An in-depth discussion with political scientist Dr Frans Cronjé who shares well-researched insights on why Donald Trump had the US election tied up long before November 5; what the sweeping Republican victory tells us how the world’s biggest economy will operate in the global arena in the next four years (at least); how SA can use a unique asset to extract benefits from the transactional US president; and some very real threats to the sustainability of its Government of National Unity. Cronjé spoke to BizNews editor Alec Hogg.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
The seventh BizNews Conference, BNC#7, is to be held in Hermanus from March 11 to 13, 2025. The 2025 BizNews Conference is designed to provide an excellent opportunity for members of the BizNews community to interact directly with the keynote speakers, old (and new) friends from previous BNC events – and to interact with members of the BizNews team. Register for BNC#7 here.
Watch here
Listen here
Extended transcript of the interview ___STEADY_PAYWALL___
Alec Hogg (00:08.334)
The BizNews community loves Dr. Frans Cronje, and rarely have we seen one of our conversations get less than, well, almost 100,000 views. So we are pretty sure today’s discussion is going to attract a lot of interest. He’s going to talk to us about, of course, the recent U.S. election, but also events at home.
Alec Hogg (00:38.318)
Frans, lovely to be with you as always. On U.S. election night, do you stay up all night to watch the results?
Frans Cronje (00:48.622)
No, I didn’t. The first Trump election was so close that I did, but not this one and not the others.
Alec Hogg (01:02.904)
Did you have a feeling then, or did your analysis suggest, like R.W. Johnson published, that Trump was going to win because of various factors?
Frans Cronje (01:11.544)
Yeah, by miles. I have a colleague at SRF, Gabriel Macon, who you’ve actually met in London—he’s based there. Several months out from the election, Gabriel was taking American data and assigning Electoral College votes accordingly. He was telling me the results. We published, I think, three reports on the American election, all showing Trump winning by a significant margin. Eventually, because the lead was so pronounced, Gabriel assigned any state within the margin of error to Biden, and later, to Kamala Harris. Even then, Trump was winning significantly. So we were confident Trump was set to win from the start.
The second thing we saw was a very interesting chart showing retail spending in America over the past few years. For the elite, graduate-educated, coastal, very wealthy Americans, retail spending had outstripped that of ordinary working Americans by a factor of two or three over the past couple of years. We saw that as important. We also looked at inflation data, particularly through Reagan’s famous question, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” We’d seen something else, too: in his first run, Trump got 8% of the Black vote in America; in his second, he got 13%; this time, he got…
Frans Cronje (03:33.934)
…he got 20%. So, I don’t think this was a very difficult election to call at all. But if you watched mainstream media, you’d have thought Trump was going to lose, or at least that it was close. I don’t think it was that way at all. Watching alternative media, where I find more accurate perspectives, would have given a clearer sense of what the final result in America ultimately was.
Alec Hogg (04:17.240)
How did publications like The Economist and many pollsters get it so wrong? Right up until the end, The Economist said Kamala Harris would win and expressed the risks of another Trump presidency as very high, even endorsing her candidacy. Their poll, which was thorough, seemed well-researched.
Frans Cronje (04:48.014)
That’s puzzling, but the numbers were unambiguous. If you examined American data, typically reliable for calling the Electoral College result, even if the absolute vote count varied, you could see the lead. Historically, even if the popular vote was off, Republicans hadn’t won it since 2004, and before that, 1988. I can’t speak for The Economist, but I do know that some American media simply lied to readers because they disliked the result and favoured a Harris win.
Alec Hogg (06:14.169)
Sure. Elon Musk and his role—we hear today that he will be appointed co-head of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Is he really going to have the time to do what the public expects?
Frans Cronje (06:44.042)
I’m quite sure he will. You sometimes hear scepticism, even in South African media, that no one should run so many companies. But Musk is an exceptional person, and I imagine that exceptionalism will extend to his work in the U.S. government.
Alec Hogg (07:10.764)
He must have seen what you saw since he heavily bet on Trump, a bet that paid off. Looking ahead to a Trump presidency for America—though we’ll discuss South Africa shortly—what are you seeing?
Frans Cronje (07:27.480)
Trump actually beat two parties this election. He defeated the Democrats and Biden-Harris, but he also defeated the old neocon order of the Republican Party, moving away from figures like Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley. If you look beyond hysteria about Trump, you’ll notice something new emerging: he’s breaking away from the old neocon order and building something distinct.
This new trend—some call it “post-liberalism”—challenges older conservative ideas of free trade and free speech, asserting that conservatives shouldn’t shy away from using state power to support their values. The most interesting part of this new administration will be observing how these post-liberal ideas influence America.
Alec Hogg (09:43.596)
And what are those ideas?
Frans Cronje (09:45.890)
Traditional conservatism values small government, free trade, and free speech—keeping government out of people’s lives. But post-liberal thought criticizes this as naïve. It endorses using state power to uphold a moral order, views free trade sceptically, and sees it as possibly undermining a country’s competitiveness or benefiting ideological opponents. So, it’s a shift toward a more statist approach. It’s not entirely different from certain aspects of the left.
Alec Hogg (11:07.096)
That’s going to have many implications.
Frans Cronje (11:10.606)
Yes, it’s a sea change—a complete transformation. Stopping the hysteria around Trump reveals intriguing questions about America’s future and whether liberals or neocons can stage a comeback.
If you could show the map of the U.S. election results by county, you’d see a striking red map, with blue dots representing urban areas governed by Democrats, while Republicans dominate the rest. It’s a powerful image of the Republican win this election.
Alec Hogg (12:50.968)
Johann Rupert appears to be taking on a larger role. Our sources indicate he met with Trump at Mar-a-Lago with Ernie Els and Rurik Gobel, who’s close to both. They reportedly had a lengthy discussion where Rupert shared his perspectives, and Trump listened respectfully. This is notable for a figure like Rupert, who keeps a low profile but has substantial interests in South Africa. What do you make of this?
Frans Cronje (13:57.618)
I won’t comment on the people involved but can say a few things. AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act) is less critical than some think, representing about 2% of South Africa’s exports, largely auto. There’s debate that South Africa’s auto industry may actually increase poverty by blocking the import of cheaper used vehicles, which could aid economic mobility for poorer South Africans. While AGOA has some impact, it’s perhaps overestimated.
More significant is the South Africa Review Act in the U.S. Congress, requiring the administration to report on whether South Africa poses a national security threat. This goes beyond the ANC’s historic support for Palestinians; it’s about South Africa’s role in advancing Iranian interests. Elise Stefanik, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, expressed strong concerns about South Africa’s actions. Michael Waltz, incoming National Security Advisor, was a key driver of the act. This bipartisan scepticism regarding South Africa is concerning.
Alec Hogg (18:18.913)
The implication is significant. Even Helen Zille suggests that the ANC may be financially beholden to Iran, which could limit their flexibility.
Frans Cronje (20:03.960)
Right. But with Trump emphasizing deterrence, South Africa might feel more pressure to reconsider its position. The ANC may have to weigh its alliances carefully in light of a U.S. administration focused on global deterrence.
And strategically, if you draw a triangle from the Solomon Islands near Australia to Djibouti (where China has a base) and down to South Africa’s Simon’s Town, then back to the Solomon Islands, you encompass key regions in the South Pacific, Indian Ocean, and South Atlantic. Within this lies Diego Garcia, where the U.S. has significant military resources.
Read more: SA orders Taiwan to relocate embassy amid China’s growing influence
Frans Cronje (23:49.304)
So China is gaining influence over the Solomon Islands, a region the Japanese Imperial forces understood as critical during WWII. After the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, it was essential to cut Australia off from Hawaii. Now, there’s a presence in Djibouti, with efforts to expand influence through the Mediterranean. The Chagos Archipelago has fallen out of Western control, although some deny this, but it’s clearly evolving in that direction. The last significant Western stronghold in this triangular region is the Simon’s Town naval base. If Simon’s Town were to shift to an anti-Western alignment, the geostrategic balance from the South Pacific to the South Atlantic would change significantly. South Africa, therefore, is crucial for reasons tied to the South Atlantic’s strategic position.
Alec Hogg (25:13.794)
The geopolitical implications of this, as you outlined a month ago, have been well-understood by the business community. But what leverage does the United States have with South Africa? The ANC seems to hold a strong hand, especially with Simon’s Town being a key point the U.S. would want to retain. How would a transactional president like Donald Trump negotiate this?
Frans Cronje (25:59.598)
The options are extensive. One is a direct question to the ANC: Do you wish to be a proxy state for China and Russia? There’s also a fallback if Simon’s Town is lost. For example, moving further north to Angola offers strategic alternatives. Angola, a potentially wealthy country, has three major ports—Namibe, Lobito, and Luanda. The Lobito Corridor project aims to build a logistics and communications link from this port, extending through Zambia’s copper belt, and ending in Tanzania on the Indian Ocean, creating a secure connection between the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans.
Alec Hogg (26:28.098)
Mm-hmm.
Frans Cronje (26:36.002)
This fallback limits South Africa’s bargaining power. As I previously explained, this fallback offers a strong alternative.
Alec Hogg (27:57.486)
Mm.
Frans Cronje (28:04.59)
Another point: the ANC’s moderate approach led to success. In the first 15 years post-1994, investment levels almost rivaled the Global North, economic growth averaged 5%, and employment doubled. But during radical phases like expropriation without compensation, ANC support plummeted. If ANC pragmatists aim to build a liberal democratic society, they’ll likely find U.S. support, especially under a Trump administration, which may reduce Western moralizing that can alienate African partners. For example, German criticism of South Africa’s coal reliance ignores the need for energy security.
Alec Hogg (28:42.316)
Mm. Mm.
Alec Hogg (28:59.203)
Hmm.
Frans Cronje (29:02.27)
A transactional U.S. approach could help South Africa succeed by boosting trade, investment, and support, rather than just foreign aid. Namibia, for example, has press freedom rankings higher than Canada’s, a potentially massive offshore oil discovery, and little radicalism.
Frans Cronje (31:29.698)
South Africa’s support from America, in this case, would be grounded in genuine opportunity rather than charity. However, Namibia also presents a compelling alternative—stable politics, press freedom, and massive oil finds mean it’s on the radar as a fallback.
Alec Hogg (32:41.27)
Interesting to consider the national unity government and its future, particularly against the backdrop of U.S. influence and economic considerations. But how about the recent controversies, such as the ANC’s handling of the BEE bill and other pressures within the GNU?
Frans Cronje (33:38.158)
The GNU has been crucial, avoiding a more radical ANC-MK-EFF coalition that could destabilize South Africa’s economy and increase inflation. Yet, its survival is not guaranteed. There’s significant resistance to the GNU within the ANC outside the “cabinet clique” and among rebel factions in Gauteng, who recently regained influence by replacing a DA mayor with an EFF-MK coalition.
Frans Cronje (34:47.022)
Secondly, President Ramaphosa’s focus appears to be more on international diplomacy than domestic issues. This lack of attention to local tensions within the GNU is troubling.
Frans Cronje (34:59.29)
There’s pressure on both sides, particularly as honeymoon optimism fades. On the DA side, there’s frustration over the quality of governance in certain portfolios.
Frans Cronje (35:26.636)
Despite the tension, neither side is likely to withdraw from the GNU soon. Public support for it is strong, with 60% of voters favoring the alliance and both ANC and DA performance receiving positive reviews. The DA also insists it won’t compromise on core values to maintain unity.
Alec Hogg (39:33.62)
So the coalition may hold, at least until the 2026 elections?
Frans Cronje (41:28.654)
Correct. We foresee it surviving until the 2026 elections and possibly up to 2029, despite internal tensions. Public opinion in South Africa is moderate, and the GNU reflects this sentiment. The ANC may be reluctant to initiate a breakup, as public support remains high for this collaboration.
Alec Hogg (42:09.246)
Given the currency fluctuations, South Africa’s global standing appears to hinge on this unity.
Frans Cronje (42:15.182)
Exactly. If the ANC had consolidated support in Gauteng, worked effectively in the GNU, and achieved modest economic recovery, it could likely reach 50% support by 2025.
Alec Hogg (43:05.368)
Given the recent Eskom tensions with Johannesburg’s Metro, could this be a national ANC tactic against local ANC factions?
Frans Cronje (43:34.658)
It’s possible, though I’m not certain. Eskom has sound management now, so pressuring municipalities could simply be about fiscal responsibility.
Alec Hogg (43:56.878)
But Eskom is state-owned; cutting off power to Johannesburg would typically require national oversight, correct?
Frans Cronje (44:14.99)
True, and there’s immense frustration within the ANC with leadership’s inability to rein in the rebel faction. More serious ANC figures understand that the party historically performs better under pragmatic governance. They also see risks in antagonizing the U.S., given South Africa’s recent foreign policy missteps, which united even the U.S. Congress under Biden.
Alec Hogg (46:38.99)
With recent revelations about Libyan support for the ANC, how credible is the belief that Iranian funding may now influence the party’s stance?
Frans Cronje (47:20.264)
South Africa does have a history of transactional foreign policy, where financial backing influenced policy, as seen with countries like Taiwan and Libya. While a direct exchange is uncertain, the sentiment is credible. There is precedent for foreign policy decisions driven by financial incentives.
Read more: 🔒 ‘Trump bump’ market honeymoon won’t last much longer: Robert Burgess
Alec Hogg (48:46.04)
But for those of us outside the political insiders, when we see the latest transactional approach by Ukraine, it seems like they’re saying, “Okay, Mr. Trump, if you support us against Russia, we’ll allow you to pull your troops back from Europe, and we’ll place Ukrainian troops in areas where American troops are stationed in Europe.” This kind of approach seems to be, “If you do this for us, then we’ll do that for you.”
From a South African perspective, if our country has a record of transactional politics, as you’ve described, surely that would be a cause for some optimism. Cynically speaking, of course, but optimism that in the future, those two parties—South Africa and the U.S.—might just find common ground.
Frans Cronje (49:22.528)
Well…
Frans Cronje (49:35.054)
When we talk about transactional politics, we generally mean cash transactions. On the Ukraine point, though, it’s one area of ANC foreign policy that I’m quite sympathetic to. Whatever else may be happening behind the scenes, let’s consider the facts: NATO expanded east of Germany even where it arguably shouldn’t have. There’s a buildup of Ukrainian regulars on the eastern frontier. Russia was concerned this signaled an attempt to cut off Crimea and the port of Sevastopol.
The so-called Russian invasion, particularly the advance toward Kyiv, was merely intended to draw those Ukrainian forces back to defend the capital—which Putin never actually took. As soon as that threat subsided, the Russian focus shifted to the East, with both sides more or less adhering to the old Minsk Accord lines. That was always the deal that should have been struck. My understanding is that Henry Kissinger, before he passed, shared a similar view.
What I’m articulating here is how learned ANC figures might explain the conflict, and I think there’s merit in hearing them out. You won’t hear this perspective in mainstream media.
Frans Cronje (51:31.214)
It’s not something commonly published in mainstream media nowadays, just like you won’t see anyone writing that Trump is likely to win the next election, even though that’s becoming increasingly apparent. Also, I believe Washington’s primary concern regarding South Africa is less about Russia and more about Iran. Dealing with China is unavoidable, and it’s understandable that South Africa engages with China. But this alignment with Iran—that’s the key issue, and it could impact AGOA and other areas of national security.
If we want to look beyond AGOA and consider national security from a U.S. perspective, does South Africa pose a threat? You might even argue that resolving this Iranian issue could allow South Africa to establish a reasonable and profitable relationship with a Trump administration. If our country learns to leverage its strategic position globally, it would be perhaps the most valuable asset we have, and yet it’s hardly used to any meaningful extent.
South Africa should develop a foreign policy doctrine that positions it as the third point in a global triangle—one that recognizes its unique geographical advantage as the gateway to the South Atlantic. If an issue arises in Suez or Panama, global shipping routes could easily shift to pass by South Africa.
We’re a country that values human rights and will speak out against the suffering in places like Gaza or the losses in Ukraine, where countless young men are being sent to their deaths by those in power. This line echoes sentiments from Trump’s camp in this election. But if the Western powers want to engage in conflict, as terrible as it may be, we can’t intervene. What we can do, however, is emphasize our geostrategic importance and negotiate on those grounds.
Frans Cronje (53:47.04)
We’re not a colony to be pushed around, but we also recognize that we shouldn’t be undermining your national security. So, we can be cooperative, but we also ask: What can you offer us in terms of trade, energy, or nuclear power development? If Russia presents a better offer for South Africa’s energy and nuclear needs, it’s reasonable for our government to accept it and build a nuclear fleet with Russian support. This approach would provide the foundation to create jobs for the 15 to 20 million unemployed young people here, which is a moral imperative.
To clarify, if Western partners are unhappy with our potential partnership with Russia for nuclear development, they’re welcome to make a better offer. They could start by refraining from threatening South African exports due to ideological differences on green policies. The Western world’s obsession with green ideology has reached the point where they may even come to South Africa demanding alignment with their environmental stance, under threat of economic consequences. That’s how extreme the Western doctrine has become.
Frans Cronje (55:50.722)
So, South Africa should leverage its significant geostrategic position as this third point in the global triangle to secure enormous economic benefits for ordinary South Africans, driving high growth for the country.
Alec Hogg (56:10.286)
And that was Frans Cronje, chairman of the Social Research Foundation, as well as a political and economic consultant and analyst. I’m Alec Hogg from BizNews.com.
Read also:
