Frequently Ramaphosa-centric commentators in the mainstream media, ie those who are or were once but deep down still are Ramaphorias, state as fact he's this great consensus-builder and negotiator.
They state so based on three-decade-old negotiations that led to 1994's elections. But otherwise they're unable to name significant instances of consensus or negotiated outcomes that Ramaphosa as president of the country was primarily responsible for.
Not examples of internal ANC deliberations, though, because they always agree what's good for the ANC. But even then, Ramaphosa is not as influential with the party's decision-makers as made out. He had to retract the trade cabinet portfolio offered to the DA, didn't he. And kept mediocre and corrupt ministers and a bloated cabinet to satisfy ANC rent-seekers when the national consensus, even among ANC-friendly commentators, is that it's not in SA's interest. So where is his supposed skill in this?
Ramaphoria started with the euphoria - relief - of him replacing Zuma and his presidency in 2018. Ramaphorias responded to Ramaphosa's lackluster start and empty promises - smaller cabinet and reducing government waste and kick-starting investment and growth - with excuses (he had to get all the ANC behind him). However, after 12 months even they had run out of positive things to say and the mood changed to disappointment.
Mmusi Maimane writes, "I vividly recall in those first months of Ramaphosa’s administration, the groupthink within the chattering class was to go easy and play with kid gloves because we couldn’t afford a Zuma acolyte making a move. When we uncovered that corruption-tainted Bosasa not only had links to his son but had also donated to his leadership campaign, it was not greeted with the same energy that followed the Nkandla saga."
Despite the obvious failure of Ramaphosa, the myth and alt-fact of him being a super negotiator and consensus-builder has remained. In his column this week Daily Maverick's Tim Cohen has again made this claim about government of national unity (GNU) negotiations: "Ramaphosa is good at this. He is comfortable seeking and finding common ground; interacting with people with whom he probably doesn’t agree; and talking things through."
Cohen writes that the coalition is Ramaphosa's legacy - it's his last term - and therefore must succeed. Yet nothing he says - the column's title, description of ANC machinations and bad faith and conclusion trust between DA and ANC is poor and getting worse - shows evidence of Ramaphosa's alleged consensus and common ground building. The DA are the loser in the coalition and apparently accepted because it decided the few, compromised benefits outweighed the risks to which they, for the time being, set aside.
But nothing about this situation is due to consensus or common ground seeking by Ramaphosa or any party, DA, ANC or others. Voters gave the ANC their decision and forced them into a coalition government.
The ANC, obviously including Ramaphosa, were forced into coalition with DA by EFF and MK's - their ideological comrades - irrational demands.
The ANC executive forced Ramaphosa to withdraw cabinet offers to DA, and even if he was part of that decision at some level, he forced DA into accepting six posts rather than the eight or nine which they wanted and was fair. And forced them to be part of a government in which they're not really free to act as members of the cabinet heading portfolios.
In a sign of amazing bad faith, Ramaphosa, or ANC's executive which really is in control despite their protests to the contrary, he appointed an ANC deputy minister to the ministries where the DA are deputy ministers. This means the DA will never deputise for an ANC minister, just as FW de Klerk could not deputise for Mandela during the first government of national unity. That GNU lasted two years before De Klerk withdrew citing bad faith and irreconcilable differences.
How does any of this show or prove Ramaphosa's supposed good consensus-building skills? Cohen even admitted the "GNU is a forced marriage" of parties that have nothing in common. Both he and Steenhuisen, for ANC and DA, have their executive committees "looking over their shoulders", which are telling or guiding them what to do. If Ramaphosa had developed such "common ground" between the two parties, why is the "level of trust [between them] poor and getting worse"?
I'll say what I said previously that Ramaphosa has been and is a poor president and leader: weak, unsure of himself and what's in the country's interests, indecisive, even afraid. SA's worsening socioeconomic situation under him proves it. What common ground or consensus did he achieve during his term with, between and among any group of South Africans about what must and ought to be done to improve our conditions? Empty promises which he's famous for don't count.
This is not a good deal for the DA; they're clearly at a disadvantage but for better or worse desperately want to be in government. Curiously they rejected similar minority cabinet posts from ANC for joining the Gauteng coalition, though.
We can speculate how long the DA will remain in the coalition but if they do for five years, it will be fractious and unhelpful to arresting SA's decline.
Comments
Post a Comment