Julius Malema, the enfant terrible of South African politics, feels he\u2019s got President Cyril Ramaphosa just where he wants him.<\/p>\n
Since his expulsion from the ruling African National Congress five years ago, Malema, 37, and the Economic Freedom Fighters have targeted setting the national agenda before next year\u2019s elections.<\/p>\n
The party has been key in pushing the ANC into a forceful stance in support of expropriation of land without compensation and free university education.<\/p>\n
Now it\u2019s demanding that the ANC fulfill a pledge it made eight months ago to nationalise the central bank.<\/p>\n
Ramaphosa last month announced plans to amend the constitution to allow the state to take land without paying for it to address skewed ownership patterns that date back to apartheid and colonial rule. The prospect of property rights being eroded has spooked investors, who the president is trying to persuade to pour $100 billion into the country to spur growth.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe EFF is in charge – the ANC is following us,\u201d Malema, whose 25 lawmakers dressed in red miner and maid outfits regularly spark uproars in parliament, said in an interview.<\/p>\n
\u201cThrough their land announcement, they had to look for something that changed the narrative. That\u2019s why they came out as desperately like they did.\u201d<\/p>\n
Land Redistribution<\/strong><\/p>\n ANC chairman Gwede Mantashe has suggested that land ownership should be limited to 12,000 hectares (29,652 acres) per farm owner and white farmers who hold more than that should cede the rest to the state for redistribution.<\/p>\n That approach, which is supported by a populist faction in the ANC, doesn\u2019t tie with Ramaphosa\u2019s reassurances that a policy change won\u2019t damage production, as happened in neighboring Zimbabwe, where land grabs that started in 2000 triggered an economic collapse.<\/p>\n The ANC\u2019s U-turn on property rights comes after its support fell to a record low of 54.5% in a 2016 municipal vote when it lost control of three of the biggest cities, including the economic hub of Johannesburg, to opposition coalitions. The EFF won 8.2% support and the main opposition Democratic Alliance 27%.<\/p>\n Wagging The Dog<\/strong><\/p>\n Since then, on the policy front, it\u2019s become a case of the tail wagging the dog, according to Tinyiko Maluleke, a political analyst based at the University of Pretoria.<\/p>\n \u201cSo small is the EFF, it\u2019s the tail in this case, it\u2019s able to wag the big dog,\u201d he said by phone. \u201cThe EFF always takes the opportunity when there are issues like this to call the ANC\u2019s bluff, to say \u2018if you have all these radical decisions to take at your conferences, we are going to help you implement them.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n The ANC denies following the EFF\u2019s lead on land, saying it came up with the idea of amending the constitution to ensure that the government could effectively manage redistribution while taking account of both investors and those who hunger to farm. \u201cIf you occupy illegally the land without changing the constitution, you are shooting yourself in the head,\u201d Jessie Duarte, the ruling party\u2019s deputy secretary-general, said in an interview. \u201cWe are not responding to Malema. We discussed this, and we thought we need to do things properly.\u201d<\/p>\n The fractious nature of the debate suggests South Africa has dispensed with the politics of negotiation that prevailed during the era of Nelson Mandela and led to the end of white-minority rule, according to Ralph Mathekga, an independent political analyst.<\/p>\n \u201cThis creates a very tense policy implementation environment, where political parties are exchanging ultimatums on policy, and shifting away from a consensus approach toward an either \u2018my way or the highway\u2019 approach to politics,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\nFractious Debate<\/p>\n
\n