In (South) Africa, it is politics of the belly.

In (South) Africa, it is politics of the belly. 1. Introduction Africans speak of a 'politics of the belly' - an expression that refers not only to the necessities of survival but also to a complex array of cultural representations, notably those of the 'invisible' world of necromancy. The 'politics of the belly' attests to a distinctively African trajectory of power that we need to understand as part of a long-term historical development.

Politics in South Africa, in the entire continent, is the politics of the stomach. It is no longer about the people, by the people, and for the people. I recall the first democratic dispensation in South Africa. We were all excited and hero-worshipped icons like Mandela, Sisulu, Tambo, etc. We believed that within five years, a dent of democracy would be felt.

I am afraid that nothing has been achieved in 30 years of democracy, and I believe there will be nothing in the next 30 years.

I now believe that democracy is a relative term used to allay citizens' fears.

The Bible has brought nothing but poverty to a selected group and wealth to another. The library of books in the Bible is used selectively by one group of citizens and another part by another group. I wish it had not been brought to Africa and the self-discovery process had continued. I have been a Christian since birth, and I believe in the presence of the Deity.

Let's explore together my statement in this book that the politics of South Africa, maybe Africa or the World, is the politics of self-enrichment

2. Politics in South Africa from 1994 to 2024 It smelled fresh air to both the haves and the not-haves. The haves started packing their bags and filling their wallets with state resources, and the not-haves were overwhelmed by democracy, apprehension and confusion. The West was calling equally as the East was. The not-haves got gobble-smacked and forgot to do government work, but some realised it was about their stomach after befriending the haves.

The first democratic president was seen as the Messiah, but he never saw himself like that. When he introduced severance packages to civil and public servants, he said that the state is not an employment agency. Maybe he was correct, but he said this at the wrong time. The not-haves were looking up to him to save them from poverty, inequality and unemployment. The first president did his best to introduce poverty reduction dispensation. Unfortunately, his cabinet or his party saw an opportunity for self-enrichment. After befriending the economic heavyweights of the then government, some of them were placed in lucrative opportunities using the words BEE, BBEE, and eventually BBBEE. The economy was beginning to drag, but it was not bad. The Reconstruction and Development Plan (RDP) started in this era. That is why we are talking about RDP Houses, etc.

The next president of the democratic era began with sophisticated bureaucratic disaggregated policies. I remember terms like ASGISA, GEAR, JIPSA, etc. Even today, I am still gobble-smacked about the objective, let alone the impact, of these. African Renaissance was the term to unite or further separate Africa. The president spent most of the period out of the country, unsure whether he was attracting investment or promoting the enrichment of a specific group, which was not so big. Before his term of office ended, his nemesis recalled him ungracefully. As an academician, he didn’t contest or raise a fist but accepted the recall, although he was not deployed officially. He was on peace missions in some African countries, not outside Africa.

The third president took power when the unemployment rate was shocking, and there was a massive gap between the haves and the not-haves. Unfortunately, he had no option but to allow looting and *******ion legally. If you were a politician of the belly, you had to visit his homestead as fast as possible to be seen aligning with him.

It was not so late that the haves and the not-haves saw his intentions. Cabinet or senior civil or public servants would receive calls to speak to certain people and see how they could assist them. These people arrived in South Africa with a small bag of clothes, but when they realised they could be incarcerated for detested wealth accumulation, they disappeared with opulence. Today, they are still called persona non grata to account for what they did.

This period was an era of cabinet, and public office bearers were recalled in the nick of time. One cabinet member was discharged a few minutes after the president announced his cabinet reshuffle. The president, after him, was his deputy, although today, they no longer drink from the same pot.

The next president, after two decades of democracy, who is still present, currently took the reins or was given an office but did not decide as the leader of the country. Several strange events took place. I remember one day, he boarded a train from Mabopane station, which took almost 4 hours to reach Pretoria station, and he only said that he was surprised (He was nicknamed Dimakatso: one who is surprised). He also promised striking public servants during workers’ days a decent salary adjustment and never adjusted their salary that year.

The first term of this president was riddled with internal fighting, the self-enrichment of his cabinet, and a near civil war of looting. During the state looting, his cabinet did not speak the same language of bringing order; it was as if they were competing on who was the best.

From 1994 to 2024, our country saw the collapse of state entities such as Airways, Transnet, Prasa, Post Office, Eskom Waterboards, etc. COVID exacerbated this. Today, we speak of building infrastructure but will not because we must redo broken and failing infrastructure. The economy has collapsed, and ******ion is at its highest. Qualified citizens seeking employment in the state have to bribe state officials.

The above events clearly show that you can fool one sometimes, but you cannot always fool them.

Over the past 30 years of democracy, several lessons have been learnt from South Africa’s experience with democracy. Here are some of the lessons learnt: a. Cooperation among races: South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy emphasised the importance of cooperation among races. The negotiations that led to the end of apartheid involved various stakeholders, including political parties, civil society organisations, and leaders from multiple racial and ethnic groups. This cooperation laid the foundation for a more representative and participatory democracy. b. Respect for Human Rights: Upholding human rights is fundamental to a thriving democracy. Preserved in its constitution, South Africa’s Bill of Rights guarantees various civil, political, and socio-economic rights. Protecting and promoting these rights is essential for ensuring the dignity and well-being of all citizens. c. Vigilance: Democracy requires vigilance because its emergence did not automatically resolve all the problems encountered in the country. Therefore, democratic institutions must be continuously strengthened, and citizens must be fully engaged and vigilant to hold their leaders accountable. South Africa’s experience underscores the importance of robust democratic institutions, including an independent judiciary, free press, and active civil society. d. Inequality: Despite political independence, South Africa still struggles with deep-rooted economic and social inequalities inherited from the apartheid era. Effective democracy requires addressing these disparities through policies that promote inclusive growth and equitable access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. e. Combatting *******ion: Strong anti-*******ion measures, transparency, and accountability are essential for a healthy democracy. However, *******ion has been a challenge to South Africa's democracy. Efforts to combat *******ion must be prioritised to ensure that public resources are used for the benefit of all citizens. f. Social Cohesion and Nation-Building: Building a cohesive society requires deliberate efforts to bridge gaps and foster a sense of national identity. South Africa’s diverse population presents both challenges and opportunities for nation-building. Promoting social cohesion through inclusive policies, cultural exchange, and dialogue can help overcome divisions and build a more vital unity.

What are the opportunities derived from democracy in South Africa?

The 30 years of democracy in South Africa have provided valuable insights into the complexities and variations of democratic governance. While significant progress has been made, challenges remain, and the journey toward a more just, inclusive, and prosperous society continues. Despite these challenges, South Africa’s democracy has also created various opportunities for development and progress. These opportunities are highlighted as follows: a. Social Inclusion and Diversity: Democracy has provided an opportunity to embrace South Africa’s rich diversity and promote social inclusion. The country’s democratic institutions and processes allow for the representation and participation of diverse communities, fostering a sense of belonging and unity among citizens from different racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds. b. Growth and Economic Development: Democracy provides a conducive environment for economic development and growth by promoting stability, transparency, and accountability. South Africa’s democratic institutions, such as an independent judiciary and free press, help ensure the rule of law and protect property rights, encouraging investment and entrepreneurship. c. Promotion of Human Rights and Civil Liberties: Democracy has protected and promoted human rights and civil liberties in South Africa. The country’s constitution preserves a wide range of rights, including freedom of expression, association, and assembly, which allow individuals to voice their opinions, advocate for change, and hold their government accountable. d. Strengthening Institutions: The transition to democracy has led to the establishment and strengthening of democratic institutions in South Africa, including parliament, independent electoral commissions, and watchdog offices. These institutions play a crucial role in upholding the principles of democracy, safeguarding citizens’ rights, and ensuring the accountability of government officials. e. International Cooperation and Diplomacy: Democracy enhances South Africa’s standing in the international community and opens diplomatic engagement and cooperation opportunities. As a democratic country, South Africa can build alliances, negotiate trade agreements, and participate in international organisations to advance its interests and contribute to global peace and development. f. Youth Engagement and Empowerment: Democracy encourages the active participation of young people in civic and political life, offering them opportunities to engage in decision-making processes, advocate for their rights, and contribute to social change. South Africa’s youthful population represents a significant demographic dividend with the potential to drive innovation, entrepreneurship, and sustainable development. g. Transitional Justice and Reconciliation: Democracy provides a framework for addressing past injustices and promoting reconciliation. South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established after apartheid, exemplifies the country’s commitment to healing wounds, acknowledging historical wrongs, and building a more just and inclusive society. h. Environmental Sustainability: Democracy enables citizens to participate in environmental governance and advocate for sustainable development practices. South Africa’s democratic processes allow for public input and oversight in ecological decision-making, fostering conservation efforts, and promoting the responsible management of natural resources.

Challenges of Democracy in South Africa. Despite the significant progress made since the beginning of democracy in South Africa, the country is still facing numerous challenges. Below are some of the critical challenges encountered in the past 30 years of democracy: a. Political Polarization: Political polarisation and factionalism within the ruling African National Congress (ANC) and among opposition parties have sometimes hindered effective governance and policy implementation. Divisions within the political landscape can impede consensus-building and undermine efforts to address pressing socio-economic challenges. b. Unemployment rates, particularly among young people, are still high. Limited job creation, skills mismatches, and structural barriers contribute to the persistence of high unemployment rates, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. c. *******ion: *******ion continues to be a significant challenge in South Africa, undermining democratic institutions, eroding public trust, and diverting resources from critical public services. High-profile *******ion scandals involving political leaders and public officials have highlighted the need for more robust anti-*******ion measures and greater accountability. d. Education: While significant strides have been made in expanding access to education since the end of apartheid, the quality of education remains uneven, and many schools lack basic infrastructure and resources. Educational outcomes continue to be influenced by socio-economic factors, perpetuating cycles of poverty and inequality. e. Crime and Violence: High levels of crime and violence, including gender-based violence, pose a threat to South Africa’s democracy. Inadequate law enforcement, socio-economic factors, and historical legacies contribute to the persistence of crime, undermining citizens’ sense of security and trust in the state. f. Land Reform: Land reform remains a contentious issue in South Africa, with persistent calls for the redistribution of land to address historical injustices and promote inclusive economic development. However, progress on land reform has been slow, and debates over land ownership, tenure rights, and compensation are fraught with political and legal challenges. g. Xenophobia and Social Cohesion: Xenophobic attacks and tensions between South Africans and foreign nationals pose challenges to social cohesion and the inclusive nature of democracy. Addressing xenophobia requires concerted efforts to promote tolerance and respect for human rights.

3. Politics in South Africa in 2024 going forward The beginning of 2024 started with electioneering by almost 200 parties. By the way, the retired third president established his party in December 2023, stating that he remains the then-ruling party member but will not vote it into government. He will also join a pact with existing parties. A new party was organised, and this new party had to hit the road running.

The road to 29th May was tough, rough, and riddled with immoral spats within and between parties; worse was the ruling party.

29 May 2024 arrived, and to the ruling party’s shock, it only got 40%, which was never expected after it had enlisted its morally strong, respected veterans to assist in canvassing for elections.

A party less than six months old emerged, shocking parties as old as a stone. Was this to happen? As one professor said, " You judge for yourself.”

Now, a decision has to be made. A Government of National Unity (GNU) was established a month later. Different opinions or understandings of GNU and schools of thought were aroused. One said the GNU with a particular party et al. is a continuation of haves looting the current, and the other GNU with a specific party et al. is ensuring radical economic transformation, which I think has failed due to the politics of the stomach.

Currently, we pay our taxes to the GNU of the haves. Strangely, after a few months, this government increased unemployment, but the GDP and the Rand increased by a marginal 3%, and fuel decreased for two consecutive months. Is this not a manipulative of events, or is it an actual state of affairs since the GNU of the haves came to power? You judge for yourself.

4. Politics of the Stomach Undoubtedly, the liberation party, the African National Congress (ANC), would win the May general elections. The only issue was the percentage of support they were going to lose. But as Pusch Commey reports from Johannesburg, after 20 years and four elections, the euphoria of political freedom and black majority rule has waned, and the debate in the country has shifted progressively towards material benefits, in effect “what is in it for us”, economically speaking. As said in my mother tongue: “Ndifumana ntoni?”

Pragmatic consensus and the general question leading to the May elections centred on: Has the African National Congress delivered its promise of a better life for all in its 20 years at the helm of Africa’s second-largest economy? After 20 years of what many have termed the era of “stomach politics,” 10 May 2014, the day that the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) announced the final election results in seamless, exemplary real-time, was also poignantly symbolic: 10 May was the day Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as the first black president of the country in 1994. The main results showed that The African National Congress brand was still a powerful force. But provincial elections were not all that rosy. Worryingly for the ANC, the fact was that in the more sophisticated province of Gauteng, the 4th largest economy on the continent, which houses the wealthiest city in Africa, Johannesburg, the ANC lost as much as ten percentage points of the popular vote, a significant climbdown from 64% in 2009 to 53.6%. Despite some gains by the ANC’s arch-rival, the Democratic Alliance (DA), which has vowed to stamp out *******ion, grow the economy, and create six million real jobs, it is the new kid on the block, the EFF (Economic Freedom Fighters), led by Julius Malema, the expelled fiery former president of the ANC youth league, which put the election result in a different light. The party formed barely eight months before the election managed to secure 1,169,259 votes – 6.35% of the popular vote. It was a clear message to the ANC that the EFF's economic freedom message was resonating with the electorate, and given time, the EFF will become a significant force to reckon with. Municipal elections are up for grabs in 2016, and the next national elections in 2019.

Proportional representation In South Africa’s proportional representation system, the people vote for the party. The percentage of votes obtained by the party translates into the number of seats in the 400-seat parliament, which elects the president with a simple majority. This formula is replicated in nine provinces, which have provincial legislatures.

The decline of ANC support is reflected in the allocation of seats – from 264 seats in 2009, the ANC now has 249 seats. The DA increased from 67 to 89, while the EFF opened with 25. With the vocal and irrepressible Julius Malema and the EFF in the house, no doubt there will be fireworks in the new parliament.

The ANC’s 102-year-old liberation credentials and illustrious history anc****d in icons like Nelson Mandela meant that it would not be easily toppled, irrespective of allegations of *******ion, maladministration and incompetence against the president and his functionaries.

As a result, the opposition strategy, which focused on the president’s indiscretions, failed to yield a big harvest of votes. However, it sent out warning signals of what is yet to come if the ANC brand continues to be tarnished. Once there is a psychological shift from brand loyalty, it will be tough for the party to claw it back.

For example, once the populace crosses the enormous psychological barrier that it is ok to vote for a white-led party like the Democratic Alliance, the ANC will have much to worry about. It is the population’s attachment to this marriage and the deep apartheid wounds that have returned the party to power every time, irrespective of its difficulties. But now those who have divorced the party are unlikely to return to the household.

If they still find it difficult to vote white, they will defect in droves to the EFF. And that is if the EFF can keep their shape, passion and hunger going into subsequent elections.

This is my observation since the dawn of democracy in South Africa that we join politics to safeguard a pay cheque for me and maybe the household. I will give one or two scenarios proving my statement:

Scenario 1: Against the GNU It seems the ANC and EFF were to form a GNU, but because the EFF had its demands, e.g. The EFF leader to be a Deputy President and One EFF Senior Member a Cabinet Finance Minister. This was too much for some of the ANC technocrats, and the GNU with EFF failed. Well, the EFF wanted MK to rule KZN. This also failed. What the EFF/MK and other disgruntled parties not only wish but will ensure that the GNU collapses, and this happens as quickly as yesterday. And not for the current GNU to collapse for the sake of the citizens, but because the leader of the EFF has been saying that we like it or not, he will rule (loot) this country. This leader has seen that he will never go to jail for his VBS scandals and others if he's in the cabinet. Let alone, being in the cabinet in South Africa is having opulence and tenders via you.

Something to laugh but be serious about the EFF president was asked in public if he is ready to relinquish the office of the EFF president. He vociferously said no and is prepared for reflection at the conference in 2024. The senior EFF leaders, after hearing such a statement, started to resign, and I am afraid more, not EFF secretary only, will. I am expecting as we go to local elections in 2026 partnership and alliance of EFF and MK just like the ANC and its alliance which currently is collapsing.

SACP and COSATU, take a look at your alliance with ANC and look for an alternative coalition before you are entirely decimated. Something I observed during electioneering, especially on the Workers’ Day when the President of COSATU, Ms Losi, and SACP General Secretary, Mr Mapaila, were singing and worshipping President Ramaphosa, even a fool could see that they were whispering to the President to include them in Cabinet. This never happened. Now, Mapaila is vocal against the GNU and critics of the ANC. COSATU President is as silent as a mouse. As I said, it is politics of the stomach.

Scenario2: For the GNU It became clear as daylight when the DA received the most significant slice of party donors that the haves want, by hook or *****, the stable, although riddled with differences, GNU. The ANC, IFP, DA and smaller parties formed a GNU. It's strange to see parties like President Nyhontso’s and the Good Party as part of the GNU. Of course, this had to happen because of the politics of the stomach. These parties do not share a common interest, but they are a GNU because they ensure bread is on the table for them.

I am cautioning the GNU that the citizens of South Africa are watching you, and if no significant changes happen, the local elections will judge you harshly.

5. Politics of no morals and no care There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be helpful to us just because he is a scoundrel. In politics, morals often take a back seat to expedience. This notion, expressed by Vladimir Lenin in the quote, "There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel," encapsulates the pragmatic nature of political manoeuvring. Lenin implies that politicians are willing to overlook the moral shortcomings of individuals if they can help achieve their goals. This quote highlights the Machiavellian essence of politics, where the end justifies the means. However, beyond the seemingly cynical view of politics lies a more profound philosophical concept that challenges the notion of an absolute separation between morals and expedience. While Lenin's quote may initially appear to endorse an amoral approach to politics, it opens up the opportunity to explore the intersection of ethics and practicality. In considering the role of a scoundrel in politics, we must acknowledge that individuals deemed morally questionable often possess specific skills, knowledge, or connections that can prove advantageous in achieving particular objectives. This raises the question: should a person's character be entirely disregarded when assessing their potential contribution in a political context? By acknowledging that a scoundrel may be helpful, Lenin suggests that politicians are willing to navigate ethically grey areas to accomplish their political goals. However, it is essential to understand that morality is not black and white. Different ethical frameworks exist, and what may be considered morally acceptable from one perspective might be deemed objectionable from another. While some may perceive a scoundrel as ethically bankrupt, others may view them as individuals with unique skills or attitudes that can contribute to the greater good. This realisation prompts us to question whether politicians should evaluate individuals solely based on their moral character or judge them more holistically, considering their potential contributions. It is in this grey area that the intersection of morals and expedience resides. By recognising that a scoundrel could bring value to the political realm, Lenin challenges conventional moral judgments and urges a deeper exploration of the complex relationship between ethics and practicality in politics. An interesting aspect to consider when contemplating the implications of Lenin's quote is the potential for the transformation of a scoundrel. Can a scoundrel, through their involvement in politics, be reformed or motivated to act in ways that align with societal moral standards? This raises the possibility of utilising politics as a means of not only achieving practical goals but also encouraging personal growth and the betterment of society. Furthermore, Lenin's quote highlights the delicate ethical balancing act politicians face. On the one hand, prioritising expedience can compromise one's moral principles, potentially undermining the foundations of a just society. On the other hand, ignoring practical considerations may hinder progress or prevent politicians from effectively implementing policies that could benefit humanity. Striking the right balance between these conflicting factors is a difficult task that necessitates introspection, pragmatism, and a nuanced understanding of the consequences of political decisions. In conclusion, Vladimir Lenin's quote, "There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel," challenges our perception of the relationship between ethics and practicality in politics. While it signifies the realisation that sometimes politicians overlook individuals' moral character to achieve their goals, it also invites us to consider a more comprehensive perspective. Lenin's quote encourages a deeper examination of the intricate interplay between morals and political experience by exploring the potential contributions a scoundrel can bring and questioning the nature of morality. Ultimately, it reminds us that the ethical path in politics is not always straightforward but requires careful consideration to strike a balance that serves both the aims of politicians and the greater good of society. In (South African and African) politics, it is nothing but cutthroat. You either get into politics fully to ensure you are persistent and the moral fibre is not in you, or you might not survive. Unfortunately, politics is politics of the belly, and soon, you will be without morals and will no longer care.

EFF leader continues propagating news as he is the one who knows and understands politic; he will soon be shocked. The election results have taught him a lesson, and I hope he has learnt or is reading the election and should go back to read the results, which I don’t believe. The resignation of some of his members has him spatting and bleeding with arrogance. When the snake has bitten you, you quickly have to suck out the poison before it spreads and makes you lame and possibly die. EFF has to take introspection seriously, and the EFF leader should be willing to accept any event towards their conference. EFF is bigger than EFF leaders; it's president inclusive.

ANC has lost several seats, but I know that the ANC is crude and slim. As I write this script, all occupants of lost seats shall have or will be redeployed to Embassies, the UN, the ANU, and other lucrative positions to appease them and so that they hold onto the party. We know those close to the MK leader have joined the MK; others are still contemplating.

MK has to take hid that a party without structures and a constitution will continue having individuals doing their own or what they think safeguards their bread. It is politics of the belly. Watch the court's ruling on the discharged MKs. This could bloat the party, which will spend most of its time resolving such matters, and shockingly, the MK might not appear victorious in the coming local elections. I have my doubts that your survival could be short-lived.

DA, Action SA, IFP, Good, PAC, and others note that although you are in the GNU, continue holding the GNU accountable; otherwise, the local elections will see some, if not all, of you receive an insignificant percentage.

6. There is no such thing as the Politics of Democracy There is no such thing as this because every government institution experiences unique challenges and does not react in the same way to resolve them. Some believe in peaceful means, while others believe in dictatorial democracy.

What complicates democracy, and still is, is religion because religions cannot be criticised if they resort to non-peaceful options to challenge democracy. It is a course of concern that democracies assume religion as humidifier of their states. Democratic state centralises their existence with religion. This promotes religion at the expense of democracy.

If democracy existed, there wouldn’t be huge gaps between the haves and the not-haves, and there wouldn’t be poverty and inequality. The state by the people, for the people and with the people would reign supreme. This is not true.

Pericles, an ancient Greek statesman and general during the Golden Age of Athens, was alleged to have stated that democracy will “afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if to social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way; if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life.”

This feels imperative in a country as diverse as South Africa, where the need for multiple voices and opinions to be heard is a requirement. Looking back on the cruelties of apartheid, on the vast numbers of people who were subjected to inhumane treatment, it is not hard to understand why a democratic (or at least the attempts at one) is an alternative that we must continue to strive for.

Perhaps Winston Churchill’s words are useful here: “Democracy is the worst government, except for all the others.”

There is no denying that the South African political climate as it stands is riddled with problems and is far from the idealistic vision its Constitution paints. But there is also no denying that the base on which we are operating is far superior to the form that it took during the colonial and apartheid years.

The point here is not to debate what could have made this epic dream of an ideal South African democracy go wrong, but rather to remind ourselves that, as a nation, we made a concerted effort to imagine one at all. There was once a will, but we have lost sight of the way.

Perhaps we can find, in the seeds of past hope, a determination to grow more. Things have not gone to plan, that much is clear. What is also clear is that the people of South Africa have united for democracy before, and we can do so again. Or, if not in the name of democracy, then perhaps in the name of something even better.

As soon as the government is established and in place, democracy disappears because of the many needs the state struggles to consider. Arrogance and Ignorance show their ugly heads and politics of the stomach become the order of the day.

7. If the politics of the stomach continues The politics of the stomach can absorb some, but most citizens continue to suffer, which could lead to disaster. Recently, we heard that some teachers will be retrenched, and some school Principals and Educational Officials are selling posts. This is a sign that people will not take it anymore.

Stomach politics, which refers to politicians caring about their own needs and which seems to override the interest of society, has led to political parties that have common objectives, either on the left or right of the political spectrum, avoiding mergers. The number of parties registered for this year’s election has reportedly rocketed to more than 300.

University of KwaZulu-Natal political analyst Zakhele Ndlovu said certain parties could easily merge to form one bigger party. The Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) party, which former president Jacob Zuma supports, shares the same language as the EFF, African Transformation Movement (ATM) and PAC when it comes to radical economic transformation objectives, which makes it easy for them to integrate.

Former MK Military Veterans' Association activist Carl Niehaus did exactly that when he collapsed his African Radical Economic Transformation Alliance (Areta) to join the EFF.

“I cannot understand why the PAC (which is struggling to survive) would not be swallowed by the EFF if they are so serious about bringing the land back to its rightful owners.

“That is the biggest problem in South African politics because people are always thinking about their own self-interest instead of looking at the broader interests of society.

“So the politics of the stomach plays a big role in stopping these parties from being swallowed by one another because some people fear that they won’t have positions in Parliament and get an income,” said Ndlovu.

Ndlovu believed that MK was co-founded by people who have been sidelined by President Cyril Ramaphosa’s administration.

“They decided to break away from the ANC because the Ramaphosa faction is looking after its supporters and they are not giving the Zuma people positions of power and tenders,” said Ndlovu.

Legal analyst Mpumelelo Zikalala, who comments on political matters as well, said some leaders might differ with some of the policies of parties they generally support.

“They may have similar points when it comes to radical economic transformation (RET) but they may differ radically in terms of other policies.

“One bad thing about the conditions of political parties is that they do not allow a person to freely express himself outside the collective of a political party. “When you go to Parliament, you toe the party line even if you don’t wish to,” said Zikalala.

Political analyst Professor Lesiba Teffo, from Unisa, said the DA, FF Plus, IFP and ACDP were among the parties that signed the Multi-Party Charter SA in June last year to fight against alleged ANC’s *******ion tendencies and stopping the EFF from ascending to power, could use their commonality to merge.

He said they avoided this because of “the politics of the stomach rather than serving the people they should be representing”. He said the IFP, FF Plus, ACDP and others, despite their backgrounds, could still find each other and merge because of “their common interest that brings them together”.

The proliferation of parties, he said, was more rife among black people than their white counterparts.

“The DA and FF Plus have commonalities, and I don’t think that they even have problems among themselves,” said Teffo.

He said Al Jama-ah could also easily merge with the ANC because “it is not even going against the ANC or anything”.

“Those people who formed new parties in the past two years would be willing to go into a coalition with the ANC and that demonstrates that they have got no differences (with the ANC).

“They (the leaders) are just trying to secure themselves leverage to bargain for positions when the right time comes,” said Teffo.

Political analyst and media commentator Susan Booysen said most of the smaller parties waste votes because they won’t achieve big enough numbers to go to Parliament.

“It is part of the South African culture to explore new political parties,” she said.

Booysen said some leaders prefer to form their own parties for fear that if they join other parties they would face internal competition for seats in Parliament.

“That competition is not going to fade away if they form one party,” she said.

Booysen said the country might lose political diversity if parties were to merge.

She added that coalition politics, which parties preferred, had proved to be a failure in most cases.

8. It isn't easy to remain hopeful in politics of the stomach Beware of the citizens who cannot always be fooled. The GNU has to show improvement in all sectors, closing the gaps between the haves and the not-haves.

In the late 2000s and early 2010s, the word ‘hope’ was ubiquitous in Western politics. While its use in the Barack Obama presidential campaign has become iconic, appeal to hope was not limited to the United States: The Leftist Greek Syriza party re**** on the slogan ‘hope is on the way’, for example, and many other European parties embraced similar rallying cries. Since then, however, we rarely hear or see ‘hope’ in the public sphere.

Even in its heyday, the rhetoric of hope wasn’t universally popular. When in 2010 the former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin rhetorically asked: ‘How’s that hopey, changey stuff working out for ya?’ she tapped into a widespread scepticism that views hope as unrealistic, even delusional. Palin’s scepticism (many will be surprised to hear) has long been at work in the philosophical tradition. From Plato to René Descartes, many philosophers have argued that hope is weaker than expectation and confidence since it requires belief merely in the possibility of an event, not evidence that it is likely to occur.

For these philosophers, hope is a second-rate way of relating to reality, appropriate only when a person lacks the requisite knowledge to form ‘proper’ expectations. The radical Enlightenment philosopher Baruch Spinoza gives voice to this opinion when he writes that hope indicates ‘a lack of knowledge and a weakness of mind’ and that ‘the more we endeavour to live by the guidance of reason, the more we endeavour to be independent of hope’. According to this view, hope is particularly unsuitable as a guide to political action. Citizens should base their decisions on rational expectations about what governments can achieve, rather than letting themselves be motivated by mere hope.

This scepticism should be taken seriously and can indeed point us toward a better understanding of the rise and fall of the rhetoric of hope. So is there space for hope in politics?

We need to be precise about what kind of hope we are talking about. If we are considering what individuals hope for, any policy that has consequences for people’s lives will be tied to hope in some way – whether this is hope for that policy’s success or hope for its failure. The generation of such hope isn’t necessarily good or bad; it is simply a part of political life. But when political movements promise to deliver hope, they are clearly not speaking of hope in this generic sense. This particular rhetoric of hope refers to a more specific, morally attractive and distinctively political form of hope.

Political hope is distinguished by two features. Its object is political: it is hope for social justice. And its character is political: it is a collective attitude. While the significance of the first feature is perhaps obvious, the second feature explains why it makes sense to speak of hope’s ‘return’ to politics. When political movements seek to rekindle hope, they are not acting on the assumption that individual people no longer hope for things – they are building on the idea that hope does not currently shape our collective orientation toward the future. The promise of a ‘politics of hope’ is thus the promise that hope for social justice will become part of the sphere of collective action, of politics itself.

Even so, the question remains whether political hope is really a good thing. If one of the tasks of government is to realise social justice, would it not be better for political movements to promote justified expectations rather than mere hope? Is the rhetoric of hope not a tacit admission that the movements in question lack strategies for inspiring confidence?

The sphere of politics has particular features, unique to it, that impose limitations on what we can rationally expect. One such limitation is what the American moral philosopher John Rawls in 1993 described as the insurmountable pluralism of ‘comprehensive doctrines’. In modern societies, people disagree about what is ultimately valuable, and these disagreements often cannot be resolved by reasonable argument. Such pluralism makes it unreasonable to expect that we will ever arrive at a final consensus on these matters. To the extent that governments should not pursue ends that cannot be justified to all citizens, the most we can rationally expect from politics is the pursuit of those principles of justice on which all reasonable people can agree, such as basic human rights, non-**************, and democratic decision-making. Thus, we cannot rationally expect governments that respect our plurality to pursue more demanding ideals of justice – for example, via ambitious redistributive policies that are not justifiable relative to all, even the most individualistic, conceptions of the good.

This limitation stands in tension with another of Rawls’s claims. He also argued, in 1971, that the most important social good is self-respect. In a liberal society, the citizens’ self-respect is based on the knowledge that there is a public commitment to justice – on the understanding that other citizens view them as deserving fair treatment. However, if we can expect agreement on only a narrow set of ideals, that expectation will make a relatively small contribution to our self-respect. Compared with possible consensus on more demanding ideals of justice, this expectation will do relatively little to make us view other citizens as being deeply committed to justice.

Fortunately, we need not limit ourselves to what we can expect. Even though we are not justified in expecting more than limited agreement on justice, we can still collectively hope that, in the future, consensus on more demanding ideals of justice will emerge. When citizens collectively entertain this hope, this expresses a shared understanding that each member of society deserves to be included in an ambitious project of justice, even if we disagree about what that project should be. This knowledge can contribute to self-respect and is thus a desirable social good in its own right. In the absence of consensus, political hope is a necessary part of social justice itself.

So, it is rational, perhaps even necessary, to recruit the notion of hope for the purposes of justice. And this is why the rhetoric of hope has all but disappeared. We can seriously employ the rhetoric of hope only when we believe that citizens can be brought to develop a shared commitment to exploring ambitious projects of social justice, even when they disagree about their content. This belief has become increasingly implausible in light of recent developments that reveal how divided Western democracies really are. A sizable minority in Europe and the US has made it clear, in response to the rhetoric of hope, that it disagrees not only about the meaning of justice but also with the very idea that our current vocabulary of social justice ought to be extended. One can, of course, still individually hope that those who hold this view will be convinced to change it. As things stand, however, this is not a hope that they are able to share.

9. The renewal or ensuring equitable participation in the economy The solution to avert politics of the belly perpetually, it is needed that the moral regeneration should be the curriculum in all schools. Education is a strategic initiative that builds the country. It will take time, but a start is needed.

The population should inherently have a moral fibre, this I mean, parents should live a life of good character. We can allow the politics of the belly to erode what human beings should be.

We can allow healthy competitiveness within communities but this should be seen as I am better than…

Schools need to bring civic education of the a moral fibre as well as blissfulness to all learners.

10. In conclusion South Africa’s democracy presents numerous opportunities for advancing social, economic, and political development, empowering citizens, and building a more inclusive and prosperous society.

Although there are challenges, when these are addressed, South Africa can continue on its path towards realising democracy's full potential for the benefit of all its citizens.

This can be possible through the collective efforts of the GNU, civil society, and the private sectors to promote inclusive growth, strengthen democratic institutions, and advance social justice and equality.