The ANC Must Bring Back Apartheid

Since the first and second piece about bringing back apartheid, I’ve had a lot of (white) twitter commenters say I don’t lay enough of the blame for where we are at the ANC’s feet.  To rectify this, I’ll zoom in on the complicated romance between the ANC and white supremacy.

When we look at the ruling party, we get this impression that there exists a tension between its “good” guys and its “bad” guys.  Pravin Gordhan is the face of the ANC’s good side, and Jacob Zuma of its bad side.  But Pravin Gordhan and Jacob Zuma admit that they aren’t fighting against each other so we can know upfront that this impression is wrong.

Carol Paton’s BDLive article points out that depite Gordhan’s assurances that South Africa intends to practice sound governance, “State-owned enterprises continue to charge recklessly ahead, engaging in transactions and making deals with no regard for the Treasury or the laws that govern them.”  She’s most likely referring to the latest SAA scandal in which its board was allegedly going to benefit from a R256-million-rand fraud conspiracy.  The Sunday Times brought the story to public attention and Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse exposed that their appointed “transaction facilitator”, BnP Capital, wasn’t licensed to carry out their hastily-contrived fund-sourcing exercise, all within the space of days if not hours.

BnP Capital was meant to help find part or all of R14 billion rand to help cover SAA’s debts before 1 July, without which the airline would have to crash-land and close.  We’ve halfway through July and dololo Jesus crash-landing on earth to end SAA.  Assuming the airline couldn’t use its internal staff to raise the money needed to pay off debts and expenses, they could have still gotten Nedbank or Deloitte, for example, to do it for a comparably smaller rate.

Either Zuma and Gordhan are lying to each other or Zuma and Gordhan are lying to the rest of us.  In a trend consistent with the ANC’s neglect to fight for South Africans since 1994, the evidence better fits the latter hypothesis that Zuma and Gordhan are lying to us.

Prior to 1994, for better or for worse, the ANC was set to nationalise key businesses and use State power to effect post-apartheid redress.  I cannot emphasise these two questions about this transition enough, and they are

1.) Was there going to be redress without white people/business losing something in the process?

2.) Was there ever going to be a non-corrupt reason the ANC would refrain from changing the status quo?

The beneficiaries of apartheid, local and multi-national, were never forced to make reparations.  The ANC did refrain from changing the status quo.  It therefore follows that the ANC was bribed corrupt from Day 1.  This taints everyone in it who did not exit immediately on principle.

It also follows that the “good guys” serve to buy patience.  I’ve added a screenshot of a tweet insinuating that though Pravin Gordhan’s daughter, Anisha Gordhan, is also leadership at National Treasury, everyone only attacks Zuma for connecting his relatives to wealth and power.  If this is true, then the memo on the ANC’s “good cop bad cop” strategy didn’t filter down to all of Zuma’s supporters; they blew the cover on Gordhan’s own questionable gains in order to support Zuma, not knowing they were exposing that Zuma’s willingness to be the “bad guy” to Pravin’s “good guy” is the plan.


All along we’ve been told we should “protect” treasury staff from dishonest character assassinations.  The Finance Minister has actually broken down in tears.  Yet the bottom-line evidence at our state-owned enterprises indicates we’re being played by brilliant actors.  That few of the threats made against any of them have materialised corroborates that they weren’t real.

It’s tempting to believe the corrupt ANC people hate their good guys or vice-versa.  Except for a few murders at local government level, this isn’t true at the top.  Like your “good” and “bad” gut bacteria, the two sides need each other.

Every black ANC-supportive community has default big-voiced leaders.  They don’t necessarily have titles.  Their job is to promote the ANC and repeat its promises, for which they’re rewarded by the “bad” guys at the top.  They put them at the front of lines for tenders and other government work charged at inflated prices.  If the “bad” guys didn’t nurture these relationships, the “good” guys wouldn’t have jobs either because there wouldn’t be enough votes on the ground.

I suspect 90% of ANC supporters who contact me to stop prodding expect something from the party – a position, business deals, cash – otherwise they wouldn’t defend it.  What happens when it turns out too many of them have had the same sweet nothings whispered into their ears for the Congress to satisfy?  Richard Poplak’s Daily Maverick analyses on Tshwane uprisings indicate the bubble is about to pop.

While the scheme satisfies enough people to work, the “bad” guys’ symbiosis with the relevant black people on the ground keeps enough black people patient with the ANC that even the “good guys” keep their jobs.  This is necessary because when the party was bribed to maintain the status quo as it took political power from white minority rule in 1994, a post-liberation economic vacuum was created.  Simply put, the NP ensured that if whiteness couldn’t exploit black people, the incoming government would never have the controls to move money and land to black people the way the apartheid government ensured it got into white hands.

By ensuring that relevant black people get government business (or even if it’s just a government job), the ANC’s “bad guys” fulfil the terribly important role of keeping black voters complacent enough with the status quo the country signed on to when it “forgave” whiteness.  Zuma’s existence therefore maintains both white supremacy and a huge ecosystem of corruption.

When Dudu Myeni said she was fighting “racism” at SAA, we must conclude from the historical definition of racism (the systemic oppression and impoverishment of black people) that her particular form of “transformation” was ensuring her black “third party” supplier would get a cut of the loot.  Again: the ANC maintains white supremacy and the corruption many black people turn to for relief from the economic exclusion that comes with white supremacy’s maintenance.  The ANC giveth life and the ANC taketh life away.

In the end, white supremacy will prove an evil more “sustainable” and stable than nepotism, so we could stop here and say when the gravy train dries up and the music ends, we’re back to apartheid anyway.

In this, private-sector BEE is trickle-down economics meeting affirmative action’s tokenism, where a select few get rich for maintaining the 1994 sell-out.  How else do we explain a certain unionist turning into a multi-billionaire?

Who runs this whole scheme through the ANC?  Up until recently it’s been the Guptas.  The reason, for example, that Lindi Nkosi-Thomas could commit fraud on the same SAA Board, admit it and not be indicted by the Public Protector/SAPS/NPA, or that Dudu Myeni can scheme to siphon off millions and not get fired, is they’re all at the same trough owned by the same feeders.  Now and then they come forward to give this “good guys” and “bad guys” performance, but it serves to keep the game they all need going.  They know they need it because this is the only game that could keep the black vote post the 1994 sellout.

Gordhan’s role is to buy time for Zuma’s girlfriend to loot for him before she steps down in August.  And if she doesn’t get the score she wants, what with OUTA and Co. at her heels, she’ll be back on the board another term.  When she gives the signal, Zuma will give the nod and Pravin will “fire” her or Zuma will Judas Iscariot Gordhan by firing Myeni ahead of Gordhan doing so, say “See how slow and indecisive these lesser-qualified finance ministers you guys force on me are?  You should have let me keep Van Rooyen” and take credit for being a “listening” president.

The DA’s job used to be ensuring the ANC “behaved” enough to maintain the status quo and keep things “business as usual” for whiteness’s sake.  This worked in Mbeki’s time.  That mechanism collapsed for internal and external reasons.  Internal: the corruption injected into the ANC by the party’s love-affair with white monopoly capital exceeded the ANC’s political will to keep things business-as-usual.  The crumbs falling off of white monopoly capital’s table wouldn’t be sufficient to keep up with this burgeoning demand or, for that matter, the second and external force: the black people who were not benefitting under Mbeki’s Thatcherist reign and wanted their slice of the pie.  Indian money proved more sympathetic to this need because it very well understood how white supremacy had kept black people out of the economy while maintaining the myth of the moral whiteness of being white.  As the “distant” Mbeki was replaced with the “warm” Zuma, the Oppenheimers, Rothschilds, and other white pockets played a lesser role in ANC member’s enrichment to be replaced by the Vivian Reddys, Shabir Shaiks, and then ultimately, the Guptas, all of whom were happy to let bigger bread crumbs fall down to black people behind whiteness’s back.

In response, I’m guessing that behind the scenes white monopoly capital strengthened its alignment with the DA as opposition, which then took up its volume against ANC “corruption” with media (owned by who?  Exactly) following suit.

The fight against “corruption” is only over who gets to play with our state resources – England or India; Europe (the so-called “free” markets) or Asia (so-called communism, if you also look at Zuma’s love affair with the Chinese).  Zuma made the game work with the Chinese and the Indian; Mbeki made it work with the English.  Whoever owns the media and the rulebook gets to broadcast “the other’s” corruption.  Relative to a Freedom Charter rooted in history, our current rulebook (the Constitution) is whitist.

The DA’s job description evolved to pinning South Africa’s troubles on the ANC in order to deflect attention from any narrative in which the ANC’s current wrongs were contained in, explained and produced by white supremacy.  It instead offered the contrary explanation in which it is the ANC’s wrongs that aggravate the legacy of apartheid.  As Sisonke Msimang said in the 10th July City Press article, “It is concerning that when problems emerge in other provinces, Zille is quick to diagnose the problem as ANC incompetence, but when similar problems are pointed out in the Western Cape, she quickly lays the blame squarely on the door of black parents and working-class communities.”

Saluting the Constitution, the DA’s brief anti-racism pledge stops short of referencing ongoing systemic racism as a product of whiteness.  Two years ago, the party ran a #KnowYourDA campaign where it clarified its roots in the anti-apartheid struggle in response to perceptions that it was the DA that had run the apartheid state.  This seems absurd unless you’re someone who suspects the DA maintains the myth of the moral whiteness of being white.  That, too, is apartheid with the ugly scrubbed off, for economically it requires less redress and more “investment” from and to the whiteness that benefitted off this country under apartheid.

My suggestion that we go back to apartheid in no way contradicts what the ANC decided about the nation starting 23 years ago.  The explanation as to how whiteness fits into or benefits from this complex puzzle is only needed by white people who’ve never had white supremacy happen to them.

Where many think the ANC is the primary explanation for its own corruption, it was white supremacy that chronologically and otherwise came before ANC corruption.

Even if the ANC was the ultimate explanation for its own corruption, that, too, would count for an argument to #BringBackApartheid.

Either way, a trip back to its real roots (systemised white supremacy) would make South Africa more honest with itself.

Please follow and retweet: @SKhumalo1987


The Case for Apartheid

This post is going to cost me (even more) friends.  Oh well.

Following EWWI (Electronic World War One) over #BlackLivesMatter versus #AllLivesMatter over Friday and yesterday, I hereby make a case for as broad-scale a return of full-blown, institutionalised white supremacy as possible.

We Live White Supremacy Anyway

It has been generally known that Persons Of Colour (POCs) around the world get “the talk” in some form or another.

Growing up, we are made aware that there is a system that should, but does not, treat POCs the same way as white people.  This systemic racism most starkly shows its existence in instances of overt racism; the rest of the time it is subtle and insidious.  We are made aware that ignoring this system’s existence has graver consequences for POCs than it has for white people who never have to come to grips with their place of privilege in it.  This is why movements like #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) started.

On Friday, July 8 2016, this historic experience shared by countless POCs was supplanted in the imaginations of at least three white persons I know on Facebook, by the rantings of right-wing conspiracy theory mongers that explained police brutality as a measured response to black people’s unprovoked, unilateral violence against law enforcement agents.

How did these ill-founded speculations and distortions of fact get more airtime and traction on social media?  How have they come to so quickly shape a disproportionately larger part of the narrative than the lived experiences of many, many persons of colour?

How did mountains of video evidence of police brutality come to mean less than rumours?

Because black lives do not matter as much as the maintenance of white supremacy and the myth of the moral whiteness of whiteness, that is why.  Call people racist for believing this, and you become the bad guy.  Why?  Because whiteness is God.

Said conspiracy theorists say BLM proponents are playing into a scheme Obama’s backers cooked up to get him to power off of the back of (otherwise illegitimate) complaints about police brutality on black bodies.  They chose to believe that black people would prefer perpetual victimhood, the systemic mollycoddling and the “special rights” attendant to that, than to believe that real statistics really reflected real trends; they chose to believe that Obama’s speaking on gun violence and racial injustice was motivated more by political expediency than by actual events.  How was this explanation legitimised, oxygenated and entertained?  White supremacy.  We  are already living it.

How did the cry of one girlfriend of one black shooting victim get chosen to override and represent black voices who would otherwise say black lives matter?  How did these media sources manage to  find this one black woman when they hardly ever give airtime to BLM proponents?  Is that how finely their ears are tuned to the voices on the ground?  They must then know why the other voices are saying black lives matter, and not care.  So you must first give in to white supremacy for it to consider your voice worth hearing and your soul worth saving.

How did Dylan Roof’s assertion that black men were raping white women override, in white people’s imaginations, that it was white slave-masters who bought black Africans and abused them physically and sexually?  That black people have had horrendous medical experiments conducted on their bodies without their consent by the US government?  How did statistics and history get re-written?  White supremacy re-wrote it.

I could continue, but I think it is now plain to see that we live white supremacy.

White Supremacy and the South African Government

What if I told you that voting ANC is many black South Africans’ best chance at overriding the Constitution they see as blocking the path to the substantive equality demanded by the Freedom Charter?  Would that help explain why the ANC’s corruption and flouting of rules doesn’t lose them their core support base?

Government corruption, the melding of different entities’ powers or State to Party is how many of them make reparations happen when the beneficiaries of apartheid won’t admit how they got where they are.

The Mandelification of the 1994 transition served to turn our collective attention away from two questions: one, would it be possible to fix the wrongs of the past without making white people or businesses give up many of their gains?  Two: could there exist non-corrupt reasons for the ANC not to use State power to bring about substantive equality within a short time?

The answer to both questions was, and remains, No.

The fabulous wealth gained by a few struggle veterans who are now corrupt enrichers of their connected few friends was not a surprise or an aberration of the rainbow nation that began as apartheid ended.  It was the pre-planned 30 pieces of silver members of the incoming ruling elite were prepared to accept to maintain the status quo.

Two hypocrisies become clear:

One, the corruption of the ruling elite and those connected to them is railed against while what the status quo let white people keep is not.  Meanwhile, these are two sides of the same coin.

Two: the current government is judged by a standard the previous one was not when the current one really gets away with what it does because members of the previous one were not punished for their crimes.  Had they been punished, white supremacy would have crumbled.  Therefore, the two hypocrisies are one.

We tried to cheat history.  We tried to square the circle.  At best, it pushed out the real end of apartheid out another couple of decades.  At worst, it postponed an inevitable (and hideous) day of reckoning.  These two, also, are the same conclusion.

The case for apartheid, then, is this: bring the whole thing back so it may stand or fall in its totality.  The alternative, which is where we are going, is too frightening to contemplate.


The trick isn’t to fight white supremacy but to scrape and bow before it.  Let us worship all white people as though they were God, so that if they have any fear of God (conscience) they will fight white supremacy themselves and in so doing, avoid that terrifying alternative we are headed towards.  I see no other way to fix South Africa or, for that matter, every place that is ruled by white supremacy.

We must forcibly deny them and their children opportunities to develop or demonstrate virtues like humility and patience.  They must not be allowed to wait for anything, must always get undue credit for everything that goes right and no blame for anything that goes wrong, even when it is their fault.  Imputing perfect moral track records to them against their choice is how we would reject the superficial virtue-signalling that accompany condemnations of overt acts of racism but never covert and on-going racism.

Many white people have accused us of forcing them into the same mould in our discussions of whiteness.  This is actually a pretty telling (and disingenuous) suggestion on their part, one I think we must take literally.

The “woke” ones would understand why this is being done to all white people; the semi-woke ones who’d have us settle for less than complete intellectual dishonesty, however, would be disoriented by this subversion of their claim to distinctness from oppressive systems.  Their denial of complicity would be rendered meaningless until they all agree to overthrow the system (now in-your-face and out in the stark open) that favours white skin.

White supremacy would be forced to fully come face-to-face with its unmasked self, no filter option.  Brought into the open to rule by daylight, none of white supremacy’s beneficiaries would be able to deny that they have benefitted and continue to benefit from systemic racism.

We would have to make it blatant: “You are getting special treatment because you are white,” we would say as we force that special treatment on them.  They would be damned for accepting it and damned if they don’t.  The only way out of this trap would be their dismantling white privilege in its totality and not a convenient, partial dismantling thereof in its less essential parts.

We would put up signs reading, “whites only” on places: full-on segregation.  This would serve to ensure they can never just take some of the privilege so as to deny having had any of it on account of whiteness alone.

Force them to the front of lines because they’re white.  Imagine, entire supermarket queues chanting the words, “because you’re white!”  When waiters try to pick tables to attend to first, we would yell that they should start with those occupied by white people.  This is assuming we would be in the same restaurants.  Car cut you off in traffic?  Everyone yells “you may because you’re white!”  Refuse equal pay for equal work or access to comparable opportunities (assuming you have been getting it).  Where the world would whisper of rumours of white superiority, let us accept nothing less than it being shouted from rooftops.

Where they previously took it for granted that their discomfort at hearing or reading about white supremacy was sufficient reason for us to not talk about it, let us reject our complicity in our oppression by rejecting the pretense that neutrality was an option or that white supremacy was gone.  Where we were expected to explain white supremacy, let us return it so no explanation is necessary.

You do not have to hate white people to see the logic in what I am saying; you simply have to love intellectual honesty.  Indeed, a love of white people not founded on intellectual honesty is not love at all.

The cost on black lives can be managed once white supremacy doesn’t have to fight black resistance in order to reach total domination.  If we let it win without a fight, we let it revel out in the open in all its glorious shame.  Who, then, will be able to deny that it exists?

For these reasons, I submit that if we cannot completely get rid of apartheid, we must completely bring it back.

The tragedy is that though a lot of black people will agree with this method of confronting white supremacy, I would have to hunt down and entrust right-wing white supremacists with its rollout.  We hate the status quo, but not enough to beat it at its own game.

I would rather have apartheid that calls itself that than apartheid that calls itself democracy.


Follow and Share: @SKhumalo1987