Chris Steyn: SA to be governed by a unity of old enemies?

By Chris Steyn.The possible configurations of coalition governments on national and provincial level is the burning question as South Africa heads to the polls next month for watershed elections. .This thorny issue was also high on the agenda this week when Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) leader Velenkosini Hlabisa was hosted to a conference call by the Eurasia Group, a leading global political risk research and consulting firm headquartered in New York. .___STEADY_PAYWALL___.He spent an hour in conversation with Eurasia Group's Practice Head: Africa Amaka Anku and Senior Analyst: Afrika Ziyanda Stuurman..Asked about the possible outcomes of the election, Hlabisa said: "…with the advent of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), they (the African National Congress) are likely to go between 35% and 40%. That puts them in a very difficult situation.."It might be a factor that can assist the ANC to come back into power, and we know it's going to be very difficult for MK to work with the ANC, knowing the hostilities between (former President) Jacob Zuma and (President Cyril) Ramaphosa and the people who are disgruntled in the MK against the current leadership of the ANC. ."It will be a very difficult bridge to cross between the other political parties with the MK because of the history of South Africa. But, in politics you never say never. Anything is possible on the basis of the discussions. And when the results compel you to work together, you don't have another choice except to work together.".While the IFP remains committed to work hard to ensure that the Multi Party Charter (MPC) wins the elections, should it fail to get 50% plus one, Hlabisa says "we cannot allow the country to be at a standstill".."We are working to push the ANC below 50%. If we achieve that goal through the Multi Party Charter and we are able to form a government with other partners—excluding the ruling party—we will definitely exclude the ruling party.."But should it not work out in terms of figures, we have the experience of the government of national unity. We know that in a government of national unity, if the voters have compelled us to reach that state, we will bring to the ANC many options in terms of running the country efficiently. It will not be fair to say we will demand A, B, C, D because you shouldn't go that route until you know the election outcomes.."But I must be clear, our first option is to remove the existing government because it has failed us. But should we get into a deadlock, the government of national unity, as it once happened, cannot be ruled out. It will be an option to consider to take the country forward.".Hlabisa also spoke about the IFP's aim to reclaim KwaZulu-Natal which it governed for ten years from 1994 to 2004. ."We want to take it back to the IFP from the ANC because they have destroyed all the good work that was done by the IFP in the province of KwaZulu Natal. This is supported by the fact that in 2021, the IFP has won the majority of municipalities in the province. From 2021 to date, the IFP has taken 15 local wards from the ANC (in by-elections) and the ANC has only taken one word from the IFP.".Hlabisa also outlined the IFP's objections to the National Health Insurance (NHI) bill, as well as its proposed interventions to stimulate economic growth and to raise employment levels through mandated legislation..Herewith in full are the notes of the conversation with Hlabisa:.FRAMING REMARKS:.Amaka Anku (Practice Head Africa, Eurasia Group).Good afternoon, good evening, depending on where you are, welcome. This is the second in our South Africa Election Policy Series.Today, we are very excited to have Mr Velenkosi Hlabisa with us, who is the president of the Inkatha Freedom Party. For those of you who don't know that much about it, it is one of the political parties that has existed since 1975 but has existed in its current form since 1994. It has a deep history within the Zulu nation in particular.One of the reasons that we thought it was important to have them on this call is that they are the third biggest opposition party in parliament, and we believe that they are a likely coalition partner for the ANC if they were to fall under 50%. As many people on this call will know, our base case is that the ANC will not fall below 50%, but even if it were if would likely not be below 45%, we're thinking around 48%.In the last national election, the IFP had about 3,3% of the national vote. That means that, even if the ANC were to fall to 47%, they would be able to form a government with the IFP as a coalition party. So, this is an important conversation to have regarding what that coalition would look like..QUESTION AND ANSWERS:.Desired election outcomes and the IFP's electoral strategy.Ziyanda Stuurman (Senior Analyst, Eurasia Group).I think Amaka has set up a really good framing for a conversation around where the election may go and where the ANC and the IFP may find themsleves. But I think it's really important right at the top of this call to give Mr Hlabisa the opportunity to broadly tell us what the IFP's campaign pitch to voters is, and why the party thinks it will resonate with those voters. Specifically, we're asking what is at the heart of your manifesto and offering to voters?.Velenkosi Hlabisa (President, IFP).It is a great pleasure on behalf of the IFP to get an opportunity to talk about the IFP and what it stands for. We have been a key factor in shaping the future of South Africa. In 1994, when our country was granted its freedom, there were basic things that were brought into existence because of the IFP. The first was the Bill of Rights in our constitution, which was as a result of the IFP. All other political parties were not very interested in a bill of rights, but at the insistence of the IFP it is in existence in South Africa today.It is also the IFP that stood against a unitary state. The existence of nine provinces in South Africa and the local government sphere—which are the federal components of our government—is a credit to the IFP which no other party can claim. It is because we believe that power must be devolved to where the people are. We stood against a unitary government because such a government is too distanced from the people, and at the insistence of the IFP, the creation of provincial governments was agreed to and local government sphere was agreed to.This time around, the IFP has four main goals to achieve. The first is to reclaim the KwaZulu Natal province, which we governed for ten years from 1994 to 2004. We want to take it back to the IFP from the ANC because they have destroyed all the good work that was done by the IFP in the province of KwaZulu Natal. This is supported by the fact that in 2021, the IFP has won the majority of municipalities in the province. From 2021 to date, the IFP has taken 15 local wards from the ANC (in by-election contests) and the ANC has only taken one word from the IFP.The second goal is to push the ANC below 50% in Gauteng, so that we take them out of power and the IFP becomes the party of the executive of the Gauteng province.The third goal at the national level is to push the ANC below 50%, so that we remove them from power and the IFP, working with like-minded political parties—with whom we share the platform under the Multiparty Charter–form an alternative government. For over a period of 30 years, the ruling party has destroyed our country, and our dreams and aspirations are going down the drain. If people vote for us to remove the government that has failed them, it would not be fair to them to assist the very same party to come back (into power). We will have to remove them from power and (the formation of) an alternative government with fresh minds and a fresh beginning in our country is essential after May 29.Regarding the fourth goal, we want to have representatives in the provinces of Mpumalanga, Limpopo the North-West. The IFP is therefore looking at the upcoming elections to be a major factor in shaping a new direction for our country..As part of your second and third goals, you have very explicitly stated that you want to push the ANC below 50% at a provincial level and at a national level. I'm really curious to hear what your thoughts are in terms of the outcomes of the election. I'm going to ask you here for specific numbers.What are your current expectations for the results? How do you think various political parties will fare both at a national level and also at a provincial level in, KwaZulu-Natal? What do you think may happen over the next few weeks that could change those dynamics in one way or another?.There are currently three main provinces that, when put together, form about 66% of the population. These are the Western Cape, KwaZulu Natal and Gauteng. These three provinces control more than 60% of the economy of our country. The ANC lost the Western Cape to the Democratic Alliance (DA) long ago. They will definitely lose to the IFP in 2024, and they will be voted out of Gauteng after the May 29th elections. Even if they can make gains in other provinces, if you are not in control of those three provinces, you are out.With regards to how I see the elections playing out? There is a new player in the game, namely the Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) party, which is a breakaway party from the ANC and is led by Jacob Zuma, the former president of South Africa and a member of the ANC. Umkhonto we Sizwe is going to affect the ANC greatly, and that is why they were contesting the MK's eligibility to contest the elections, because they know the danger that is going to befall them if MK is allowed to contest elections. They lost that battle.The ANC is going to be below 50% in KwaZulu Natal, Gauteng and nationally. Probably somewhere around 40-45%. But with the advent of Umkhonto we Sizwe, they are likely to go between 35% and 40%. That puts them in a very difficult situation.How do I see a new government in South Africa? The ANC is not going to win the Western Cape, it still remains under the DA. In KwaZulu Natal, the ANC is going to be out. The coalition government led by the IFP is a likelihood to happen with the DA and ActionSA because we have campaigned on the basis that people must vote for us to remove the ANC. It would be perceived badly by the voters to allow the party to back into government after people have said that you want to remove the ANC which they say has failed them. The ANC is also going to lose Gauteng and a new coalition government is going to be in place.Additionally, it would be a real miracle for the ANC to lead the national government under a coalition government. What is more likely is a new government of like-minded political parties. The only thing that can create a disturbance is the MK, because it's going to be a factor. It might be a factor that can assist the ANC to come back into power, and we know it's going to be very difficult for MK to work with the ANC, knowing the hostilities between Jacob Zuma and Ramaphosa and the people who are disgruntled in the MK against the current leadership of the ANC. It will be a very difficult bridge to cross between the other political parties with the MK because of the history of South Africa. But, in politics you never say never. Anything is possible on the basis of the discussions. And when the results compel you to work together, you don't have another choice except to work together.I'm confident that the people of South Africa are tired of loadshedding, which has destroyed our economy. They're tired of crime. They're tired of unemployment, where you have graduates of all kinds, including medical doctors, lawyers, teachers, and social workers, who are sitting at home, which is something we never thought would happen in a free country after 30 years. People are tired of the poor infrastructure in our country. Roads have been destroyed under the watch of the ruling party. Our healthcare system has been grounded to zero. I'm aware that you want our view on the National Health Insurance (NHI) bill.The IFP believes in universal health coverage. But the NHI as it stands is a disaster because there is no provision as to where the funding will come from. It's just a pipe dream which is not backed by any evidence as to how it will work. The NHI, as it stands in its current format, with no provision for funding and clarity as to where these funds are going to come from, has been rejected by all medical practitioners from all medical associations. The moment a policy is rejected by specialists in that field you must listen, because they are speaking from experience while you are driven by political desire as a political party..Coalition governments.I'm glad you've touched on the NHI and you've given us, I think, a really good overview of your objections to it. But I actually want to drill down a little bit deeper into coalition scenarios. I think you've outlined some really interesting outcomes, at a national level and in KwaZulu-Natal. I'm very pleased to hear you say "never say never", because I think that is a political sort of idiom, that many of us will recognize, particularly given that your party's former leader, Mangosuthu Buthelezi came together with the ANC for the good of the country in 1994 and formed a government of national unity.If South Africa were to find itself in a situation where it had to choose between, an ANC/MK/EFF coalition going forward at a national level, would that not be the type of situation where the IFP would then consider going into coalition, with the ANC?With this, I'm really trying to figure out where there would be red lines or green lines, particularly in terms of coalition formations or, at this point, do you see it as a hard and fast commitment to staying with the Multiparty Charter partners and completely rejecting the idea of working with the ANC under any circumstance?.Currently, the IFP is committed and is going to be working hard to ensure that the Multiparty Charter wins after the May 29 elections, because of the destruction that has happened in our country under the watch of the ruling party. But should the Multiparty Charter fail to get 50% plus one, we cannot allow the country to be at a standstill.I have said this openly, that from 1994 to 2004, the IFP was part of the national government under the Government of National Unity. If you assess it correctly, the Government of National Unity between 1994 and 2004 was a great success, and the IFP contributed immensely in the (government) departments it was holding during those ten years. Should circumstances compel that we go the route of the government of national unity, the IFP will not object if that is what the electorate would have decided.A government of national unity is different from a one-party rule in that where we would not agree (on policy), we would ensure that it doesn't pass if we feel it is not in the interest of our people.But I must be clear, our first option is to remove the existing government because it has failed us. But should we get into a deadlock, the government of national unity, as it once happened, cannot be ruled out. It will be an option to consider to take the country forward..I am going to turn my attention a little bit here to KwaZulu-Natal in particular. As you have characterized, in your words Umkhonto we Sizwe – which is Jacob Zuma's new party – is an ANC problem largely. Am I more or less correct in that assessment?As you also mentioned, in by-election results since 2021 the IFP has done pretty well. Again, as you said your record is 15 to 1 to the ANC in terms of winning wards off of that party. But we have also seen, since February, where the MK has specifically been able to make inroads in northern KwaZulu-Natal: in the Vryheid area, ePongolo and in a couple of other wards where they have contested there. I would then say that the MK is actually an ANC, IFP and EFF problem if they have been able to draw voters from all sides in that sense.How are you actually approaching the challenge that is Umkhonto we Sizwe, particularly in terms of northern KwaZulu-Natal there would be growth prospects for your party, and what are you thinking about in terms of a possible provincial level agreement or working with possibly the MK party in a situation where the Multi-Party Charter partners were able to get just below 50% and then could take control of the province from the ANC?.We are open minded. Even in KwaZulu-Natal currently in 13 municipalities we are in a coalition with the DA, Freedom Front Plus, ActionSA and the ACDP (African Christian Democratic Party). Those are key political parties in the Multiparty Charter. It would have been a good thing at a local government sphere to have a similar coalition at a provincial government sphere. But figures may compel you to take something different from prevails at a local government level.Our first option and choice is the Multiparty Charter because already we are in coalition government at a local government and we have established good working relations over a period of two and a half years now. We have seen how to prioritise service development up to a point of signing a service level delivery agreement which guides us in ensuring that the needs of the people come as a priority. But, if figures forces us the other way round at a provincial level, we will go that route.Throughout South Africa we have 14 million registered voters who are dormant. They are not participating in the elections, so we are activating those people. We know some say, "why should I go to elections when the government is not doing anything for me?" Our message is that if you don't go and vote, you have actually voted for the government that has failed you. The right thing to do, go and remove them with your vote and vote the alternative which is the IFP.I am very confident, the voter turnout is going to be very high as we go into this election.We are saying 2024 is our 1994. In 1994 we removed the Apartheid government because it had failed the people of South Africa. In 2024 we going to be removing the political party that over 30 years has failed our people..I have two more questions on economic policy that I think I want to drill down into. Firstly, let's shift a little to talk specifically about economic policy. The IFP's manifesto is particularly detailed, I think, around ideas and proposals around job creation. On one hand, as you have laid out, one intervention to try and deal with graduate unemployment is to dole out a unemployed graduate grant. That would essentially help those graduates bridge, any gap in time between graduating from their study and then, entering the job market.And then on the side of, the job market itself. You have a controversial proposal around an 80/20 employment target. Under this target enterprises would have to hire 80% South Africans in specific positions or roles and then the other 20%, or up to 20%, could be given to foreign nationals.Under an IFP government, firstly, how would you grow the economy to create jobs? And secondly, what would you actually practically do to implement this 80/20 target?.Let me say broadly, you would need to deal with load shedding, and crime, in order to create the environment of business and economy to grow. An IFP-led government will tackle load shedding immediately and have the shortest possible turnaround to deal with load shedding once and for all. We will have to be tough on crime and criminals in order to create a safe environment for investors to come and invest in a country that is crime free to a reasonable level, and also without a challenge of load shedding. We will do all it takes to engage the foreign investors to come and invest in order to create more job opportunities in our country, and we will ensure that the environment becomes friendly to the investors.On the question of labor relations: we will have to relax some laws because you must strike a balance between the rights of the workers and also the benefits of the investors in the country. You must not be one sided.On the 80/20 target: we will engage with all employers in the country to put South Africa and its people first. We cannot have unemployed South Africans while we give those opportunities to foreign nationals.We must allow the specialized skills from foreign nationals to transfer their skills to South Africa. The 20% of specialized skills will have to be recorded, and there must be a program of skills transfer over a particular period, which is an international practice. If you have specialized skill in a particular country, there are people who are placed under your control to whom you transfer your skills over five years or six years. Once that period is over, you are requested to go back to your country because you have done your job to transfer skills which you did not have as a country.In an ideal situation we will prefer 100% South Africans in every job or every industry, but we recognize the fact of the shortage of skills.Let me end by saying, we are against xenophobia. We do not believe in the use of violence against foreign nationals. We believe foreign nationals who do not possess specialized skills must be assisted by the government of South Africa to take them back to their respective countries..I want to ask two particular fine points, just in what you've mentioned. The first is around solving the issue of loadshedding or power outages. Will you give us a bit of specificity on what that means under an IFP government? Is it more renewables? Is it building more coal fired power stations? What would we actually expect that either is different or isn't different, from the route that the government has taken?Secondly, you mentioned around the 80/20 rule that in a version of enforcement that there would be some measures or some practices, essentially for those companies or enterprises that aren't following that rule. What would that look like? Are those fines? A limitation on operations for enterprises? What are the specifics on those two points?.Let me start with the issue of load shedding. In as far as loadshedding is concerned, what has landed South Africa to a crisis in which we are is poor maintenance of the infrastructure. The IFP will prioritize the continuous maintenance of the infrastructure. We will build more power stations and finish them on time. The problem in South Africa, under the current government, is that there are power stations that have taken decades which have not being completed. As the IFP, once we commission a power station in a fixed period, we will finish it and have the power station deliver to the maximum..I just want to ask again, a super specific point: is this coal fired power stations? Are you talking about renewable projects, a mix of both?.A mix. We are a coal producer, we can't shy away from it. But a mix is going to be the solution in dealing with the issues of load shedding. And we will ensure that we cut unnecessary fuel levies in South Africa to ensure that the energy system works to the maximum for the benefit of our people..The second point was around the rules of enforcement for the 80/20 rule. What would that enforcement practically look like?.One, is to have a tight control in the borders of South Africa so that you know who is coming in and who is going out. And ensure that you know who is in South Africa. Some people will say it's not going to be easy. Basically, you say all foreign nationals in South Africa who have no special skills must come forth to be assisted to be taken back to their respective countries. in a friendly way, because we are against the use of violence against foreign nationals.And the industries or employers will have to submit complete data as to who is employed in a particular industry and the nationality of a person, and the specialization of that particular person. This would be very easy, if you have your systems in place, it will be functional..Thank you very much. At this point, I'm going to hand over to Amaka. She will moderate the question and answer session with clients..I think this first question from one of our clients feeds very nicely off of what you were just saying. When Ziyanda asked about what specifically you would do differently when it comes to loadshedding, it sounded like you were saying "we will finish the power plants on time." Basically, were you saying" we'll deal with corruption"? Because you can argue that that's a part of why some of these power plants have taken so long. So, the question is what would you do specifically to root out corruption in government?.The first thing that we will do is to ensure that, one, we have the Zondo Commission which has pointed out where billions, if not trillions, of Rands were taken away from the people of South Africa through corrupt activities. We will ensure that such money is recovered.How are we going to do it differently? The justice system should be sufficiently capacitated with a sufficient provision of manpower so that cases do no drag too long. The investigating system in our country should be capacitated that if a person is charged of a corrupt activity, that person must not be able to run away scot-free when the case comes before the court of law. If your investigating system is poor, you will lose cases when they come before the court of law.We will introduce consequence management. A person who is found to have committed an act of corruption, as an employee, we will not be afraid to show the door to that particular person. The politicians who might be members of Parliament, who are implicated and found completely implicated on corrupt activities, we will not be afraid to introduce consequence management, which is not the same with the current government. Because we would want to send a message that corruption has no place in South Africa.Consequence management will be applied across to ensure that everybody accounts for his or her ill behavior when it comes to the resources of the country..It sounds like a lot of what you're saying is what it seems like the government has been doing. The ANC has the step-aside rule that it has been trying to implement. What are you saying that would be different? Is it that you're going to try and get the courts to do it faster by giving them more money?.What we will do differently is we will be efficient. We will be precise. We will be bold in introducing consequence. We would never allow a majority in principle to stand against what a judicial officer says..The next question is about your manifesto. It seems to suggest a significant increase in expenditure, especially for social grants. How would you finance that? How would you finance those programs?.We will cut down the bloated cabinet. South Africa has a big cabinet, which is not necessary. Some of the ministries are not necessary. The deputy ministry positions are also necessary in all the departments. Currently, under the Multiparty Charter, we have commissioned a study to determine which ministries deserve to have deputy ministers.Billions if not trillions of Rand in South Africa goes to the wrong hands through corruption. If you close the door by being harsh on corrupt people, introduce consequence management, you will save a lot of money and that money that goes to the right hands and will be redirected to assist our country.Once the country has good management, you will be able to attract more foreign investment and you will relieve the social grant recipients. Those people who are able and fit to work will go to work and be relieved from social grants..I want to ask another question which flows from that: if you were to be approached by the ANC to form a coalition government—just say in the event that the ANC falls below 50%—what would be your main demand? What would be the key issue that you would want them to address in order to be in a coalition with them? What would be the key issue that you would get concession on from the ANC government?.We are working to push the ANC below 50%. If we achieve that goal through the Multiparty Charter and we are able to form a government with other partners—excluding the ruling party—we will definitely exclude the ruling party.But should it not work out in terms of figures, we have the experience of the government of national unity. We know that in a government of national unity, if the voters have compelled us to reach that state, we will bring to the ANC many options in terms of running the country efficiently. It will not be fair to say we will demand A, B, C, D because you shouldn't go that route until you know the election outcomes.But what we are clear about is that corruption will be the first thing that we will tackle in whatever government that we will be under, in whatever configuration. We will have to agree that corruption is enemy number one. We must cut down unnecessary expenditure, a bloated cabinet. We must ensure that the service delivery is devolved down to people through giving more power to provincial health and education departments.And on the issue of safety and security, we would devolve more powers to police to be controlled at the provincial level, and even at a local government sphere..On that note, it's probably a good place to end..Read also:.BNC#6: Velenkosini Hlabisa – SA needs the integrity, principle of the Multi-Party Charter Russian-backed social media accounts rally support for Zuma's MK partyRW Johnson: Seismic changes ahead as ANC drops, voter cynicism and MK surge ahead of May 29

Chris Steyn: SA to be governed by a unity of old enemies?

Related Stories

Same firm, every seat: the Fairbridges map in UCT's Moshabela case (pt. 1) | Marika Sboros

Hartford on Duduzane Zuma: Jacob's cool-headed heir taking MK into battle

DA's local government manifesto is competent, not radical: Ivo Vegter

Fixing a burst pipe is not the same as owning it, and SA's municipalities need the difference: Chris Hattingh