For a party that is often accused of populism and other anti-democratic tendencies, the EFF has proven itself to be very adept at putting the country’s constitution to good use.
The Constitutional Court’s landmark ruling on Phala Phala was but the latest in several cases Julius Malema’s party has successfully fought in our courts and, in the process, changed the political landscape and brought clarity to parliamentary rules.
For that, as the young say these days, the party must be given its flowers.
No matter what one may think of the EFF’s political outlook and posturing, surely the role the party has played in parliament during the presidencies of Jacob Zuma and his successor, Cyril Ramaphosa, puts paid to past attempts to paint the youthful organisation that broke away from the ANC following Malema’s expulsion as proto-fascist.
Neo-fascist organisations seek to undermine the rule of law and cast aside national constitutions − especially if they espouse social democratic and liberal values.
Yet this has not been the experience of South Africans ever since the EFF formally entered the parliamentary arena in 2014.
The party’s MPs could be rowdy and disruptive − especially during those years when they used major parliamentary appearances by Zuma to demand that he pay back state money for his Nkandla private residence − but it could not be accused of undermining the rule of law.
It had, and continues to have, deep-seated misgivings about sections of the 1996 constitution, which it claims prevent the state from expropriating land without compensation. But this does not stop the EFF from using the same constitution to enforce accountability on the cabinet and parliament.
All of this is important to bear in mind because in the hustle and bustle of South African politics, ideological labelling and name-calling sometimes cause many of us to overlook the positive role the parties play in making our democracy stronger and more vibrant.
Nobody knows for certain what Ramaphosa’s next move will be following the Constitutional Court’s ruling on Phala Phala. The EFF, as expected, was first off the blocks in calling for the president to step down “so that he can focus on” answering questions before the impeachment committee that will be set up in accordance with the court ruling.
Others say they see no need for him to quit yet, as he has not been found guilty of anything. They argue that he should rather subject himself to the process while still carrying out his duties as head of state. After all, they continue to argue, who is to say he will not have a strong explanation and defence over what transpired at his private farm?
His sympathisers are also pointing out that, in the end, impeaching a president requires a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly − something that can’t be achieved without the consent of ANC MPs.
There is also a debate about the feasibility of the president stalling the impeachment process for a while by taking the panel report by justice Sandile Ngcobo under review.
This would probably buy him and the party time to prepare for a smooth exit and hand over the reins to a new ANC leadership expected to be elected 19 months from now.
It would also mean that the ANC is able to come to an agreement with its coalition partners not to collapse the government of national unity until the next general elections, in 2029.
All of this, however, is just speculation at this stage.
What is clear, however, is that the moment provides an opportunity for various political players to start thinking about a post-Ramaphosa government − whether he leaves immediately or later.
With coalitions now a reality in all three spheres of government, such conversations necessarily have to involve political parties talking to one another.
In the run-up to the 2024 general election, such conversations were mostly clouded by fear-mongering, name-calling and ideological labelling. In centrist and conservative political circles, the debate was often framed as a choice between the rule of law and good governance versus political populism and economic recklessness.
Hence, the portrayal of an ANC-DA-led coalition government as the best-case scenario, while the one that would have tied the ANC to the EFF and the likes of Zuma’s MK Party, was considered as a “doomsday coalition” that spelt an end to constitutional democracy as we knew it.
The evidence, however, is that there are no angels and devils here, just political options. As the EFF case demonstrates, each of the parties in our political system has its own positives and negatives.
As long as they subject themselves to the authority of the country’s constitution, no party should be deemed a threat to the democratic system, were it to be part of government.
