logo
MK party's power problem: The fragility of proximity politics

MK party's power problem: The fragility of proximity politics

Mail & Guardian8 hours ago

Former South African President Jacob Zuma speaks during a media briefing for his party uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK), on June 16, 2024, at Capital Hotel in Sandton, outside Johannesburg. (Photo by Per-)
Floyd Shivambu's redeployment from the position of secretary general of the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party to a seat in parliament is not simply a procedural shift. It is a symbolic moment that pulls back the curtain on the inner workings of a party still constructing its identity — and, more crucially, its power logic.
What this moment makes increasingly difficult to ignore is that the party's internal architecture does not yet rest on collective governance or principled leadership. It rests, quite plainly, on proximity. Proximity to the president general. Proximity to Jacob Zuma.
Whether framed as discipline or realignment, Shivambu's redeployment — following a controversial trip to visit the self-proclaimed prophet, Shepherd Bushiri, who fled to his home country while out on bail for charges including fraud and rape — confirms a pattern we've seen brewing.
In the MK party, political power is often determined not by mandate or merit, but by access. It is not a political machine with autonomous moving parts, but a gravitational field orbiting one figure.
And this is not said to villainise the party. If anything, it emerged precisely because its founders felt other formations had drifted too far from accountability, too far from the masses, too far from the revolutionary ethics they once claimed to embody. The MK party was meant to offer something different. Perhaps even something radical.
But this is where it gets complicated. If difference is defined by unwavering loyalty to one individual — regardless of title or structure — then how different is it really?
Shivambu's reassignment, reportedly justified by a clause in the party's constitution prohibiting international engagements that conflict with the party line, might appear procedurally sound. However, political observers can't help but note the speed and decisiveness with which this rule was invoked — and for this
individual. It's not the rule itself that tells the story. It's when and for whom
the rule is enforced.
We are seeing a party where key positions — secretary general, spokesperson, even senior deployees — do not enjoy stable mandates. They exist at the mercy of internal currents, shifting alliances and, perhaps most significantly, Zuma's confidence. Today you are central. Tomorrow, the centre moves without you.
And this is precisely the problem with proximity politics: it is inherently fragile.
When power flows through informal networks and personal bonds, it becomes difficult to institutionalise accountability, manage internal dissent and ensure consistent policy direction. You can be right and still be removed. You can be effective and still be sidelined. Because the metric is not effectiveness — it's alignment.
This is why Shivambu's removal matters beyond his person. It points to a deeper reality in the MK party — that its centre of gravity is not ideological coherence or organisational structure. It is one man. And that has consequences.
This is not a judgment about Zuma as an individual. It is a political concern about what happens when the centre cannot hold.
The MK party's biggest challenge is not winning court cases or keeping its logo. It's this: how does a party that centralises so much power in one figure imagine itself beyond that figure?
Because proximity works — for a while. It works when the central figure is present, powerful, active. But what happens when the centre can no longer hold? When the ear you once spoke into is no longer there? Zuma is not a young man, and history is filled with movements that could not survive their founders.
If the MK party is to truly become the political home for a return to revolutionary ethics, then it must ask itself: can it build a structure that outlives proximity?
That is the real revolutionary task. Not merely to rally around the centre but to prepare for its eventual absence.
Thando Mzimela-Ntuli is the president of the National Executive Economic Collective.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MK party's power problem: The fragility of proximity politics
MK party's power problem: The fragility of proximity politics

Mail & Guardian

time8 hours ago

  • Mail & Guardian

MK party's power problem: The fragility of proximity politics

Former South African President Jacob Zuma speaks during a media briefing for his party uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK), on June 16, 2024, at Capital Hotel in Sandton, outside Johannesburg. (Photo by Per-) Floyd Shivambu's redeployment from the position of secretary general of the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party to a seat in parliament is not simply a procedural shift. It is a symbolic moment that pulls back the curtain on the inner workings of a party still constructing its identity — and, more crucially, its power logic. What this moment makes increasingly difficult to ignore is that the party's internal architecture does not yet rest on collective governance or principled leadership. It rests, quite plainly, on proximity. Proximity to the president general. Proximity to Jacob Zuma. Whether framed as discipline or realignment, Shivambu's redeployment — following a controversial trip to visit the self-proclaimed prophet, Shepherd Bushiri, who fled to his home country while out on bail for charges including fraud and rape — confirms a pattern we've seen brewing. In the MK party, political power is often determined not by mandate or merit, but by access. It is not a political machine with autonomous moving parts, but a gravitational field orbiting one figure. And this is not said to villainise the party. If anything, it emerged precisely because its founders felt other formations had drifted too far from accountability, too far from the masses, too far from the revolutionary ethics they once claimed to embody. The MK party was meant to offer something different. Perhaps even something radical. But this is where it gets complicated. If difference is defined by unwavering loyalty to one individual — regardless of title or structure — then how different is it really? Shivambu's reassignment, reportedly justified by a clause in the party's constitution prohibiting international engagements that conflict with the party line, might appear procedurally sound. However, political observers can't help but note the speed and decisiveness with which this rule was invoked — and for this individual. It's not the rule itself that tells the story. It's when and for whom the rule is enforced. We are seeing a party where key positions — secretary general, spokesperson, even senior deployees — do not enjoy stable mandates. They exist at the mercy of internal currents, shifting alliances and, perhaps most significantly, Zuma's confidence. Today you are central. Tomorrow, the centre moves without you. And this is precisely the problem with proximity politics: it is inherently fragile. When power flows through informal networks and personal bonds, it becomes difficult to institutionalise accountability, manage internal dissent and ensure consistent policy direction. You can be right and still be removed. You can be effective and still be sidelined. Because the metric is not effectiveness — it's alignment. This is why Shivambu's removal matters beyond his person. It points to a deeper reality in the MK party — that its centre of gravity is not ideological coherence or organisational structure. It is one man. And that has consequences. This is not a judgment about Zuma as an individual. It is a political concern about what happens when the centre cannot hold. The MK party's biggest challenge is not winning court cases or keeping its logo. It's this: how does a party that centralises so much power in one figure imagine itself beyond that figure? Because proximity works — for a while. It works when the central figure is present, powerful, active. But what happens when the centre can no longer hold? When the ear you once spoke into is no longer there? Zuma is not a young man, and history is filled with movements that could not survive their founders. If the MK party is to truly become the political home for a return to revolutionary ethics, then it must ask itself: can it build a structure that outlives proximity? That is the real revolutionary task. Not merely to rally around the centre but to prepare for its eventual absence. Thando Mzimela-Ntuli is the president of the National Executive Economic Collective.

Reimagining SA-US relations in the aftermath of the Oval Office spectacle
Reimagining SA-US relations in the aftermath of the Oval Office spectacle

Mail & Guardian

time12 hours ago

  • Mail & Guardian

Reimagining SA-US relations in the aftermath of the Oval Office spectacle

US President Donald Trump. The Oval Office encounter between South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and US President Donald Trump was no ordinary diplomatic engagement. It was a geopolitical theatre — a collision of clashing narratives, one anchored in misinformation, the other focused on sustaining economic opportunities. Yet beneath the theatrics lay deep tectonic shifts in the global order. If we reframe from spectacle to substance, this moment is not an anomaly, but a strong signal of change. Like a clarion call for transforming not just a bilateral relationship, but the paradigms that govern diplomacy in a fractured world. The spectacle and the system President Trump's invocation of the 'white genocide' and 'land expropriation' myths, conspiracy theories rooted in post-apartheid disinformation, transformed the Oval Office into a theatre of post-truth politics. In stark contrast, President Ramaphosa anchored his response in evidence and historical nuance. Yet, he was flanked by elites representing a narrow, privileged slice of South African society, many of whom continue to benefit from both apartheid-era structures and the post-1994 democratic order. Ironically, their presence inadvertently bolstered Trump's narrative, leaving Ramaphosa politically and rhetorically isolated. The dissonance in perspectives, most of which were tangential to the pressing structural issues, laid bare a deeper epistemic fault line in international diplomacy. A few days later, this collision of spectacle and geopolitics became more visible, more public and more fraught, as Elon Musk, a South African-born billionaire, reportedly exerted influence over South Africa's domestic ownership laws. His push to secure a license to operate These events expose a critical question — will global relations continue to be shaped by the ideological distortions of dominant powers or can emerging middle powers like South Africa assert a sovereign, historically grounded and futures-oriented voice in shaping global narratives? But to fixate solely on the leaders' exchange is to miss the forest for the trees. This encounter should be situated within four converging systemic dynamics: Weaponised misinformation: The Oval Office moment reflected a global trend in which misinformation becomes diplomatic currency, supplanting evidence-based policymaking with political spectacle. Colonial afterlives : Trump's selective empathy for lower-middle-class white South Africans, while erasing the structural violence of apartheid and ongoing economic inequality, mirrored America's own unfinished racial reckoning. Both nations remain haunted by colonial legacies that continue to shape contemporary power dynamics. Land reform in South Africa: It is central to addressing the enduring legacies of apartheid and colonial dispossession. The government's approach, as embedded in The manipulation of public discourse through misinformation further constrains the potential of land reform to serve as a vehicle for equitable economic empowerment. Geopolitical realignment: As the US recedes into transactional nationalism, South Africa is recalibrating its alliances, deepening its ties with Brics and the Global South. The Oval Office tension is not merely interpersonal; it is symptomatic of a world undergoing seismic geopolitical reordering. Creating pathways out of tension Futures thinking compels us to move beyond linear forecasting toward systemic foresight. How might South Africa and the US transform this tension into opportunity? Rather than reverting to business-as-usual diplomacy, this is a chance to craft pathways — not just to each other, but to the systemic crises unfolding across climate change, technology access, energy transitions and legitimacy: Institutionalise reparative diplomacy: South Africa should move beyond extractive and exploitative trade arrangements, such as exporting unprocessed critical minerals to the US, which disproportionately fuels US industrialisation, towards reparative partnerships grounded in mutual benefit, innovation and structural equity. This shift calls for a A reparative framework would also support greater symmetry in global power relations. South Africa's exports of critical minerals enable the US to secure its supply chains for strategic sectors, including artificial intelligence and military technologies. These partnerships must, however, also foreground South Africa's economic development priorities. At their core, they should promote domestic mineral beneficiation and intra-African value-chain development, imperatives to reducing dependency and advancing economic sovereignty. Defend transparent land reform: The South African government's land reform programme should continue evolving with clear legal frameworks, such as the Expropriation Act, ensuring fairness and promoting inclusive economic development. Redistributing land is only the first step; beneficiaries need title deeds, financial, technical and infrastructural support to make land productive and sustainable while reassuring investors that land reform will not undermine agricultural productivity or economic stability. Crucially, unutilised state and rural land under the jurisdiction of traditional authorities should be integrated into a broader national strategy. Land reform and economic development are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing. Embrace post-Western multilateralism: The US should engage South Africa not as a subordinate but as a co-architect of new governance frameworks, particularly in frontier arenas such as AI ethics, climate and trade diplomacy and global financial architecture reform. Equally, South Africa should guard against surrendering its agency to a declining hegemon operating through outdated diplomatic paradigms. A truly post-Western multilateralism requires that all governments adapt and engage as equals in shaping more just and future-fit international systems. A call for courage and imagination The Oval Office confrontation was not merely a diplomatic rupture; it was a symptom of decaying systems and a crucible of possibility. Futures thinking reminds us that crises are not endpoints, but inflexion points. Here, futures studies are defined as a systematic, transdisciplinary approach to exploring, anticipating and shaping more favourable outcomes by embracing complexity and a plurality of possible trajectories. The Retrofitting established policy frameworks to accommodate Musk sets the stage for a global order where misinformation thrives, alliances fracture and diplomacy is reduced to viral spectacle. But this future is not inevitable. It is a choice. The central question shaping South Africa-US relations is no longer merely whether the two nations can afford to collaborate. Rather, it is how South Africa can most effectively navigate a shifting geopolitical landscape, one increasingly defined not by binary choices, but by the rise of multipolarity, multi-alignment and strategic autonomy. As US diplomacy contends with internal challenges and fluctuating global influence, countries like South Africa and others are exploring other partnerships, such as Brics, opening a spectrum of diplomatic possibilities. These range from deepening ties with the US to expanding South–South cooperation through Brics, to crafting a nuanced foreign policy that engages multiple partners without becoming beholden to any single bloc. A sovereign-respecting relationship between South Africa and the US would depart from the legacy of asymmetrical engagement. Instead, it would reflect the emergence of a multipolar global order in which both countries act as autonomous agents defined not by subordination or rivalry, but by mutual respect, flexible cooperation and a recognition of shared and divergent interests alike. To thrive in an increasingly multipolar global economy, South Africa cannot afford isolation. It needs a diverse portfolio of allies and partnerships. The challenge now is whether Ramaphosa will pivot to the gravitational pull of Trump-era theatrics and Musk's techno-capitalist demands or whether he can seize this moment to reset the terms of engagement with the US on the foundations of sovereignty, foresight and shared prosperity. Letitia Jentel is the senior programme manager and researcher with the Futures programme at the , an independent public policy think tank.

Donald Trump threatens Elon Musk with 'serious consequences'
Donald Trump threatens Elon Musk with 'serious consequences'

The South African

time14 hours ago

  • The South African

Donald Trump threatens Elon Musk with 'serious consequences'

US President Donald Trump threatened his former advisor Elon Musk with 'serious consequences' on Saturday if the tech billionaire seeks to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill. The comments by Trump to NBC News come after the relationship between the world's most powerful person and the world's richest imploded in bitter and spectacular fashion this week. The blistering break-up – largely carried out on social media before a riveted public on Thursday – was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful' spending bill, which is currently before Congress. Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk – one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election – to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. 'He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that,' Trump, who also branded Musk 'disrespectful,' told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be. He also said he had 'no' desire to repair his relationship with the South Africa-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has 'no intention of speaking to him.' Just last week, Trump gave Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship cracked within days as Elon Musk described as an 'abomination' the spending bill that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back in an Oval Office diatribe and from, there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned. With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both had appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters 'I just wish him well,' and Musk responding on X: 'Likewise.' Trump spoke to NBC on Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Musk had alleged that the Republican leader is featured in unreleased government files on former associates of Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while he faced sex trafficking charges. The Trump administration has acknowledged it is reviewing tens of thousands of documents, videos and investigative material that his 'MAGA' movement says will unmask public figures complicit in Epstein's crimes. Trump was named in a trove of deposition and statements linked to Epstein that were unsealed by a New York judge in early 2024. The president has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case. 'Time to drop the really big bomb: (Trump) is in the Epstein files,' Musk posted on his social media platform, X. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public.' Elon Musk did not reveal which files he was talking about and offered no evidence for his claim. He initially doubled down on the claim, writing in a follow-up message: 'Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' However, he appeared to have deleted both tweets by Saturday morning. Trump dismissed the claim as 'old news' in his comments to NBC on Saturday, adding: 'Even Epstein's lawyer said I had nothing to do with it.' Supporters on the conspiratorial end of Trump's 'Make America Great Again' base allege that Epstein's associates had their roles in his crimes covered up by government officials and others. They point the finger at Democrats and Hollywood celebrities, although not at Trump himself. No official source has ever confirmed that the president appears in any of the as yet unreleased material. Trump knew and socialised with Epstein but has denied spending time on Little Saint James, the private redoubt in the US Virgin Islands where prosecutors alleged Epstein trafficked underage girls for sex. 'Terrific guy,' Trump, who was Epstein's neighbour in both Florida and New York, said in an early 2000s profile of the financier. 'He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.' Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news. By Garrin Lambley © Agence France-Presse

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store