On the very rare occasion that I write about the EFF, there are always a couple of readers who angrily ask: “Why are you giving them airtime and oxygen?”
I understand this response.
As a right-wing, ethnic nationalist personality cult, the EFF draws its energy in a very similar way to Donald Trump’s Republican party in the US: just as criticism from liberals supercharged the MAGA movement and turned “owning the libs” into a legitimate political victory, criticism of the EFF by the media or middle-aged white men tends to galvanise the faithful and reaffirm their commitment to Julius Malema’s retirement fund, sorry, I mean economic freedom for all.
Others, meanwhile, would insist there are much better things to talk about, given that the EFF represents so few South Africans. Of course, we’ll all be taking about the party if it forms a ruling coalition with the ANC in 2024, waltzing into national government despite having the backing of roughly 5% of South African voters, but until then, I understand why people would want to ignore them.
Malema understands this too. He knows his retirement fund, sorry, his party lives or dies by the amount of controversy it generates, and the heyday of staring down Jacob Zuma and having fistfights in parliament is long gone.
Sure, there are still a few cheap thrills to be had, such as trashing the odd shop or posing for photos at the Russian embassy as you cheer on its imperialist war in Ukraine, but for the most part the EFF has been battling to make it onto front pages for some time now.
Which is why this week’s ruling by the SA Human Rights Commission has come like manna from publicity heaven.
The trouble, however, is that the mere existence of the SAHRC makes it a perfect tool for Malema.
To be clear, I don’t begrudge the SAHRC the work it does. Someone has to make an official stink about the ghastly things people say or do, even if the punishments it metes out tend to be little more than gentle pats on the wrist.
The trouble, however, is that the mere existence of the SAHRC makes it a perfect tool for Malema.
Should he say something deliberately provocative, perhaps carefully calibrated to teeter on the line between robust political debate and open incitement, and should the SAHRC commission get involved, Malema knows that one of two outcomes are guaranteed.
If he is found innocent of, say, hate speech, as was the case with his singing of “Kill the Boer”, then his party closes ranks around him, hailing him as a conquering hero whose critics are fools.
If he is found guilty, as he has been this week, after telling his disciples that killing your opponents is a revolutionary act, then his party closes ranks around him, hailing him as a martyr whose accusers are oppressors.
In this instance, however, there’s an extra cherry on the top: the SAHRC has given him 10 days to recant, a golden ticket inviting him back into the news cycle the week after next.
On Thursday, Malema tweeted he was not going to apologise and that “we have no problem with going to court”.
Of course he doesn’t. Hours of live coverage; dozens of speeches delivered to wide-eyed, unquestioning journalists; thousands of words written and spoken, all pouring like a stream of gold into that retirement fund. What rational person would have a problem with any of that?
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.