The Malema question

by Editor · Published December 2, 2009 · Updated March 6, 2012

South Africa�s most controversial politician today must be Julius Malema, the president of the African National Congress Youth League. To his critics, Mr Malema is a demagogue who indiscriminately voices toxic opinions that often are not premised in thoughtful deliberation or, indeed, fact. To his supporters, he is a sharp-shooter within a generally obfuscated political gentry who articulates (and arguably also defines) the disillusionment of the powerless masses. The truth probably resides somewhere between these extremes.

It is fair to say that Mr Malema is a populist whose often racially-charged rhetoric contributes very little to nation-building. It is apparent that Mr Malema�s public statements are not always embedded in much rigour of thought. And it is certainly true that Mr Malema lacks respect for his elders and exuberantly maligns many people who made significant contributions to defeating apartheid even before he was born.

Mr Malema succeeds in a line of ANCYL presidents whose ham-fisted polemics have tended to be inflammatory. Typically, ANC leaders have indulgently ascribed some of the more flamboyant statements to the enthusiasm of youth, as though Peter Mokaba, Fikile Mbalula or Mr Malema, all grown men, were 12-year-olds. For the damage Mr Malema�s rhetoric could be causing the nation, the ANC as an organisation must bear responsibility.

However, many of Mr Malema�s critics are themselves responsible for giving him a more elevated platform than is his due. When the press gives every impulsive Malema proclamation front-page status, sometimes transparently in a manner to discredit him as a crackpot, his popularity among those who see him as an inspirational leader increases. The Malema phenomenon is fuelled as much by his fervent supporters as it is by his adversaries.

It is not difficult to see why Mr Malema enjoys support among so many people � and it would be condescending to interpret that backing as emanating only from people lacking in political sophistication. By polarising the race debate � or the �national question�, as the ANC prefers to euphemise � he feeds into a disenchantment felt by people who believe that, after 15 years of democracy, the transformation of society remains far from complete. He has established himself as a representative of the powerless, and has a way of communicating to and with them.

Mr Malema reminds us of the cold reality that the legacy of apartheid did not miraculously disappear in 1994. He places the race debate on the agenda, even though his methods in doing so tend to be inopportune.

For those who disagree with some or all of his views, the response must not be to jeer and ridicule him, but to engage with his arguments, seriously and sincerely, demonstrating when he is wrong and when his conclusions have no basis in fact.

Mr Malema expresses a form of African nationalism that is of no benefit to nation-building and reconciliation � and, ultimately, is injurious to the Constitution. It is also profoundly contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church which forbids all forms of racial discrimination. By employing the language of racial victimisation, Mr Malema�s rhetoric seeks to marginalise and alienate not only whites, but also members of population groups that were oppressed under apartheid. And these views are held by many of his supporters.

This forms part of a vitally important discourse that must be scrutinised and deliberated on, at every level of our society, in government as much as in communities, even in parishes.

Mr Malema represents a possible direction for the future of South Africa. As such, he must be taken very seriously, not be lampooned or vilified.