Latest news with #RenevaFourie
IOL News
11-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
A storm with catastrophic consequences brewing
Members of civil society take part in a peace rally in Lahore, Pakistan on May 6, 2025. The mutual weaponisation of conflict makes de-escalation difficult. When political survival becomes tied to nationalistic posturing, the space for diplomacy shrinks, says the writer. Dr. Reneva Fourie THE latest escalation of military tensions between India and Pakistan is a stark reminder of the fragility of peace. Border skirmishes, intensified military manoeuvres, and inflammatory rhetoric from both sides have renewed fears of a conflict that could potentially spiral completely out of control. These developments seriously threaten regional stability and international peace and security, prompting urgent calls for de-escalation from the global community. On 7 May, India launched 'Operation Sindoor', a military offensive targeting what it claimed were terrorist infrastructures linked to militant organisations Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. These strikes, India said, were in direct response to the killing of 26 civilians, primarily Indian tourists, in the India-administered region of Kashmir. India has blamed Pakistan-based groups for the attack, holding Islamabad responsible. Pakistan viewed the strikes as a violation of its sovereignty, claiming that India targeted civilian sites, including the densely populated Punjab province, compelling it to retaliate. One must revisit the area's fractured history to understand the current crisis. The origins of the India-Pakistan conflict emanate from decades of distrust and a colonial legacy that left unresolved tensions. British colonial authorities implemented a 'divide and rule' strategy, which involved the exploitation of ethnic and religious cleavages to maintain dominance. These policies deepened Hindu-Muslim divides and fuelled the eventual demand for separate states. The 1947 partitioning, which resulted in the creation of two separate states – India and Pakistan – was not merely administrative; it was accompanied by one of the largest mass migrations in human history and widespread communal violence. An estimated 12 to 20 million people were displaced, and over a million killed in sectarian violence. This traumatic process entrenched deep-seated animosities between the two newly formed states. In their haste to exit the region, the borders drawn by the British were arbitrary. They rushed, leaving behind unresolved territorial disputes, most notably the question of Kashmir, which was left in limbo. The lack of a formal dispute resolution process set the stage for decades of hostility and violence. Since then, India and Pakistan have engaged in multiple wars and countless border skirmishes, with Kashmir remaining the most sensitive flashpoint. Each confrontation has widened the trust deficit and made future reconciliation more difficult. Both India and Pakistan have used this rivalry for political gain, particularly during moments of internal crisis. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have often used national security issues to strengthen their nationalist credentials. Following previous incidents, such as the 2016 Uri attack and the 2019 Pulwama bombing, the government employed a heavy-handed response that played well with its Hindu nationalist base. Such strategies are often deployed to divert attention from domestic challenges, including high unemployment, inflation and economic stagnation. The narrative of a strong government defending the nation from external threats allows the ruling party to consolidate political unity and marginalise dissent. Pakistan has employed similar tactics. Facing internal instability, including economic hardship, political turmoil, and the persistent threat of terrorism, Pakistani leaders often amplify anti-India rhetoric to redirect public attention and rally national cohesion. The use of Kashmir as a unifying grievance serves both regimes, though at the cost of deepening regional instability. The mutual weaponisation of conflict makes de-escalation difficult. When political survival becomes tied to nationalistic posturing, the space for diplomacy shrinks. What distinguishes the India-Pakistan conflict from many other bilateral disputes is the presence of nuclear weapons on both sides. Any large-scale confrontation risks nuclear escalation, either through miscalculation or desperation. The impact of a full-scale war would be catastrophic. A war would devastate the economies and infrastructure in both India and Pakistan, destabilise Afghanistan, and potentially affect Iran, China, and Central Asia. It would put significant pressure on the United States, which would be forced to balance ties between its strategic partner, India and long-time ally, Pakistan, with whom it shares military and intelligence networks. And given that South Asia is home to over 1.7 billion people, a war here would severely hit the tech and services sectors, spike commodity prices and disrupt global trade through the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. This regional conflict could quickly degenerate into an international crisis. While BRICS is not a formal peace-brokering entity, its member states, particularly China, should consider taking on a more proactive diplomatic role to help de-escalate tensions between India and Pakistan. Both countries are China's immediate neighbours and important economic partners, which places China in a unique position to mediate and facilitate dialogue. Beijing's influence and vested interest in maintaining regional stability, especially in light of its Belt and Road Initiative and ongoing trade partnerships, give it both the leverage and the responsibility to encourage peaceful engagement. The current trajectory of escalating military rhetoric and actions between India and Pakistan poses not only a grave threat to South Asian stability but also to global peace and economic security. A military conflict between two nuclear-armed states could have devastating consequences far beyond the region. The United Nations, which has already cautioned against the dangers of a full-scale confrontation, must go beyond issuing warnings. It should actively pursue avenues of de-escalation through track-two diplomacy, engaging civil society, retired officials, and academics from both sides. Additionally, the UN should work to implement confidence-building measures such as military-to-military hotlines, joint ceasefire monitoring, and initiatives that promote people-to-people contact. The urgency of the moment demands immediate, coordinated international action. The recent escalation between India and Pakistan is a stark reminder of how unresolved historical grievances, nationalistic politics, and external miscalculations can threaten not just a region but the world at large. What began as a response to a terrorist attack now teeters on the edge of full-scale war, with nuclear overtones and global socio-economic risks. Both countries must show restraint, and the international community must rise to the occasion. If the international community fails to act decisively, the consequences may well be irreversible, for South Asia and the world at large. * Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
04-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
VAT Debacle Exposes the ANC's Policy Contradictions
Protesters from unions, farmworkers associations, gender organizations, and other civil society groups, protest outside Parliament against proposed austerity measures and a 2% increase in VAT on March 12, 2025, in Cape Town. Budget cuts, service delivery crises, and policy timidity erode the credibility of the ANC's promises. The gap between political rhetoric and economic policy has become too wide to ignore, says the writer. Dr. Reneva Fourie THE tension within the Government of National Unity (GNU) surrounding whether or not there should be an increase in Value Added Tax (VAT) exposed the policy vacillation within political parties. Civil society groups, trade unions, grassroots movements and left-leaning political parties took to the streets well before the announcement to reject the regressive tax that would disproportionately affect people experiencing poverty. Treasury nonetheless proceeded with the tabling of the VAT proposal. When opposition intensified, the government retracted the proposal for the national budget to pass. The game has become tiring for countless South Africans for whom the gap between government promises and reality keeps widening. Rising unemployment, failing public services, the rising cost of living and ongoing inequality are leading to growing disappointment with the post-apartheid government. While some individuals turn to narrow ethnic nationalism, yearning for the Afrikaner and Bantustan ideologies of the past, those who envisioned a united, non-racial South Africa are despondent. Central to this despondency is a stark recognition that the African National Congress (ANC), once regarded as the leader of society, is now wrestling with declining legitimacy and deepening contradictions. It is tempting to reduce the ANC's crisis to a familiar story of betrayal, of a party that traded its soul for power, privilege, and proximity to capital. Indeed, the movement's post-1994 trajectory includes troubling chapters: the adoption of neoliberal macroeconomics under GEAR, the state capture rot of the Zuma era, and the Ramaphosa administration's ongoing entanglement with big business. Yet, to stop there is to miss the full complexity of the dilemma. The ANC's compromises are not simply a matter of bad choices; they also reflect the constrained governance terrain in a highly unequal, globalised economy. The reversal of the VAT decision was more than just a tactical withdrawal; it exposed the challenges the ANC encounters due to the dual burden of being a liberation movement and a governing party in a volatile and unforgiving environment. Furthermore, it revealed an increasing gap between the ANC's articulated policy goals, as seen in their conference resolutions and election manifestos, and the decisions emerging from the Treasury. The contradiction raises uncomfortable questions about who sets the fiscal agenda and whose interests it ultimately serves. South Africa's economic policy space is shaped by more than just the largest governing party. Treasury officials operate under the significant influence of rating agencies, global investors, and financial institutions. The country is threatened with declining creditworthiness, increasing capital flight, and bond spreads, which weigh heavily on policymakers. The fear of triggering market panic often leads to risk-averse strategies, even when the social costs are devastating. The influence of global financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank looms large. Their language of 'structural reform' and 'fiscal discipline' may be less prescriptive than in the past, but their signals carry weight. Like many other countries, South Africa finds itself navigating a delicate tightrope, trying to balance appeasing the markets while attempting to address entrenched poverty and inequality. Domestically, these global dynamics are compounded by the enduring power of local capital. South Africa's economic elite – largely shielded from the social consequences of apartheid – has shown little appetite for a more inclusive growth path. Calls for wealth taxes, land reform, or meaningful industrial policy are routinely met with resistance. Rather than confronting these interests head-on, ANC leaders have often opted for incrementalism and consensus-building. That strategy may have ensured political stability, but it has left structural inequality intact. The opposition, meanwhile, has seized on the ANC's contradictions with vigour. During the VAT uproar, the Democratic Alliance (DA) positioned itself as a champion of the poor, lambasting the proposal as unjust. But the DA's record tells a different story. It is one of support for austerity, privatisation, and limited state intervention. Its sudden concern for the working class appeared more opportunistic than principled, using the ANC's missteps to advance an arguably more hostile agenda to redistribution. Still, the criticism the ANC faces is not without merit. The party often speaks the language of justice and transformation, invoking the legacy of the Freedom Charter during election season. But once in office, the tone shifts. Budget cuts, service delivery crises, and policy timidity erode the credibility of its promises. The gap between political rhetoric and economic policy has become too wide to ignore. The issue goes beyond mere hypocrisy or inertia. The ANC is constrained by the legacy of apartheid's institutional architecture, which limits the government's ability to pursue meaningful redistribution. These structural challenges, along with internal divisions and weaknesses within the ANC, have led to a state that is reactive, fragmented, and vulnerable to elite capture. And so the ANC finds itself trapped: caught between the demands of the market and the demands of the people. Despite its many failings, the ANC remains central to South Africa's political landscape. It continues to command significant support, especially among those who remember its overwhelming contribution to ending apartheid. However, that legacy, though powerful, cannot carry the party forever, and many wonder if there is any hope that the ANC will ever be restored to its former glory. The challenges the ANC faces extend far beyond its internal contradictions and missteps. Its leaders do not appear to possess the courage, clarity, and willingness to confront its internal complacency and external constraints. As the party attempts to chart a course through this complex terrain, the disjuncture between its stated policies and government action continues to erode its authority. However, while the opposition may gain ground by highlighting the ANC's failings, no political party can claim credibility without addressing the economic structures that entrench inequality. Achieving a more just and inclusive society will require policy reform and a clear break from the economic orthodoxies and vested interests that have long shaped the country's neoliberal trajectory. * Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
01-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
May Day: Time for Unions to Navigate New Geopolitical Realities
Members of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) hold placards and shout slogans in support of a nationwide demonstration in Durban, South Africa, on February 13, 2019 against high unemployment and government policies that are deepening poverty. Dr. Reneva Fourie AS we commemorate May Day – the global day of workers' solidarity and struggle – we are reminded of the ongoing necessity to defend dignity, justice and equality. The landscape of workers' organisation and struggle is evolving swiftly. Remote work is becoming the norm, and labour is increasingly casualised, unpredictable and dispersed as artificial intelligence (AI), automation, and digitisation reshape the global economy. In this context, traditional mechanisms of worker protection, like collective bargaining, are being eroded. Meanwhile, wages and working conditions are deteriorating, with workers barely able to maintain a basic standard of living. The demand for a robust, innovative and unified trade union movement has never been more urgent. In South Africa, however, where poverty and unemployment continue to be high, the situation is particularly acute. A revitalised and united labour movement is essential for confronting the systemic forces underpinning these challenges. Yet, trade union density has declined significantly, with fewer than 30 per cent of workers now unionised. The once-powerful trade union movement is fragmented, with COSATU, FEDUSA, SAFTU and NACTU competing for a shrinking formal sector membership base. Internal rivalries and representational battles have weakened the capacity of organised labour to respond collectively to rising inequality, growing worker precarity, and the challenges posed by rapid technological change. Critically, none of the existing federations have articulated a sufficiently bold or comprehensive strategy to address the structural transformations associated with digitisation, platform work and algorithmic management. However, South African history powerfully demonstrates the transformative potential of organised labour. During the 1980s, the trade union movement was central not only to improving shop-floor conditions but also to the broader struggle against apartheid. It mobilised workers across racial and sectoral lines, linking economic grievances to political demands for democracy and human rights. In the transition to democracy, trade unions successfully negotiated some of the world's most progressive labour laws, including the Labour Relations Act and Basic Conditions of Employment Act. They secured institutionalised worker representation through the establishment of the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC). Today, there is a new struggle requiring courage, unity, and strategic dexterity. Capitalism has evolved under the influence of technology, and so must the labour movement. Far from emancipating humanity, contemporary technological innovations have been deployed to deepen exploitation: precarious gig work, freelancing under conditions of insecurity, zero-hour contracts, and pervasive digital surveillance have become widespread. Rather than eradicating inequality, the so-called 'fourth industrial revolution' threatens to entrench it further. Nevertheless, workers remain in the best position to navigate and challenge these new realities. It is workers who continue to sustain the traditional economy and produce, maintain and innovate the technologies driving the systems on which modern life depends. Their creativity and knowledge generation underpin the economy's productive forces. Therefore, workers must not only defend their existing rights but must play a leading role in shaping the future of work itself. This necessitates a shift in strategic orientation for trade unions. Beyond defensive struggles for better wages and working conditions, there is a pressing need to restructure the ownership and governance of production. Such restructuring includes building and supporting worker cooperatives, advocating for workplace democracy, promoting public and common ownership of digital platforms, and securing rights to meaningful, dignified and secure work. Trade unions must place broader social policies at the centre of their demands, including shorter working hours, comprehensive social security, universal healthcare, free and quality education, and affordable housing. They must demand a world where their work serves the whole of humanity, not just the ever more greedy few. Importantly, the struggle for worker power cannot be confined within national boundaries. In a globalised economy where transnational corporations operate across multiple jurisdictions, international worker solidarity is no longer merely a matter of principle but a strategic necessity. The algorithms that manage workers' productivity do not respect national borders, nor do the financial flows that extract value from their labour. Therefore, trade unions must forge international alliances, develop transnational strategies, and participate in global campaigns that contest corporate power worldwide. South African trade unions face a critical responsibility in this regard. They must urgently overcome fragmentation and build a unified, inclusive movement that represents all segments of the working class. They must set aside narrow institutional rivalries and ideological contestation and embrace innovative forms of organisation, including establishing an overarching coordinating body. New models such as platform cooperatives, digital unions, and sectoral bargaining frameworks for gig economy workers must be explored and adopted. Traditional strategies must be adapted to meet the needs of younger, digitally literate, and often highly mobile workforces who may not easily fit into older models of shop-floor organising. Moreover, unions must reorient themselves towards proactive engagement with technological change. They must advocate for worker-driven innovation rather than merely reacting to technological displacement. In this concept, workers actively participate in the design and implementation of new technologies, ensuring that the benefits of these innovations are shared fairly and that technological change is directed towards social good rather than corporate profit. Every campaign for improved wages, working conditions, and labour rights today must be connected to a broader vision of a more equitable and sustainable society. Echoing Karl Marx's insight, the workers' movement must simultaneously address the immediate needs of the working class while carrying within it the seeds of a future beyond exploitation. History shows that when workers come together and organise, they gain the power to improve their lives and impact the course of society. In a world reshaped by technology, inequality, and insecurity, South Africa requires a new generation of trade unionism – one that is bold, forward-looking, ready to defend, organise and empower workers across all sectors, and to humanise the economy in the age of AI and automation. If workers unite in solidarity and vision, they will not only safeguard their livelihoods but also help to create a more just, inclusive and peaceful society for future generations. * Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
27-04-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
SA's non-aligned status in critics crosshairs
Dr. Reneva Fourie The scheduled visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to South Africa this week was abruptly shortened following a devastating Russian attack on Kyiv. While presented as part of the African Peace Mission initiative and the country's broader diplomatic engagements, the meeting came at a sensitive moment, defined by growing international calls for a negotiated end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, even as certain Western powers appear determined to prolong the war. Since the outbreak of hostilities in 2022, South Africa has charted a careful and principled course rooted in impartiality, multilateralism and consensus building. Unlike the polarised positions of many NATO-aligned countries, South Africa consistently withstood the pressure to adopt simplistic binaries in an undeniably complex geopolitical conflict. The country's approach has been shaped by the foundational values of the Non-Aligned Movement –emphasising neutrality, peaceful resolution of disputes, and respect for diverse historical and political contexts. In line with this stance, South Africa consistently abstained from all UN General Assembly resolutions relating to the Ukraine war. The actions were not an endorsement of aggression but a recognition that peace cannot be achieved through partisan posturing. It was also a statement against the selective application of international law, wherein sovereignty is upheld in Ukraine but conveniently disregarded in other regions facing Western interventions. President Cyril Ramaphosa's leadership further demonstrated South Africa's commitment to meaningful diplomacy. In June 2023, he spearheaded an unprecedented peace mission to Kyiv and Moscow, joined by a delegation of African heads of state. It was the first instance of African leaders undertaking a peace initiative outside the continent. The mission conveyed that Africa, long sidelined in global conflict resolution, was prepared to offer a credible alternative to militarised stalemates. Following the visit, South Africa remained engaged in quiet diplomacy. Ramaphosa continued direct discussions with Zelenskyy and Putin, focusing on tangible confidence-building measures. These included facilitating the release of prisoners of war and ensuring food security through uninterrupted grain exports. It further reiterated that the United Nations must play a central role in ending the conflict, insisting on a multilateral framework that promotes justice and sustainability over short-term political gain. Given the ongoing violence and the growing toll of the war, the pressure to find a peaceful resolution between Russia and Ukraine is mounting. Zelenskyy's inflexible position in the negotiations, as well as the timing and optics of the visit, risked sending the wrong signal. Some feared it might complicate delicate efforts to return both sides to the negotiating table. This is especially true given the Western media's tendency to cast Ukraine in uncritical heroic terms while erasing the complex origins of the war. South Africa's critics of the visit pointed to the selective narrative surrounding Ukraine's sovereignty. Western powers have invoked Ukraine's territorial integrity with unflinching consistency. Yet, those same voices were conspicuously silent during the 2014 Maidan coup, which saw the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych. That event – widely acknowledged as being spearheaded by the United States and the United Kingdom – marked a rupture in Ukraine's democratic order and triggered deep divisions within the country. In its aftermath, the Donetsk and Luhansk regions held referenda overwhelmingly in favour of independence, results dismissed in the West but remaining a central factor in understanding the legitimacy crisis that followed. By failing to acknowledge this context, much of the Western narrative – and, by extension, Zelenskyy's rhetoric – reduces a multifaceted conflict to a simple invasion story. Adding to the controversy, domestic critics such as the South African Communist Party (SACP) publicly opposed Zelenskyy's visit. They questioned his legitimacy as Ukraine's leader, noting that his presidential term had lapsed without a new election, a fact largely overlooked by his Western backers. While President Putin recently secured re-election within Russia's legal framework, Zelenskyy continued to hold office under emergency powers, raising concerns about democratic accountability. The SACP also warned of the broader implications of hosting Zelenskyy. They cautioned that his visit could entangle South Africa in the geopolitical objectives of Western powers, who have used Ukraine as a proxy front in their competition with Russia. The SACP argued that this alignment risked drawing South Africa into an imperialist agenda that starkly contrasts its values of sovereignty, justice, and non-interference. These warnings echoed the sentiments of several South Africans who feared that the country's hard-won international credibility as a neutral mediator could be compromised. As chair of the G20, South Africa had taken a bold stance in advocating for inclusive negotiations and highlighting the devastating global impact of protracted conflicts, particularly on developing countries. The Johannesburg G20 foreign ministers' meeting saw South Africa emphasise the need for economic development through peace and global cooperation. Aligning too closely with any single actor in the Ukraine conflict could jeopardise this carefully cultivated leadership role. Ultimately, the question is not whether South Africa should engage with Ukraine – it should and has done so responsibly. The issue lies in how such engagement is perceived and whether it serves Pretoria's vision of a multipolar, just world order. South Africa's refusal to conform to Western narratives continues to be both a strength and a necessity. In this way, South Africa stands not only as a defender of its interests but also as a beacon for others, advocating for a world where all narratives are valued and heard. * Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security.
IOL News
25-04-2025
- Business
- IOL News
ANC's final throw of the dice to reconnect with its roots
Delegates at the conclusion of the ANC's 4th National General Council held at Gallagher Estate, in Midrand Johannesburg on October 9-12t, 2015. To emerge from its deepening crisis, the ANC must reconnect with its historical allies and rediscover its political soul, says the writer. Dr. Reneva Fourie BUSINESS and neoliberal elites are tightening their grip on South Africa's political landscape. With a clear strategy to oust the African National Congress (ANC) in the 2026 local government elections, they have found willing allies in the Democratic Alliance (DA) and compliant media outlets and academics. The seventh BizNews Conference, which took place in March, made this abundantly apparent. Helen Zille, Chairperson of the DA's Federal Council, pulled no punches at the event. The DA's role in the Government of National Unity (GNU) is not about national recovery. It is about reshaping the state in the image of capital. Propped up by powerful business interests, the DA is working to complete what it has always longed to do – dismantle the post-apartheid social compact, weaken the state, and privatise its core functions. The consequences will be devastating for the working class and the poor. This is why the ANC's National General Council (NGC) scheduled for the end of the year, is not just another event. It is a potential turning point for the entire country. The NGC must become a site of ideological clarity and political renewal. It must be used to reclaim the ANC's historic mission, reassert the primacy of its working-class base, and confront the elite forces attempting to hijack the country's future. Currently, the ANC appears adrift. Since joining the GNU, the party has failed to assert its policy positions with confidence or coherence. It is failing to lead the state, set the ideological tone of governance, and defend the interests of its core constituency – the poor and working class. Instead of championing progressive transformation, the ANC has bent under pressure. It has retreated on critical policy issues and conceded ground to the DA and other elite-driven forces. Public sector finance cuts, creeping commercialisation, and the encroachment of corporate influence on public policy have all advanced with little resistance from the ANC leadership. Even on foreign policy, where the ANC once stood as a proud symbol of international solidarity, there are signs of retreat. The request by President Ramaphosa to review the renaming of Sandton Drive in honour of Palestinian freedom fighter Leila Khaled was a telling moment. It showed that the party is no longer willing to stand firmly by its anti-imperialist roots when it becomes politically inconvenient. The neoliberal project currently being advanced has an obvious agenda. It wants a laissez-faire government, fewer protections for workers, a rollback of social protection, more deregulation, and expanding private profit into every corner of the state. It is not a neutral or technocratic shift. It is an aggressive restructuring of power and resources in favour of the elite. At the centre of this project is the DA, supported by sections of organised business and amplified by a media and intellectual ecosystem sympathetic to market orthodoxy. Together, they are working to shape public opinion, influence state policy, and present neoliberalism as the only viable path forward. Their alliance is strategic and well-resourced. The ANC cannot afford to be vague or indecisive regarding this agenda. It must act determinedly and unapologetically. The NGC must become a platform to resist this elite offensive, affirm the state's role in development, and reassert the ANC's responsibility to its historical base. The NGC holds significant authority. As the highest decision-making structure between national conferences, it has the constitutional mandate to review party policies and assess the performance of its leadership. It can amend or rescind existing decisions and is empowered to fill NEC vacancies. This gathering has the power to course-correct and reorient the movement toward its founding principles of social justice, redistribution, and people-centred development. What is needed is not just organisational introspection but bold and principled leadership with the courage to confront the neoliberal onslaught and recommit to a pro-poor developmental agenda. While the party's leadership may be preoccupied with internal stability and elite negotiations, communities and its members are watching with growing frustration. The poor are facing unbearable living conditions. Jobs are scarce. Prices are soaring. Public infrastructure is crumbling. Services are being cut. The people feel abandoned. The ANC's base is not found in boardrooms or at business conferences. It is found in townships, rural villages and factory floors. This is the core that carried the movement in its fight against apartheid and which continues to look to it for hope. Its patience is wearing thin. ANC branches across the country are aware of the policy compromises being made. They will not passively accept this ongoing drift into neoliberalism. If the leadership fails to act decisively, it risks an internal backlash that could tear the party apart. To emerge from this deepening crisis, the ANC must reconnect with its historical allies and rediscover its political soul. The policy congruence with the SACP, COSATU and SANCO must be reinstated, not just for appearances but as a genuine partnership to build a democratic developmental state. These partners have long warned of the dangers of neoliberal capture and have offered viable alternatives rooted in the realities of the working class, providing the only credible strategy to end poverty and inequality in South Africa. Foreign policy, too, must reflect the values of justice, solidarity and sovereignty. The ANC must not waver in standing with oppressed peoples globally. Retreating from principled positions to appease domestic or international pressure will further weaken the party (and the country). The ANC has one last chance to reclaim its direction. The NGC must be the moment in which the party reasserts its identity, reaffirms its commitment to the people, and resists the suffocating advance of neoliberalism. If it fails to do so, it will continue to bleed legitimacy and support, opening the door even more widely to the very forces that seek to destroy it. This is no longer a matter of political tactics. Rekindling its primary purpose is a question of survival – for the ANC and South Africa's majority. * Dr Reneva Fourie is a policy analyst specialising in governance, development and security. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
