By design or consequence of circumstances, Malema has arguably been one of the most vocal and controversial political figures in the South African political landscape in recent history, so much that many news agencies announced him as the newsmaker of the year 2011.

Because of his verbal diarrhea, Malema has become the politician that many love to hate because of the manner in which he says things, but also many hate to love him because of the intricate substance in the content of the things that he says.

Therefore, on any given moment ones encounter with Malema is somewhat paradoxical to an extent whereby some have difficulty to bring to finality an answer to the question: Is Malema good for South African politics or not?

In analysing the two charges that Malema was found guilty of, it is important to once more invoke the words of Gwede Mantashe, said on the (23/08/11) “We cannot allow a free for all in the ANC ahead of Mangaung.

The run up to Polokwane was a disaster”. Simply put, Mantashe was saying that, the verbal chaos and public vulgar that had preceded Polokwane would have no place any longer in the ANC.

That is because such disdain behaviour was the fuel injector that propelled the fall of Thabo Mbeki in Polokwane and if allowed to resurface, Zuma could face his fate in Mangaung. To protect Zuma, anyone who posed a threat in the lead up to Mangaung would have to be removed.

Who would pose a far bigger threat than the President of the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) himself? In Polokwane the then ANCYL President, Fikile Mbalula, was on the side of Zuma.

Whether the belief that the support of the ANCYL is important for anyone to attain power in an ANC conference is fictitious or not, history tells us that anyone seeking to be President of the ANC has at all times seek to be in favour of the ANCYL – in particular its President.

In an article titled “The ANC vs. ANCYL debacle” written in October 2011, I opened with the following remarks “In any political organisation, the lines of trust-mistrust, allegiance-dissent and discipline-ill-discipline are very thin and quite complex to comprehend how they are determined”.

I again want these words to be the basis of analysis for this article. The two charges that Malema has been found guilty on, following his appeal are in my view not enough to warrant suspension from the party. Pierre De Vos in his Constitutionally Speaking Blog details the two charges Malema was found guilty of – as set out:

1.      He was convicted of contravening Rule 25.5 (1) of the ANC Constitution “by behaving in such a way as to provoke serious divisions or a breakdown of unity in the organisation”. His sin was that he addressed a press conference on 31 July 2011 at the conclusion of an ANC Youth League NEC meeting where he said amongst other things “in the past we know President Mbeki used that agenda very well… The African agenda is no longer a priority and we think that there is a temptation by the coloniser and the imperialist to want to recolonise Africa in a different but sophisticated way and President Mbeki stood directly opposed to that type of conduct.

Let us try to understand the context of these assertions by Malema. The ANCYL in association with the NYDA had held The 17th World Festival of Youth and Students under the theme “Let’s defeat imperialism for a world of peace, solidarity and social transformation”.

This conference was in December 2010. In the June ANCYL Elective Congress, there were many speakers from certain youth political formations across the continent who were decrying the looming return of imperialism in Africa.

The time Malema made these utterances was also after the ANCYL had joined NUMSA, COSATU, SACP and other South Africans in a march, on the (08/07/2011), against the NATO actions in Libya. In that rally, Malema had addressed the crowds and said “South Africa should not have voted for that resolution” and this was in

reference to South Africa voting for Resolution 1973 in the UN Security Council (UNSC) authorising the bombing of Libya by NATO and other allies. The Zuma administration was directly liable and an accomplice to the actions of NATO in Libya.

I am of the view that, there was enough momentum and happenings to fuel Malema and those in the ANCYL NEC to be critical of the realities in the African continent at the time. It is also a matter of fact that in contemporary African politics, the idea of an African Renaissance is synonymous with Thabo Mbeki, from Cape to Cairo.

Malema and crew might have also been motivated by Mbeki’s success, which was fresh at the time, that of South Sudan officially becoming an independent state on the 09 July 2011.

This success was an anti-thesis of military intervention and at the time that Malema was talking about Mbeki and the African agenda, Mbeki himself had become vocal and had endorsed the initiative of South Africans for Peace in Africa Initiative, one that also held demonstrations in the UK and USA Embassies against the actions of NATO. 

The truth is that the actions in Libya at the time had raised the continent’s ire and questions were being asked about the manner in which the African Union’s plans were circumvented by the UNSC and also the question of strong leadership to stand up for Africa was put to question.

Malema was correct to raise the name of Mbeki when dealing with this matter because Mbeki in the past had proven that he could at least maneuver the landscape of global politics and affirm Africa’s position. He was also able to go into countries and facilitate dialogue and indeed his departure from office created a leadership and advocacy vacuum in the African Union.

The ANC has made two cardinal errors, firstly by minimising the legacy of Mbeki to be restricted only to ANC affairs, in the sense that a criticism of lack of African leadership juxtaposed with Mbeki’s name seems to pit ANC supporters against Zuma at a party level.

Secondly, if indeed Malema was criticizing Zuma, he was doing so at his (Zuma) capacity of being state president. Now, we again see the ANC once again failing to separate the State from the Party. This is a serious and dire phenomenon for our country.

It would render the ANCYL insolvent to argue that it cannot comment on state related matters. So Malema was not sowing division in the party he was joining in on a debate that was captivating the entire continent, in actual fact Malema was being relevant and keeping up with the times as a leader of young people.

In fact, even the ANC itself has had views on how some state matters are run, for example Gwede Mantashe lambasting the behaviour of some Municipal Councilors; is that sowing division?

For crying out loud, even Mbeki compared himself to Mandela in Mafikeng (1997) when he was taking over the ANC Presidency when he said Mandela’s shoes were too ugly for him to fit into them. Was he sowing division? Because that statement was loaded. Now let us deal with the second charge, as summarised by Pierre De Vos:

2.      Malema was also convicted of contravening Rule 25.5 (c) of the Constitution of the ANC by behaving in such a way as to bring the organisation into disrepute. This was done for ostensibly slightly more plausible reasons, namely because he addressed a press conference on 31 July 2011 by making announcements amongst others:

·         That the Botswana leadership of government poses a serious threat to Africa so we need a progressive government in Botswana.

·         We are not going to sit with neighbours that conduct themselves like that. Botswana is in full co-operation with imperialists and the government is undermining the African agenda.

·         The ANC Youth League would establish a Botswana Command Team which would work towards uniting all opposition forces in Botswana to oppose the puppet regime of Botswana led by the Botswana Democratic Party.

It must be remembered that this was the second time around whereby Malema was being charged of bringing the party into disrepute. The first similar charge was in 2010, following his visit to Zimbabwe and he had endorsed the policies of Mugabe on land expropriation without compensation and threatened to import such policies to the ANC in South Africa.

At the time Malema was making the utterances on Botswana, it was just around the time when there was public debate about the desire of the USA to expand a military base in Botswana. The critical question would be; on what basis does a country agree to setup a military base for another country?

It is also a matter of fact that Ian Khama, especially during Thabo Mbeki’s era, has stood vehemently opposed to many of the SADC and AU decisions in the continent.

Instead, he always sought to reaffirm the correctness of views of the West about Africa. In Zimbabwe, even at the time of the signing of the Global Political Agreement (GPA), Khama was not amused and publicly lambasted the developments in Zimbabwe, prejudicing the deliberations of the SADC.

Even at the time, the AU had taken a decision to undermine the arrest warrant issued for Omar al-Bashir in order not to threaten the progress of the talks between North and South Sudan, Khama stood vehemently opposed to such a decision.

In my view, there is credible reason to question the contributions of Botswana in the African agenda and its role in making sure that Africa is free of undue external influence from the Western forces. Malema’s call to establish a command team in Botswana so as to consolidate opposition parties is no different to Gwede Mantashe going to Zimbabwe and offering any form of support to the ZANU-PF, in order to make sure that Mugabe’s party retains power with a majority from the MDC.

 In essence, Mantashe’s show of support in a rally held in Bulawayo on the (08/12/2011) when he said “…We will send campaign strategy teams to work with you; this will be the best way to celebrate the centenary of the ANC in January 2011” (source: Zimbabwe Independent); meant that he will establish a ‘command team’ to help ZANU-PF and yet he was charging Malema of the very same offence. That is hypocrisy.

Mantashe’s endorsement of ZANU-PF also meant that the ANC endorses the dehumanizing manner in which ZANU-PF treats its opponent, it means that the ANC condones the brutality that opposition supporters face, and it means that the ANC is comfortable with the manner in which Mugabe has run down the economy of Zimbabwe.

It also means that the ANC is in support of the policies of ZANU-PF, which include expropriation of land without compensation – something Malema had been charged for. It also means that the ANC is comfortable with the manner in which state apparatus has been encroached into the party by the ZANU-PF, to an extent whereby the judiciary, the police and the army are all puppets of Mugabe and his cronies. Why was Mantashe not charged?

The ANC leadership opportunistically separated the two statements that got Malema charged in order to create two charges. The statements were all emanating from the theme of dealing with the new sophisticated type of imperialism that we witness in Africa today. The rumour of a USA military base in Botswana and the actions of NATO in Libya at the time, were all indicative of a new found totalitarianism by Western Powers in our beautiful Africa.

We must also question, who speaks on behalf of the ANCYL NEC if it is not the President of the organsiation? If Malema indeed had endorsement from his executive to make such utterances, why is Malema charged as an individual? In an organisation that subscribes to internal democracy, Malema is not at liberty to subvert resolutions of the NEC.

Therefore, does it mean that if the ANCYL NEC resolves on a matter for public pronouncement, the individual making the remarks will be charged? The charges by the ANC on Malema seem to create fertile ground for individualism in the party, rather than enforcing cooperation and collective accountability for issues.

The charges that are to get Malema suspended from the party, are in my view not just only a threat to internal democracy within the ANC, they are also a hindrance to the ANCYL, as they weaken the ability of the league to be part of socioeconomic and sociopolitical dialogue that affects us all.

In essence, one can conclude that the ANCYL is no longer allowed to air its views on contentious issues of governance, policy and international relations because they risk being reprimanded and given the harshest sentence of facing the exit door from the organisation.

The ANC has now put its top leaders, through this disciplinary process, beyond reproach as an example has been set for those who dare challenge actions and leadership aspects of top leaders. This disciplinary process was nothing but a way to settle political scores for Mantashe and Zuma.