Ramphele’s nomination will create problems, not votes
30-Jan-2014 | Steven Friedman
Steven Friedman: For those who believe that presenting a squeaky clean alternative to Zuma will win votes, the name Mvume Dandala comes to mind
THE African National Congress (ANC) begins this election campaign beset with many problems. But the Democratic Alliance’s (DA’s) decision to elevate Mamphela Ramphele to its presidential candidate is not one of them.
While our politics is changing, nominating a public figure with no constituency outside the DA for a race she cannot win will not change it. It is unlikely to win the DA many votes and could cause problems for it.
Obviously, this move stands and falls by whether it will win votes for the DA.
Those who believe that it will do so, reason that many ANC voters are fed up with their party but reluctant to vote DA because they believe it speaks for whites who want to bring back apartheid. If a black public figure with "struggle" credentials is its face on the ballot paper, many will feel comfortable about changing allegiance. More specifically, many ANC voters are said to be put off by President Jacob Zuma — if they can choose between him and a black candidate who can be presented as smarter and more honest, they will ditch the ANC.
The argument is deeply flawed.
For years, we were told that all the DA needed to win heaps of votes was a black leader. This was clearly false, as many parties with black leaders win very few votes.
Now the DA has embraced a slightly more sophisticated view: that it needs a black leader with a history in "the struggle" against apartheid. But if this were all that was needed, the Pan Africanist Congress and the Azanian People’s Organisation would be on the brink of a majority.
The key to credibility is not whether a politician was in "the struggle" but where in "the struggle" they were.
And for ANC voters, that means a history in the ANC.
ANC voters who are unhappy with their party remain loyal to the traditions of the movement. Most will be reluctant to support an opposition party if that means turning their back on the ANC of Nelson Mandela, Albert Luthuli, Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisulu and so they are likely to change parties only if they can vote for candidates who were in the ANC. This is why the Congress of the People (COPE) won more than 1-million votes, despite its many problems. Ramphele was never in the ANC and so ANC voters cannot support her without deserting their political identity.
For those who believe that presenting a squeaky clean alternative to Zuma will win votes, the name Mvume Dandala comes to mind. Dandala, a man of impeccable decency and integrity, was nominated as COPE’s presidential candidate and was also presented as a stark alternative to the ANC president. This probably cost COPE votes because Dandala, too, had no history in the ANC. It certainly did not win it any. Ramphele will not enjoy any more credibility among ANC voters than Dandala did.
The strategy makes another error — it assumes that Ramphele will strengthen the DA because she is a respected personality.
Besides the point that there is no hard evidence that most voters respect Ramphele more than Zuma, respected personalities are of little use in politics unless they bring a constituency.
Ramphele is popular among DA voters, but they already vote for it. She has no constituency among those who don’t. And so she brings it very few voters.
How do we know Ramphele has no constituency? Because she has agreed to become the DA’s presidential candidate.
It is common knowledge that, before she formed Agang SA, Ramphele was offered the DA’s leadership. She refused.
She presumably reasoned that, if she took over a party, it could be said that voters were supporting the party, not her: if she started her own, she could show that she has a following and must be taken seriously.
If that had worked, she would not have ditched Agang. Accepting the DA offer is an acknowledgement that she failed to develop a constituency. While presidential candidate may sound grand, she is settling for a lot less than she was offered last time.
The DA knows it won’t win this election — its stated target is 30% of the vote. And so, after the ANC wins, Ramphele will be simply another DA MP.
She may become parliamentary or even national leader, but that is not assured: she will have to contest the post and might lose. She would not be accepting much less than she was offered before if she had shown that she has a constituency.
This is why talk of a merger between the DA and Agang prompts mirth. Real mergers happen when two parties who have something to offer each other get together — the Independent Democrats were a lot smaller than the DA but they did bring it a constituency in the Western Cape.
No one has ever cast a vote for Agang and so it brings only an individual.
Nor, as Ramphele neglected to ask her party whether it wanted a merger, is there any guarantee that the small minority that joined Agang or planned to vote for it will support the DA.
But why should Ramphele’s nomination cost the DA?
It won’t lose it votes — party loyalties within the DA fold are as strong as those within the ANC.
And one reason Agang failed is that most of Ramphele’s admirers support the DA. But it could damage its credibility and increase tensions within the party.
The DA has insisted time and again that it had no reason to change its leadership because it was neither a black nor a white party but one in which people of all races chose the best person for the job. Now we are told that DA leader Helen Zille is not good enough to be presidential candidate because the party needs a black person.
It has insisted that its new generation of black leaders are as capable as any struggle veteran of winning voter support. Now we are told that it needs a struggle veteran.
It has insisted that it is a party in which you work your way to the top by winning the support of fellow members. Now we are told that you can be presidential candidate with no history in the party and without bringing a following with you if the leadership thinks you are a vote-winner.
For all these reasons, the announcement sounds more like an expedient gimmick than a principled decision.
That could come back to haunt the DA: the ANC has, deservedly, paid a price for appearing to compromise its principles, and so might the DA.
Zille has also acknowledged that not all DA politicians support this move.
They may feel queasy at the retreat from principle and worried that past methods of choosing leadership are being ignored. They may wonder whether a leader who does not tell her party when she decides, in effect, to dissolve it will be comfortable with democratic procedures.
And senior black members may wonder why the party considers some black politicians more important than others, particularly when those considered more important have never won an election (even within their own party).
All of this could fuel conflict.
The DA has made strides under Zille: she has grown its vote and enhanced its credibility. But even successful politicians make big mistakes. This decision could prove Zille’s most serious lapse in judgment yet.
• Friedman is director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy.
Last edited by a moderator:
