. Does his alliance with other global leaders, especially Russia’s President Vladimir Putin signal a shift in South Africa’s foreign policy priorities? And what implications might this have for South Africa’s diplomatic relations, particularly in light of the growing geopolitical tensions? Zuma’s reluctance to deal with these issues adds another layer of ambiguity to his leadership style and raises further doubts about his capacity to steer South Africa through the complexities the nation faces.
Domestically, Zuma’s proposals are equally vague. While his calls for economic justice and black unity are not without merit, they no longer stand as sufficient solutions to South Africa’s growing economic crisis. The country faces crippling unemployment, entrenched inequality, and a political landscape rife with corruption. Zuma’s rhetoric, while powerful in its time, now risks becoming increasingly irrelevant in addressing the complex issues of today. The MK party seems to be stuck in the past, unable to present a clear policy framework that speaks to the immediate needs of the nation.
The MK party’s rise could have been an opportunity to shift the political conversation in South Africa, offering a fresh perspective and viable alternatives to the policies of the past. Yet, it seems to be a personality-driven movement, where the party’s message is lost behind the man. Zuma’s leadership needs to evolve beyond nostalgic rhetoric and address the realities of governance in the modern South African state.
Zuma’s voice in the current political climate needs to carry a concrete, forward-looking vision for South Africa’s future.
Khothalang Moseli is a social and human rights activist writing in his individual capacity.
