In many ways, the South African political environment is self-contradictory. In a country where we have accepted that political extremes will call to “Kill the Boer” without consequence, it is still, paradoxically, firmly outside of the common practice to call for violence against the opposition.

In one the most violent countries in the world, both in terms of murder rate as well as political violence - including an astonishing number of political assassinations - it is still beyond the Overton Window to call for the murder of the opposition on the national stage. As Malema himself succinctly put it “[We are] not calling for the slaughtering of whites, at least for now.”

Even in SA’s arguably most violent and radical party, MK, their flare for violent rhetoric has done them few favours. The brazen language and foolhardy antics of the party placed it firmly outside the potential candidates for the coalition with the ANC. The overwhelming share of the political and media class simply refuses to engage in this sort of posturing.

From the perspective of the South African observer, it is thus almost inconceivable that so many in the heart of the free world, the USA, would openly justify the assassination attempt on Trump or refuse to condemn the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi. However, a substantial portion of American political commentary has embraced this approach. 

It is here that we can dissect what has gone wrong in America and why South Africa has seemingly proven more resilient.

‍

The United States of South Africa‍

The primary safeguard against violent rhetoric becoming central to the political landscape is the parties that dictate the political environment. In the US, the Democrats and the Republicans represent the overwhelming majority of national politics due to their two-party system. In South Africa, the DA and ANC constitute 62% of the popular vote and the GNU more broadly encompasses 72% of parliamentary seats. MK and the EFF are a loud noise, but make no mistake: the people in government dictate the terms of the national dialogue.

To take us back to the land of freedom, the GOP and the DNC have been engaging in a race to the bottom in a bid to energise their base and demotivate their opposition. The logic is simple: If your base thinks the other side is evil then they'll be more motivated to vote to keep the enemy out, and if you can successfully paint the opposition as evil, their base might be dissuaded to go out on election day. 

In recent years, we have observed a consistent increase in temperatures in the US. The Republicans claim the Democrats are trying to rig elections, and the Democrats claim that the Republicans are trying to install a dictatorship with Trump at the helm.

Demagoguery and dehumanisation have become the standard playbook in the construction of most political narratives in America. 

Combining this with both side’s inability to admonish the violent rhetoric present in their own camps, we have a recipe for extreme polarisation and partisanship on even the most basic issues of human decency. To paraphrase one large political commentator on the left: Why would I condemn the shooting of Trump and murder of his supporter when conservatives refuse to condemn January 6th?

The South African political heavyweights in the ANC started shifting towards a similar strategy of dehumanisation, particularly in the late 2000s

‍

Burning one-half of the bridge

Malema took the reins of the ANC Youth League in 2008 and was quickly followed by his faction's figurehead, Zuma, in 2009. With them, they brought a palpable increase in animosity towards the political opposition, especially minorities.

It was during this period of Zuma’s administration that the country experienced a sharp turn from the Rainbow Nation politics being sold by Mandela or the equalisation through growth of the Mbeki presidency. “Kill the Boer” or its variations became a staple for the ANC - and later EFF - congregations, the DA was to be painted as a return to Apartheid, and White Monopoly Capital became the new boogeyman keeping the black man down. The ANC-affiliated media machine, the likes of Bell Pottenger, had clear marching orders: Slowly bring the national dialogue to a boiling point. This has undoubtedly had lasting effects.

If you are a minority online in this country, you'll be hard-pressed to go any significant length of time without seeing the left’s go-to slogan: “Go back to Europe” or any of its variations; A clear euphemism for the ethnic cleansing of minorities. Many will earnestly advocate for the expulsion of minorities or the confiscation of their property. Parties that have explicitly advocated for it constitute about a quarter of our parliament and we are constantly fearful of these parties coming to power. However, almost no one would return fire with the same calibre of rhetorical firepower. Why is this? This doesn’t seem to track with global and online trends.

Where is the race to the bottom that is so prevalent in Western democracies such as the United States?

To explain this it’s best to recognise that one cannot truly force a race to the bottom - it takes two to tango. To irreparably damage the political environment the ANC would need the opposition to join in this undercutting to create a true vicious circle. 

Remarkably, and boldly, the DA did not bite.

‍

Principled Strategy or Strategically Principled‍

The DA, even in this particularly dark time for cooperation, was fully cognisant of the fact that their only route to power was through the ANC. They never fully dirtied their gloves. On the contrary, in response to the ANC the DA used the opportunity to lean more heavily into the unity rhetoric. The appointment of Mmusi Maimane in 2015 was the DA demonstrating their commitment to not going low. Helen Zille later recounted that “his whole personal life spoke of nonracialism.”

As a result, the DA has been a bulwark against violent rhetoric. They have consistently been the first to call out the dangerous utterances of the EFF and MK while also being swift to deal with those trying to turn up the heat in their camp - even retroactively in the case of Renaldo Gouws. Combining this with the DA’s almost total consolidation of the minority vote, the flame of violent rhetoric has been effectively stamped out wherever it emerges on this side of the South African political discourse.

Despite the strategic value of the DA’s moderation, it should not be downplayed how the soul of the party is principally against the flagrant use of unreasonably dehumanising rhetoric. The Party was born out of the anti-apartheid Progressive Party and Helen Zille was an anti-apartheid political journalist heavily involved in the black-sash movement. This is a party that has its roots in selling the idea of the Rainbow Nation long before Archbishop Desmond Tutu coined the term.

Whether it was a principled position or an acute understanding of the long term benefits, the DA was not going to burn the bridge with the other side of the country. This is perhaps an indication that the DA was at least keeping an ANC coalition on the cards since after the 2014 general election.

‍

The Counterfactual

The gravity of this approach should not be understated. Politicians are generally short-sighted and if the DA had gone for a cheap rallying of their base, we could be living in a very different political landscape. Consider, for a moment, that they did get drawn into this vicious cycle. The country very well could have entered an irreversible rhetorical death spiral.

How could Cyril justify working with the DA when - in this hypothetical - the DA has spent years defending calls for violence against the ANC or their supporters akin to the “Kill the Boer” chant. I believe it is highly improbable that any realistic variation of the ANC would be able to move past such posturing. On the contrary, it’s far more likely that the tit-for-tat would lead both sides to up the ante until we are in a position where violence would be more tangible than rhetorical.

Do not be tempted into thinking that this was a straightforward sales pitch for the DA. Unity doesn't always sell. The DA relinquished powerful weapons of persuasion to maintain their long-term interests. Perhaps this even explains - if only a little bit of - the party’s continuous bleeding of total voters since 2014. This was a gamble, and with the ANC’s appointment of Cyril Ramaphosa in 2017, it was becoming increasingly apparent that it had the potential to pay off.

‍

A GNU Era

With falling electoral support and the country declining in almost every conceivable metric, the ANC has read the room. For the time being, the ANC recognised that endlessly dehumanising the opposition and constantly burning bridges is going to leave them with no one reputable to work with when they inevitably fell below 50%. In that spirit, the party has opted to evolve past the likes of Zuma and Malema, both of whom have been ostracised from the party.

In place of this, we are being sold on Ramaphosa's iteration of the ANC: One that seeks to unite the country, cooperate with the opposition, and facilitate the healing of deep divisions between South Africa's communities. At least, that is how they want us to think of them.

The ANC has positioned itself to work with the DA and a clear precondition of that is the evasion from framing the other side as justified targets for violence. The ANC cannot be working with the DA while claiming the DA is trying to bring back apartheid. The ANC has not been quite as diligent as the DA in effectuating this position but they have done a good enough job, at least for now.

This should not be confused with honestly and trustingly engaging with the DA. Only time will tell whether the ANC has any desire to truly bring the country together or whether they are simply using the DA to stay in power while they wait for their rivals in the black nationalist sphere to implode and die so that the ANC can regain those votes and return to an effective majority. Nonetheless, the effect is the same: The ANC is doing its part to turn down the temperature of engagement.

The new face of the ANC is trying to sell this idea of being a unifying force in the country, so they're now happy to avoid turning up the heat so long as it means they get good words from the DA and a comfortable relationship in the GNU.

‍

Crystal Ball‍

What the future entails is not clear from where we stand. The clamping down on the worst of our political dialogue is a strong sign that the country is back on track in unifying, but we should not be naive. This new era of multi-party South Africa is still entirely dependent on the movements of the ANC. With each administration, we have seen them fundamentally shift the narrative in dramatic ways.

There is no guarantee that whoever replaces Cyril will look to sell the same narrative. If history is anything to go off of, they won't. We can only hope that whoever takes over the ANC from the current president will still be looking to sell a vision of South Africa that recognises the opposition, particularly minorities, as equally South African and refrains from dehumanising them. 

Any successful future must put consensus building, mutual dialogue, and humanisation at the centre of the national zeitgeist. Lest we start seeing each other as targets.

“Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.” - Proverbs 18:21

‍