What did the Trump-Ramaphosa meeting tell us about the image of SA and its leaders?
A video is played as US President Donald Trump meets with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington last Wednesday. The meeting was amid tensions over Washington's resettlement of white Afrikaners that the US president claims are the victims of "genocide." Trump criticised EFF leader Julius Malema and the "Kill the Boer" chant, citing it as evidence of targeted violence against white Afrikaner farmers.
Image: Jim WATSON / AFP
THE much-anticipated meeting between our President Cyril Ramaphosa and his counterpart in the United States, President Donald Trump, lived up to expectations, with the latter turning up the heat on his guests.
By the admission of our delegation, South Africa is a very dangerous place because of rampant crime and lawlessness.
While the jury is still out as to whether Ramaphosa succeeded in his attempts to reset the strained bilateral relations, what is clear is that the meeting gave the international community the impression that South African leaders are failing in their constitutional duty to protect citizens and govern the country.
The result is that our pride as a beacon of hope in Africa is now hurt. The South African government came across as inept and lacking the political will to deal decisively with the scourge of violent crime, mass unemployment, and racial intolerance, to name a few crises.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
We are not yet privy to what was discussed behind closed doors and the deals that were made. What will be remembered about the meeting is Trump's wild and unsubstantiated claims of genocide suffered by Afrikaners and his display of brute power over Ramaphosa in front of the cameras. One could easily tell that Ramaphosa, like Ukraine's Zelensky went to the White House with a begging bowl.
Unlike Zelensky, though, Ramaphosa went out of his way to massage the errant Trump's ego and thus came across as submissive; suffice it to say that some people would argue that he was being diplomatic.
However, the big takeaway and the elephant in the room has got to be the painful admission from the South African delegation of the government's helplessness in the fight against rampant crime.
This helplessness was in full display in 2021 during the looting spree after former President Zuma was arrested. To date, not even a single mastermind behind the 2021 riots has been successfully prosecuted. Similarly, those fingered by the Zondo Commission of Inquiry have not been prosecuted, suggesting that there's no political will to deal decisively with corruption and wrongdoing.
This raises the question: what does this tell us about the image of South Africa and its leaders?
The image of South Africa that Trump portrayed and that the delegation conceded to was of a lawless country whose government cannot protect its citizens from violent crime. In recent years, more and more South Africans are living in fear of political assassinations, hijackings, extortionists, burglars, armed robbers, kidnappers, and taxi violence.
What exacerbates South Africa's problems are its porous borders and corrupt officials managing the borders. Lawlessness and the lack of political will to combat crime in South Africa are attracting criminals across the continent and from abroad to come and operate in the country with impunity.
Crime in South Africa permeates every aspect of life, and it undermines good governance, efficient economic management, public safety, social order, and compliance with the law. The result is that South Africa is increasingly becoming an unattractive destination for foreign direct investment and international tourists.
No wonder our domestic economy is struggling to grow and create much-needed jobs. What this means is that the problems of high unemployment and poverty are not going away soon, and crime is likely to continue.
While Trump might not have succeeded in proving the genocide case, he appeared to succeed in making the South African delegation concede that crime, across the board, is out of control and the government is failing in its constitutional duty to protect its citizens.
South Africa's businessman, Johann Rupert, was at pains explaining to Trump that 'crime affects everyone' and that South Africa needs America's 'help to stop this awful killing….' Interestingly, Rupert made the point that South Africa needs to fix its wobbly economy to end what he labels the culture of 'dependency and lawlessness.'
The portrayal of South Africa as a country that cannot fix its problems does not bode well for its aspirations as a regional leader in Africa.
South Africa styles and markets itself as a 'bridge' and a getaway into the African continent. Its membership of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the G20 makes South Africa see itself as a spokesperson for and leader of Africa.
This begs the question: Is South Africa fit and fully equipped to be a regional leader if its government cannot provide domestic leadership?
The idea that economic problems, such as high unemployment among the youth and poverty, are to blame for intolerable levels of crime is not convincing. There are many poorer countries in Africa without high levels of crime. The difference is that there are consequences for breaking the law in many African states. In countries such as Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya, there is a political will to hold lawbreakers accountable.
Ramaphosa's cute move to dispel the notion of genocide:
In an attempt to debunk and send a message that there is no genocide of Afrikaners, Ramaphosa 's entourage comprised prominent Afrikaners such as golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen as well as businessman Johann Rupert and John Steenhuizen, a member of Ramaphosa's GNU Cabinet.
Even the presence of prominent Afrikaners appeared not to be enough evidence to convince Trump that the South African government is not discriminating against whites, in general, and Afrikaners, in particular. It should be remembered that the GNU has passed three laws that white political parties vehemently opposed, that is, the BELA bill, the NHI bill, and the Expropriation bill.
In this context, Trump came to the meeting wanting to put pressure on Ramaphosa to do more to accommodate the interests of the white population. This could explain why Trump saw the multi-racial composition of South Africa's delegation to the US as superficial and condescending.
The Malema factor:
In making his case of a genocide in South Africa, Trump played a video of the EFF's Julius Malema chanting 'Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer' and even former president Zuma singing about shooting Afrikaners. Trump then baselessly claimed that 'they take the land. They kill the farmer. And nothing happens to them.'
There is no doubt that these slogans and songs about killing Afrikaners do constitute hate speech and incite violence, even though the courts have found otherwise. It was quite embarrassing to see our prominent leaders utter such venomous words at a time when South Africans should be forging racial tolerance and unity.
Without realising it, Trump gave Malema the attention he craves and the status of a leader who stands up to the 'imperialist' West. Malema might have looked bad in the eyes of the Western audience for shouting hateful slogans, but among his sympathizers, he is now the real deal, who is feared by Western leaders.
The slogan, 'Kill the Boer, Kill the farmer,' has a long history in South Africa, and it is associated with the ANC during the anti-apartheid struggle. How embarrassing it could have been for Ramaphosa had he been seen next to Zuma singing a song about shooting Afrikaners, since the video Trump played showed Zuma wearing an ANC golf shirt while still the president of the ANC.
So what message does it send to the world when prominent leaders in South Africa, including its then state president Zuma, sing about shooting and killing members of a minority group?
The governing ANC has never denounced this awful slogan. This is the same ANC government that accused Israel of genocide but tolerates leaders who advocate for the killing of a racial minority. I guess this is the hypocrisy Trump sought to expose. No wonder no meaningful racial reconciliation has happened in South Africa. Can one then blame those Afrikaners who recently emigrated to the US?
Zakhele Collison Ndlovu
Image: File
Zakhele Collison Ndlovu is a political analyst at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
THE POST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
EFF vs fuel levy increase — court challenge tests legality of fiscal decisions
The EFF has filed an urgent court bid to block Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana's fuel levy hike, arguing it is irrational, economically harmful and unlawfully implemented. This is not just the EFF showing commitment to its stance against the increase, but a relatively novel legal precedent that could have far-reaching implications. A last-minute legal bid On Thursday, 29 May, the EFF filed papers in the Western Cape Division of the High Court to block a fuel levy increase announced eight days earlier during the Minister of Finance's Budget 3.0 tabling. The case makes an unusual use of Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court — a procedural mechanism regularly used to challenge administrative decisions — to challenge a fiscal measure introduced by the Treasury in Budget 3.0. 'We took this action after repeated efforts to caution the minister and appeal to his conscience failed,' said the party in a statement issued on the same day, stating that an increase without a Money Bill 'risks the entire national Budget being declared invalid by the courts'. Though it hasn't sparked the same political uproar as the aborted VAT hike, the fuel levy increase is just as important, as a fuel increase touches aspects of almost all supply chains, increasing costs across every facet of life. As economist Dawie Roodt told Daily Maverick, '… in terms of the effect on the poor, that is pretty much the same as the VAT increase'. The fuel levy increase — 16c per litre for petrol and 15c for diesel — is scheduled to come into effect on 4 June. The EFF is seeking urgent relief before this happens. The EFF Treasurer-General, Omphile Maotwe, told Newzroom Afrika the Treasury intended to gazette the increase on 3 June, 'to allow us no window or opportunity to interdict', hence the urgent application. The EFF's legal logic The application has two parts: Part A seeks an urgent interdict halting the increase and Part B calls for a full review and potential nullification of the decision, with the EFF arguing the increase must be reviewed in light of worsening inflation, stagnant wages and the fallout from the abandoned VAT hike. While it's true that the fuel levy is a regressive tax, Roodt argues that the Treasury's hands are largely tied regarding other measures to generate revenue. 'South Africa's tax burden is already dramatically redistributive. You can't make it more so,' he said. In its founding affidavit, the EFF argues that the fuel levy hike is procedurally flawed and substantively irrational. There was no consultation with Parliament, no socioeconomic impact assessment and no engagement with affected sectors. The party says the decision punishes low- and middle-income households already buckling under cost-of-living pressures. While the minister has statutory power to adjust the levy, the EFF argues that using this mechanism — without oversight or legislative process — amounts to executive overreach. The party called the increase 'yet another demonstration of the anti-black, anti-poor, neoliberal Budget the ANC government continues to impose on the people of South Africa'. No word yet from Treasury By the time of publication, the National Treasury had not responded to detailed questions from Daily Maverick about whether a socioeconomic impact study had been carried out, whether consultations with industry had occurred, and what the Treasury would do if an interdict were granted. This article will be updated once a response is received. Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni did not discuss the fuel levy, but defended the broader Budget at a briefing to the media on Friday, 30 May. 'This pro-poor Budget means [that] on every rand, 61 cents of consolidated, non-interest expenditure funds will be spent on free basic services … social grants for those in need.' A silent tax indeed The fuel levy is often called a 'silent tax' — embedded in pump prices and not itemised like VAT. Its revenue flows into the National Revenue Fund and is not earmarked for roads or transport. Between 2012 and 2022, the general fuel levy rose from R1.77 to R3.93. It now accounts for about 6-7% of pump prices. The 2025 increase is expected to raise R2.9-billion. Filling a 50-litre tank will cost about R8 more — a cost that ripples through logistics, transport and food prices. Unlike some OECD countries, South Africa lacks fuel subsidies or robust public transport, making the levy a heavier burden for poor households. Can fiscal decisions be challenged in court? Yes, as the EFF and DA's challenge of the VAT hike showed clearly — but this time the mechanism is different. That case primarily rested on constitutional and procedural grounds. In this matter, the EFF is invoking Rule 53, seeking a review of the minister's decision. The rule requires the state to produce the full record of decision-making, allowing the applicant to supplement their case. Rule 53 is usually applied to administrative actions — permits, suspensions, authorisations — and not budgetary policy. The stakes next week The urgent interdict will be heard on Tuesday, 3 June. If granted, the levy will be paused pending the main review. If refused, it may take effect as scheduled, making a later review moot. Should the court ultimately side with the EFF, it could invalidate the hike retrospectively, forcing the Treasury to re-table it through proper legislative channels. The ruling could also set a legal precedent, inviting future litigation over fiscal instruments previously seen as untouchable. Who really pays? Much of South Africa's fiscal debate is cloaked in specialised language: 'consolidation paths', 'debt stabilisation', 'medium-term frameworks', but the impact is direct: it's on you and I. Fuel taxes inflate the cost of moving people and goods, from taxis to tractors. The EFF's challenge isn't likely to unravel the Treasury's broader strategy, but it could set a strong precedent for how fiscal policy can be challenged; at its core, the case asks who gets to hold the pen when new taxes are imposed, and if the courts should step in if Parliament does not. DM
Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Cannabis Expo shows how private sector is rolling in face of hazy government policy
The Cannabis Expo underlined the energy of private businesses that are forging ahead with investment, sales and job creation in the face of dazed and confused government policy that appears to have been crafted over a bong. Pink Floyd's 'Another Brick in the Wall' blared from the DJ's stage and the sweet aroma of cannabis hung in the crisp autumn air at 10.50 on a Saturday morning. On its second of three days, the Cannabis Expo was in full swing at the Sandton Convention Centre, which bent its rules to allow for a 'smoking' section outside, which was mostly a toking section. Cannabis consumers are generally a laid-back bunch, but the expo underlined the energy of private businesses that are forging ahead with investment, sales and job creation in the face of dazed and confused government policy that appears to have been crafted over a bong. There were more than 100 exhibitors from South Africa and abroad, showcasing — and hawking — everything from edibles to rolling gadgets to water bongs to plant fertilisers. On the main stage, panels discussed subjects such as 'Women & Weed: Wellness, Empowerment and The Female Body', 'Potential Cannabis Commercialisation Benefits', and 'How to Choose The Right Cannabis Product for You'. The times they are a'changin', and tellingly, Farmer's Weekly had a stand. Cannabis is, after all, grown, and if the government could grasp this low-hanging fruit, the agricultural sector could reap a bountiful harvest. But the surging commercial sector for cannabis products is unfolding beneath a haze of legal and regulatory uncertainty. This genie was freed from the bottle by the landmark Constitutional Court decision in 2018 that, in effect, legalised the recreational use of cannabis — as an adult South African, it is your constitutional right to consume cannabis. In May 2024, the Cannabis for Private Purposes Act gave the green light for adults to consume, cultivate and possess cannabis for private use — but it leaves the cannabis commercialisation on display in Sandton this past weekend in the dark. One factor that undermines efforts to get a clear and straightforward policy is the lack of a single industry body to represent commercial cannabis interests. 'The industry itself is not represented. There is not a single industry body that represents every facet of the cannabis industry. This makes it virtually impossible to make representation on behalf of the industry,' advocate Simi Pillay-van Graan, the CEO of Trikar Enterprise Solutions, told Daily Maverick on the sidelines of the expo. That is a clarion call for a Cannabis Council to take up the cudgels. What this means Billions of rands in investment and tax revenue are going up in smoke because of government — read ANC — inertia on what should be a straightforward policy. If you are an adult who consumes cannabis and buys from one of the many retail outlets that are springing up all over the show, the vast majority of your purchases are technically illegal. Buying such products with your card also means that South Africa's banks are involved in illicit sales. Crafting policy to allow for the effective commercialisation of a sector that is already forging ahead is crucial. Brett Pollack, a lawyer who heads Harambe Solutions, told Daily Maverick that the industry was '… moving along ahead of government without the laws in place. So right now we are in a liminal space. We don't have a commercial framework, which is exactly what we need to build an economy out of this.' But an economy — one that is not yet subject to sin taxes for THC consumption — is indeed growing in the shade of perplexing policy. And things are rolling along, in some cases quite literally. At the stand for Pretoria-based Aaptwak Foundation & Club — basically, a cannabis club — Walter Pretorius displayed his skills in the fine art of speed rolling. The rules are simple: the paper can be pre-licked with a filter (if you choose) and everything prepared beforehand. It just has to be smokeable to qualify as complete. He was clearly a practised hand. On his rolling platform, this correspondent watched Pretorius three times over the course of the morning. His first go was a warm-up that took more than six seconds to complete — think of Usain Bolt warming up for the 100m dash. The third time I witnessed Pretorius in action (see video), it took him 3.52 seconds to roll a joint. If you blinked, you might have missed it. Walter also displayed an 80g monster joint that was longer than most of the trout this angling correspondent has caught in a lifetime of fishing. Presumably, that would have taken a little longer than 3.52 seconds to roll. By contrast, government policy on this front is moving at a snail's pace. It is another brick in a wall of what should be a window of transparency with the sunlight shining on a field of dreams. DM
Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
ANC succession battle — the pros and cons of the top candidates vying for Ramaphosa's job
While it is unclear who will take over from President Cyril Ramaphosa as leader of the ANC, their ability to win votes will be extremely important. It may be constructive to examine what five of the most likely candidates would bring to the electorate. As our politics becomes more competitive than ever before, the identity of the leader of each party has become more important. One of President Cyril Ramaphosa's great strengths when he became leader of the ANC was that he was more popular than the party. The ANC itself said that he played a major role in helping it win the 2019 election (this was hugely contested at the time, and the then secretary-general, Ace Magashule, was forced to publicly disavow his comment that Ramaphosa had not played an important role). Ramaphosa's deteriorating popularity among voters, partly due to his inaction against corruption, and the Phala Phala scandal, might well have played a role in the ANC's dramatic decline last year. This shows how important the vote-winning ability of a new ANC leader will be. While it is not clear who will contest the position at the ANC's electoral conference in 2027, there is plenty of well-informed speculation that candidates could include Deputy President Paul Mashatile, International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola, Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, Electricity and Energy Minister Kgosientsho Ramokgopa and the ANC secretary-general, Fikile Mbalula. Paul Mashatile There is little evidence that Mashatile has broad support among the electorate. His apparent inability to communicate a distinct message during his time as Deputy President suggests he is finding it difficult to create space in which to move. This could be a function of the position he holds. Deputy presidents are often subject to intense scrutiny, and people look for evidence of their ambition for the top job, which could be why he has not, so far, articulated a particular vision. Mashatile's public speeches in English are often stilted. His answers to parliamentary questions are, frankly, boring. He does not say anything new, and his delivery comes across as wooden. As a result of having no apparent message, the narrative around him is dominated by claims that he has benefited from fishy financial deals. He has failed to properly and publicly condemn the violence used by his security officers when they assaulted the occupants of a vehicle on the N1 highway. It is difficult to imagine him crafting a coherent message as the leader of the ANC. On the election trail he probably won't provide much help to the party. His position as Deputy President means he doesn't have responsibility for any particular portfolio. However, for the contenders Lamola, Ramokgopa and Mchunu, what happens on their watch reflects on their public images. Ronald Lamola The minister of international relations and cooperation is a high-profile position — but it is overshadowed by the President. In some instances, for example, SA's genocide case against Israel, Lamola has been able to take the lead. However, in the hardest and most high-profile issue, dealing with the Trump administration, Ramaphosa has taken over. What Lamola does have, almost uniquely in the ANC, is the ability to connect with younger voters. His age (41) makes him one of the youngest leaders in the party. He is relatively unscathed by the scandals that have surrounded so many people in the party. That said, if he were to undergo more scrutiny, he would have to answer questions about how his law firm failed to notice the massive corruption at the National Lotteries Commission, when it was tasked with investigating it. Kgosientsho Ramokgopa The public perception of Ramokgopa is entirely linked to load shedding. He is an excellent communicator and has ensured that he, the government and Eskom have controlled the narrative whenever load shedding is instituted. He is associated with the successes in dealing with load shedding — and also the failures. He will also appeal to voters who want a technocratic face for the ANC. He can give the impression to black professionals that he is one of them, that he speaks their language and can get things done. Sipho Mchunu Mchunu appeals to a slightly different constituency. Crucially for him and the ANC, he could win back voters in KwaZulu-Natal. This province voted for the ANC when former president Jacob Zuma was its leader, then appeared to move in the direction of the ANC and the IFP when Ramaphosa took over, only for large numbers to vote for Zuma's uMkhonto Wesizwe party in the last elections. Mchunu may well be able to develop a crucial constituency in this province for the ANC, where he was once its provincial secretary. Nationally, it would be a huge card in his favour if he were seen to be leading a successful effort to reduce violent crime. However, the problem of SA's crime is so large and is so intertwined with aspects of our politics that Mchunu is unlikely to be able to make much difference. Fikile Mbalula Mbalula, of course, is not in government. It is his position as secretary-general of the party that might give him the edge in any internal ANC race. In the past, the position of secretary-general has been shaped by the personality occupying it. Gwede Mantashe imbued the office with huge authority, while Kgalema Motlanthe had more of a quiet legitimacy. Lately, Mbalula has appeared to be trying to portray more of a sober appearance than in previous years. However, it is unlikely that voters have forgotten what happened when he was transport minister and how he was responsible for so many missteps. As previously pointed out, Mbalula has a history of running his mouth off. People are unlikely to have forgotten how he tweeted that he had 'Just landed in Ukraine', or that he had taken Prasa into administration with no legal authority to do so, or that he used such vulgar language when talking to taxi drivers that the SA Council of Churches was moved to to make a public comment. Or that he was found by a Public Protector to have received a paid holiday from a sporting goods chain while minister of sport. These are the consequences of his long history in the public eye. It is unlikely that he can change the way the public views him. While it would be entirely rational to assume that ANC delegates would have the 2029 elections in mind when they vote for the position of ANC leader, history shows that sometimes internal dynamics are more important. And the ANC appears to have done virtually nothing to win back votes since the polls last year. This suggests that the electability of candidates will not be the most important factor in the ANC's leadership election. DM
