Calls for Shivambu's head a result of ‘tribalism', say his supporters
A faction in the uMkhonto weSizwe party aligned to traditional leaders is calling for a leadership change that could affect not only Floyd Shivambu
This content is restricted to
subscribers only
.
Join the M&G Community
Our commitment at the Mail & Guardian is to ensure every reader enjoys the finest experience. Join the M&G community and support us in delivering in-depth news to you consistently.
Subscription enables:
- M&G community membership
- independent journalism
- access to all premium articles & features
- a digital version of the weekly newspaper
- invites to subscriber-only events
- the opportunity to test new online features first
Already a subscriber?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Let's draw lessons from people's power on 40th anniversary of State of Emergency
The formation of the United Democratic Front was 'the most important and truly organisational expression of popular resistance in South Africa in the 1980s'. Photo: Eli Weinberg/Robben Island Mayibuye Archive This year is the 40th anniversary of the first State of Emergency by the apartheid regime. In recalling this ignoble anniversary, I choose to focus on the challenge the apartheid regime sought to address with that unprecedented suppression tool: people's power. I posit that one of the outcomes of the National Dialogue ought to be the reinvigoration of the spirit and praxis of people's power. And, if some of the impulses behind the call for a national dialogue are the lack of a coherent national vision, dearth of participatory democracy and the trust deficit between the populace and the state, what lessons could this moment of the national dialogue draw from the people's power moment? In the mid-1980s, a desperate and panicking apartheid regime declared a State of Emergency to squash unprecedented nationwide uprisings. The 1980s was the most revolutionary period in the history of 20th century anti-apartheid politics in South Africa. These uprisings were revolutionary in the sense that conquered people did not seek to transform the colonial polity so that they could be included in it. Assimilation and integrationist politics were replaced with what participants called the politics and practices of 'ungovernability' and 'people's power'. Ungovernability and people's power discourses and praxes were understood as means towards the deconstruction of colonial-apartheid and the construction of a new polity based on botho/ubuntu, participatory democracy and social democracy. Understood in this way, this period was a period of refusal of the state of permanent emergency that settler colonisation had sentenced black people to. Between the late 1960s and the early 1980s, when the apartheid state had banned the two major anti-apartheid political parties, the ANC and the Pan Africanist Congress, there was no effective national political organisation that mounted a frontal challenge against the apartheid regime. A popular national movement came to the forefront with the formation of the United Democratic Front (UDF) in 1983. UDF affiliates were the ones that instigated unprecedented nationwide uprisings. It was in this context that a scared and desperate regime declared a series of formal states of emergency, starting on 20 July 1985. As the president put it then, a State of Emergency was necessary because 'the ordinary laws of the land … are inadequate to enable the government' to squash the popular revolts. The UDF was a loose coalition of civic associations, student organisations, youth congresses, women's groups, trade unions, church societies, sports clubs and a multitude of other organisations. The UDF's inaugural conference in August 1983 is said to have brought together 565 organisations with a collective membership of 1.65 million. The UDF was initially formed to mount collective resistance against two sets of reform measures. First, UDF protested the 1983 constitution that sought to open the whites-only parliament to coloured people and Indians while most of the population (black South Africans) were to remain without franchise and representation. Second, and perhaps more immediately, uprisings were sparked by the introduction of Bills that sought to devolve more local governance powers to municipal councils. These latter set of reforms enabled these loathed councils to raise rent and other tariffs. Impoverished working class communities responded by mounting often violent protests. These uprisings were led by youth groups and civic organisations. Ideologically, the UDF was ambiguous. The main objective that brought these organisations together was they had a common enemy: the apartheid system of exploitation and domination. The opposition that emerged under the banner of the UDF was therefore shaped more by pragmatic efforts than by ideology. The journey towards the UDF becoming, what distinguished academic Michael Neocosmos referred to as, 'the most important and truly organisational expression of popular resistance in South Africa in the 1980s' was a long and uneven one. The high point was the mid-1980s moment when insurgents elaborated the concept of 'people's power' to make sense of their insurrection. Insurrection first erupted in the townships of the Vaal triangle where working class communities refused to tolerate undemocratic local governance and lack of access to basic services and goods. Their direct action included tactics such as road blockades, battles with police and the burning of government offices. These struggles were, therefore, as much about material issues as they were about issues of governance. So, while rendering local areas 'ungovernable', it became necessary to establish 'alternative structures'. Civic organisations, thus, not only took part in reactive struggles, they presented themselves as alternative loci of representation and governance. Civic organisations and mass organisations, through street committees, street or people's courts, defence committees, student representative councils and other local structures came to be seen as 'organs of people's power'. A clear interpenetration of civic and political issues was evident in their work. People's power went beyond rendering state control impossible and illegitimate; it was fundamentally about participatory democracy and active citizenship. Writing in 1991, Blade Nzimande and Mpume Sikhosana record that these 'organs of people's power' possessed the essence of participatory democracy because they had the following characteristics: 'a democratic project, fundamental transformation of society, accountability, and working class leadership'. The high moment of township insurrection and people's power was short-lived. On 12 June 1986, the then prime minister, PW Botha, extended the July 1985 State of Emergency to the whole country and gave the securocrats free rein to implement their own version of total counter-revolutionary strategy. By the end of that year several thousand activists were arrested and indefinitely detained. Many were assassinated. Using emergency regulations, the state introduced a sustained crackdown on community organisations and their activities. In 1986 alone, more 20,000 activists were detained; some remained in custody until 1989. These crackdowns were followed by a number of political and criminal trials, as well as the banning of meetings and sympathetic newspapers. In February 1990, the then state president, FW de Klerk, announced the unbanning of the ANC and other liberation organisations. A debate ensued among followers of the Mass Democratic Movement: what should the role of the UDF be in the context of an unbanned ANC? The prevailing argument was that the UDF should disband. It thus came to be that on 14 February 991, the UDF's national executive committee held its final meeting. This short account sought to present the key characteristics of people's power. But 'ungovernability' and 'people's power' should not be romanticised. At their worst, they were characterised by chaos, mob justice exercised by some of the people's courts, brutal enforcement of consumer boycotts and infiltration by com-tsotsis. At their best, 'organs of people's power' reflected the practical manifestation of 'direct democracy'. This was a democracy that made the slogan 'The People Shall Govern' a reality. The acting publicity secretary of the UDF, Murphy Morobe, put it crisply: 'When we say that the people shall govern, we mean at all levels and in all spheres, and we demand that there be real, effective control on a daily basis.' The significance of people's power goes beyond the fact that it enables people to take control over their lives. 'People's power' inaugurated a distinctly popular-democratic political project in South Africa. In theory and in practice, people's power introduced, albeit unevenly, a new mode of politics based on accountable, mass-based democratic leadership. Raymond Suttner aptly names this mode of practicing politics 'prefigurative democracy': 'Democracy was not understood as being inaugurated on a particular day, after which all the practices and ideals that were cherished would come into effect … Means and ends became fused; the democratic means were part of democratic ends.' Was the disbanding of the UDF (notwithstanding the formation of the South African National Civic Organisation later) not one of the mistakes of the transition period? These days, when the dialectic that should exist between representative democracy and participatory democracy is overly in favour of the former; when ward committees have been colonised and hollowed out by branch party politicians; when civil society organisations are facing a shrinking civic space and an unprecedented funding crisis; when community conviviality networks have been replaced by millenarian and charismatic faith-based organisations and crushed by extortion rings, we would do well to look back at this era of people's power. If we don't, the national dialogue risks becoming a platform for frank dialogue and vision-setting, but with no meaningful reinvigoration of participatory democracy and active citizenship. Tshepo Madlingozi is a commissioner at the South African Human Rights Commission. He writes in his personal capacity.
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
International Court of Justice and #CancelCoal case rulings help protect children's rights
The North Gauteng High Court ruling halts the government's plans to build new coal-fired power stations. Photo: File Two weeks ago, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a significant advisory opinion that will change how people all over the world hold their governments accountable. The ruling found that governments must take steps to protect children's right to a healthy environment in the face of the worsening climate crisis. This comes just a few months after the North Gauteng High Court made a ruling which effectively halted the South African government's plans to build new coal-fired power plants on the basis that it had failed to consult widely enough and to take into consideration children's right to a healthy environment. The court delivered the ruling in the #CancelCoal case, which was brought by the African Climate Alliance, Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action and groundWork. The trio of organisations argued that the decision by the government to build new coal-fired power plants violates the rights of present and future generations to an environment not harmful to health and well-being, but also the rights to life, dignity and equality, as well as the best interests of the child. The ICJ ruling and the #CancelCoal case have similarities in that they both rely on the rights of children to a clean and safe environment. They place responsibility on governments to centre the rights of children and future generations in their energy plans. South Africa's oral presentations before the ICJ on this issue were both disappointing and scant on the rights of children. This is despite the fact that a number of organisations that represent children's rights, including the In their submission, they wrote: 'We, the children and youth of South Africa, insist that the South African delegation tells the [International Court of Justice] our views.' The views were not different to those we presented to the North Gauteng High Court, which were that children must be allowed to make a meaningful contribution to climate governance, especially when it comes to decisions relating to a dependence on fossil fuels. South Africa's energy mix is saturated with fossil fuels, with almost all of our electricity supply coming from coal-powered power plants. In 2024, 83% of our energy mix came from the coal industry. This overwhelming dependence on coal has earned the country a spot in the top 10 users of coal in the world. If the government's defence in the #CancelCoal cases are anything to go by, this is not going to change anytime soon. Despite the fact that our reliance on coal claims the lives of more than 2 000 people in South Africa every year, the government insisted on defending its plans to build new coal-fired power stations. In the meantime, children in places like eMalahleni in Mpumalanga are suffering and dying from air pollution-related illnesses like asthma and chronic bronchitis. In the submission to the minister, the trio of organisations made this clear. 'Children and youth in Africa are especially harmed by climate change; 33 countries in Africa are in the highest danger category in the world for climate harm. This is an injustice because Africa contributes the least to carbon emissions which cause climate change.' Unlike the ICJ advisory, the high court ruling on the #CancelCoal Case is binding on the government's decisions on the future of coal dependence. It is a victory for a more energy just world for today's generation of children and future generations. Despite the ICJ's decisions being non-binding, it is an indication of a turn in global opinion on the duty and responsibility of countries to act against climate change to protect the environment for future generations. Luvo Mnyobe is a multimedia storyteller and digital communications coordinator at , a youth-led, movement-based organisation advocating for Afrocentric climate justice.
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
MKP's fight against dual police ministers far from over
MK Party president Jacob Zuma says the country cannot afford two ministers in one portfolio. Image: MKP The uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) says taxpayers cannot afford to pay for two ministers in one portfolio as it accused President Cyril Ramaphosa of violating his oath of office and failing to uphold the Constitution as required by that office. This was after Ramaphosa placed Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on leave and appointed Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting Police Minister. MKP leader, Jacob Zuma, has also given Ramaphosa until 10am on Friday to resign. In a letter dated August 4, Zuma said he will take action against Ramaphosa if he fails to adhere to the demand. Ramaphosa's spokesperson Vincent Mangwenya said they were aware of the letter. 'The legal team will deal with that letter,' he said. The letter from KMNS attorneys, who act on behalf of Zuma, comes after the Constitutional Court last week dismissed the MKP's application to have a direct access to challenge Ramaphosa's decision to place Mchunu on a leave of absence, appointing Cachalia as acting police minister and establishing a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the corruption allegations in the police and judiciary. 'Various reasons have been offered in respect of the decisions which were impugned by our client and uMkhonto weSizwe Party in the Constitutional Court which found that it lacked exclusive jurisdiction and/or has no basis to grant the requested direct access. "As a result, our client has or sought urgent advice on possibly taking the relevant dispute(s) to the High Court and/or any other appropriate forum. It is assumed that you stand by the reasons previously given for the decisions announced on July 13, 2025,' reads the letter. The party's spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela added: 'The judges did not want to take a decision knowing exactly that the MK Party has a strong case. By placing Mchunu on leave of absence and appointing Cachalia as an acting police minister, the country (has) two ministers of police. Both ministers are acting.' Zuma, who said he is a concerned citizen, a voter and a former President, also demanded the date and time when Ramaphosa decided to place Mchunu on leave of absence and the decision to appoint Cachalia as acting police minister, as well as their current positions. 'When exactly (date and time) was your decision to place Minister Mchunu on leave of absence taken? When exactly (date and time) was your decision to appoint Professor Cachalia as Acting Minister of Police taken, communicated to him and to the public? 'What exactly is a 'Minister Designate', from a constitutional point of view? Immediately after the swearing-in ceremony (i.e. from around 9:30am on August 1, 2025), what was the exact correct description of Professor Cachalia? Was he a minister, acting minister or minister designate? What is the present, correct, full and official description of Mr. Senzo Mchunu? If the answers are the same, for how long is it envisaged that South Africa will have and pay for two Ministers of Police at the same time?' Zuma asks in the letter. He also wanted to know Ramaphosa's reasons for not dismissing Mchunu based on the allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police boss Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, that Mchunu had ties to criminal gangs and meddled in police investigations into politically motivated murders. Zuma also wanted to know what is the public benefit in having two ministers of police, adding that one is active, while the other one is on leave. 'What were the reasons why one of the two Deputy Ministers of Police was not promoted to the position of Acting/Minister of Police as you did, for example, with Deputy Minister (Buti) Manamela who was subsequently promoted to Minister of Higher Education? What are the estimated costs to the taxpayers for the failure to act in a similar or consistent manner?' He said irrespective of the answers Ramaphosa might give, his conduct to place Mchunu on leave and appoint Cachalia remain illegal, irrational and unconstitutional. 'With the publicly available information as well as the pleadings and deliberations in the recent Constitutional Court proceedings, our client is of the view that, irrespective of any answers you might give to the above list of questions, the impugned conduct remains illegal and irrational and unconstitutional.' 'It may have been further compounded by the events which occurred between July 13, 2025 and August 1, 2025 and which have a continuing adverse impact on the South African citizens and taxpayers, including our client,' the letter read, adding that Ramaphosa should withdraw his decision to place Mchunu on leave and the appointment of Cachalia. 'Due to the obvious urgency and importance of the issues raised above, these demands must be fulfilled immediately but by no later than 10am on Friday, August 8, 2025, failing which all our client's rights are reserved, including the right to urgently approach the courts for appropriate relief, without any further notice to you.' Cape Times
