The Voiceless

The Voiceless The Voiceless is an online opinion platform; the mouthpiece of the marginalised voices.

10/10/2025

COMMENT | Mkhwanazi’s heroism and the deeper war against South Africa’s criminal underworld

Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi is, without question, a man of extraordinary courage and conviction. His recent actions have seemingly sent tremors through South Africa’s criminal underworld, unsettling networks that for years have operated with impunity. In a country where speaking truth to power often comes with a bullet or a smear campaign, his defiance is nothing short of heroic.

Yet history teaches us a sobering truth: no single man, however brave, can dismantle an entrenched system of corruption and criminality. From Jesus Christ to John F. Kennedy, to the countless South African whistleblowers silenced for their integrity, we know that heroism alone cannot purge a state captured by criminal enterprise. Individual valor, while inspiring, is never a substitute for strong, independent institutions.

South Africa’s criminal syndicates both in and outside the state are not static. They can adapt, reconfigure, and realign as soon as their operations are threatened. The recent arrests and exposes may disrupt their operations temporarily, but without systemic reform, these networks will regenerate. As public outrage swells and scapegoats like the Maumelas or Vusi “Cat” Matlalas are paraded before the courts and the in media, the real masterminds will simply retreat into the shadows, tightening their grip on key sectors and perfecting new methods of concealment.

This is why the question before us is not how long Mkhwanazi can sustain his crusade, but rather: how can South Africa sustain a long-term, institutional response to corruption that outlives individual heroes?

The answer lies in building and protecting independent, constitutionally compliant anti-corruption bodies with genuine autonomy. We cannot continue to rely on occasional bursts of moral courage from individuals when the criminal ecosystem is systemic. South Africa needs to invest political and financial capital in strengthening the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and, in particular, its Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC).

The IDAC, recently formalised under the NPA Amendment Act offers a renewed opportunity to reclaim the state from capture. It revives the spirit of the old Scorpions, combining prosecutorial and investigative capacity under one constitutionally independent authority. But unlike its predecessor, which was vulnerable to political interference and ultimately disbanded, IDAC’s design embeds stronger safeguards for operational independence, accountability to Parliament, and security of tenure for its leadership.

If properly resourced and insulated from executive manipulation, IDAC could become the institutional embodiment of the courage Mkhwanazi displayed i.e., a permanent mechanism to pursue corruption without fear or favour. Its success, however, depends not only on the law but on political will. Parliament must ensure adequate funding, civil society must insist on transparency, and the executive must refrain from interference.

South Africa has, for too long, oscillated between despair and misplaced hope in individuals who dare to confront the corrupt. Mkhwanazi’s bravery should not be allowed to fade into yet another tragic chapter in our long war against criminal syndicates. Instead, it should galvanise a national recommitment to building institutions that make heroism unnecessary.

Because in a just and well-governed society, the fight against corruption should not depend on the courage of one man, it should rest on the strength of the law.

Critic of the Critical Critics — Cornerstone!

08/09/2025

COMMENT | How Ngcobo CJ’s Independent Panel on the Phala Phala Saga Got It Wrong

The Independent Panel chaired by former Chief Justice Ngcobo to investigate the Phala Phala saga was established to assess serious allegations against the President, with its findings carrying significant legal and political consequences. Yet, while Ngcobo CJ’s “forensic and technical gifts” (in words of Prof Clement Marumogae) are beyond question, the Panel’s handling of the matter was flawed, not least because it misinterpreted its mandate and conflated critical legal thresholds. This misstep has profound implications for both the integrity of the impeachment process and the constitutional principles underpinning it.

Understanding the Panel’s Mandate

The Panel’s role, as set out in Rule 129G of the National Assembly Rules, was not simply to determine whether there was prima facie evidence that could justify further investigation. Rather, it was required to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to support the allegations of serious constitutional violations or misconduct by the President. This higher threshold reflects the importance of the Panel’s findings: they form the basis for potentially impeaching a sitting President, an action that carries enormous constitutional and political weight.

Unfortunately, the Panel failed to adhere to this mandate. Instead, it conflated prima facie evidence—a preliminary standard requiring only plausible evidence—with sufficient evidence, which requires a far more rigorous evaluation.

The Difference Between Prima Facie and Sufficient Evidence

Prima facie evidence refers to evidence that, at first glance, appears credible enough to establish a fact or case unless rebutted. It is the minimum threshold needed to justify proceeding with a case. By contrast, sufficient evidence requires a deeper inquiry: the evidence must be robust, credible, and capable of persuading a reasonable fact-finder to reach a conclusion in favor of one side.

The distinction is crucial in the context of a Section 89 impeachment inquiry. While prima facie evidence might be enough for a Member of Parliament (MP) to initiate the process, the Panel—composed of legal experts armed with investigative powers—was tasked with going further. Its role was to evaluate the evidence comprehensively, assess its credibility, and determine whether it met the higher standard of sufficiency.

How the Panel Misinterpreted Its Mandate

By finding that there was prima facie evidence to suggest the President may have committed a serious constitutional violation or misconduct, the Panel effectively applied the lower threshold meant for MPs initiating a Section 89 inquiry. This was a fundamental error. The Panel’s findings were intended to serve as the cornerstone of a parliamentary impeachment process, and as such, it was obligated to ensure that the evidence met the more demanding standard of sufficiency.

This misstep undermined the integrity of the Panel’s work. A finding based on prima facie evidence alone does not provide the National Assembly with the robust evidentiary foundation needed to proceed with such a serious constitutional process.

The Consequences of Conflating Thresholds

The conflation of prima facie and sufficient evidence had two major consequences. First, it lowered the evidentiary bar for the impeachment process, effectively making it easier to level serious accusations against a sitting President without adequately scrutinizing the underlying evidence. This risks politicizing the impeachment process, turning it into a weapon for partisan attacks rather than a tool for genuine accountability.

Second, it placed the National Assembly in a precarious position. The legislature, as the ultimate decision-maker, was forced to weigh a report that failed to meet the evidentiary standard required by its own rules. In dismissing the report, the National Assembly arguably upheld the principle that impeachment proceedings must be based on credible, sufficient evidence. However, the decision has been challenged by the EFF, raising further questions about the weight to be afforded to the Panel’s findings and the National Assembly’s discretion in this matter.

Why the Distinction Matters

The distinction between prima facie and sufficient evidence is not merely academic; it is a cornerstone of procedural fairness. Prima facie evidence serves as a starting point, ensuring that allegations are not dismissed prematurely. Sufficient evidence, on the other hand, is required to substantiate the allegations and justify proceeding to the next stage of the impeachment process.

The Panel’s failure to meet the sufficiency threshold has broader implications for constitutional accountability. If expert panels, equipped with legal expertise and investigative powers, do not rigorously evaluate evidence, they risk eroding public trust in the mechanisms designed to hold political leaders accountable.

The Broader Implications

Even if the Panel’s findings were procedurally flawed, the EFF’s challenge to the National Assembly’s dismissal of the report raises a broader constitutional question: how should Parliament weigh the findings of an expert panel? The answer lies in balancing two competing principles:
1. Ensuring that serious allegations against the President are supported by credible, sufficient evidence.
2. Preserving the National Assembly’s discretion to evaluate the findings of expert panels in light of its own constitutional responsibilities.

In dismissing the report, the National Assembly must show that its decision was rational, guided by relevant factors, and consistent with its constitutional obligations. Factors such as the sufficiency of the evidence, the quality of the Panel’s reasoning, and the constitutional stakes of impeachment proceedings must all inform its decision.

Conclusion

The Independent Panel on the Phala Phala saga missed an important opportunity to set a high standard for the impeachment process. By conflating prima facie and sufficient evidence, it undermined its own credibility and placed the National Assembly in a difficult position. As South Africa grapples with the implications of this report, it is essential to reaffirm the principles of procedural fairness, accountability, and respect for constitutional processes.

If the impeachment process is to serve its purpose, it must be underpinned by rigorous, transparent, and legally sound evaluations of evidence. Anything less risks turning a tool of accountability into a tool of political expediency.

COMMENT | Behind Mbalula’s knee jerk reaction to Motsepe’s romoured presidential bidRumours of Patrice Motsepe’s possibl...
19/06/2025

COMMENT | Behind Mbalula’s knee jerk reaction to Motsepe’s romoured presidential bid

Rumours of Patrice Motsepe’s possible entry into South Africa’s presidential race have jolted the country’s political establishment. While many view such a prospect with cautious optimism, some within the African National Congress (ANC) have responded with defensive hostility. Chief among them is the party’s secretary-general, Fikile Mbalula, whose reaction at the ANC’s Chris Hani Regional Conference on 13 June 2025 was nothing short of a political tantrum.

Referring to speculation about Motsepe’s potential candidacy, Mbalula declared: “Leading the ANC is not like leading a football club and all of that. You work for this.” This statement, clearly aimed at Motsepe who owns Mamelodi Sundowns FC and has since built a vast business empire amounts to a thinly veiled dismissal of his leadership credentials.

But in doing so, Mbalula not only mischaracterises the nature of political leadership, he also betrays the ANC’s growing insecurity about its internal decay and shrinking political relevance.

The real question we should be asking is this: What exactly does it take to lead the ANC that a man of Motsepe’s stature supposedly lacks? More specifically, what is President Cyril Ramaphosa doing at the helm of the party or the state that Motsepe could not conceivably do better?

In a previous column published on SABC News (“The case for Patrice Motsepe’s presidential bid”), long before rumours of Motsepe’s potential presidential bid emerged, I argued that South Africa needs a different kind of leader — i.e., one who is pragmatic, solutions-oriented, and driven not by ideological allegiance, but by a commitment to national renewal. Motsepe fits that bill. His track record in business — creating jobs, managing complex institutions, and attracting global capital, demonstrates a capacity for results-driven leadership that our government sorely lacks.

But this optimism comes with a crucial qualification: Motsepe cannot mount a successful reformist agenda under the ANC’s increasingly dysfunctional banner. The party is too compromised — morally, ideologically, and structurally. No matter how competent the individual, the ANC is no longer a viable vehicle for national renewal. If Motsepe is serious about contributing to South Africa’s recovery, he must forge a new path, possibly through the formation of a new political party, which will be unburdened by the ANC’s historical baggage.

That said, Mbalula’s reaction to Motsepe’s potential bid is revealing not just of his personal insecurity, but of the ANC’s broader culture of internal sabotage. His comment was not an isolated dismissal; it is part of a growing pattern. He has also recently targeted Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi, another figure seen as a rising star in the political landscape. What these attacks share in common is their timing and tone: calculated attempts to pre-emptively discredit those who may outshine or outmaneuver Mbalula in the ANC’s internal succession battles.

Mbalula appears to perceive himself as the natural heir to Ramaphosa. The reader does not have to take my word on this point; the man has already announced his presidential bid by saying that "If Motsepe wants to lead, he must show up on the ground so we can come face to face with him”. But what has he actually contributed to justify this ambition?

His record in government is, at best, forgettable and, at worst, marked by mediocrity. Rather than leading with vision, he has become a gatekeeper — guarding not the public interest, but his own political turf. His role as secretary-general is increasingly defined by factionalism and fearmongering.

His paranoia is understandable. In the ANC’s internal universe where loyalty often trumps competence, any figure with an independent support base, public credibility, or national stature is a threat. Motsepe, by virtue of his success and apolitical image, poses just such a threat. The fact that he has not publicly expressed any intention to run makes Mbalula’s outburst all the more revealing — it is a reaction rooted not in fact, but in fear.

In the end, the real issue is not whether Motsepe will run, but why the mere suggestion of his candidacy provokes such vitriol. It points to a political party that no longer welcomes fresh ideas or alternative visions. It is precisely this defensiveness that has alienated the ANC from a generation of South Africans desperate for competent, ethical, and effective leadership.

Whether Motsepe enters the race or not, one thing is clear — South Africa’s next chapter cannot be written by those who fear change. It must be led by those who embrace it.

Critic of the Critical Critics — Cornerstone!

15/06/2025

COMMENT | Ramaphosa’s mantra: We’re not talking enough about the issues in this country

“We’re not talking enough about the issues in this country”. These are the words which can readily be attributed to President Cyril Ramaphosa not only as his mantra, but the hallmark of his presidency. True to form, President Ramaphosa recently announced a National Dialogue, reportedly projected to cost South African taxpayers a staggering R700 million.

However, instead of launching an unwarranted National Dialogue, the President could have issued a far simpler directive: instruct each cabinet minister to embark on a community fact-finding mission.

Minister John Steenhuisen can spearhead this mission like he did in 2022 when he visited the war torn Ukraine “to ascertain for [himself] the situation in a country that has been under siege from the Russian army for over two months”. He could start for example, by visiting the Cape Flats and provide feedback to his cabinet colleagues thereafter.

Indeed, this mission would quickly reveal what millions of ordinary South Africans already know — that the country’s core problems are neither mysterious nor hidden, and certainly not in need of further diagnosis by a panel of ‘Eminent Persons,’ however accomplished and respected they may be (and I say this with the utmost regard for them).

The true crisis, which is common knowledge, is not a lack of dialogue, but a lack of decisive leadership and implementation.

What the people will further point to during this fact-finding mission is plain: rampant and systemic corruption (with the ANC, by the President’ own previous admission, stands as accused number one), staggering unemployment, spiralling crime, Gender-Based Violence and Femicide, the so-called construction and water tank mafias, and persistently skewed patterns of land and wealth ownership.

These are not new revelations. They are realities that define everyday life for millions of South Africans.What remains unknown, and what this administration was elected into office to provide are the solutions. The President’s duty is not to convene more discussions, but to take action.

It is within this context that the promise of the National Dialogue which will usher in a new social compact rings hollow. South Africans have, in fact, been talking for decades — from the CODESA negotiations in the early 1990s to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to countless Imbizos, Summits, and Presidential Advisory Panels. If talking could resolve our crises, we would be thriving by now.

The urgent question is this: How much more talking must happen before things get better? What explains the President’s persistent belief that South Africa can speak its way out of structural and institutional collapse, as if rhetoric alone could conjure progress?

To lend credibility to this National Dialogue initiative and pacify rising discontent, Ramaphosa appointed individuals of impeccable stature — people whom many South Africans, myself included, deeply respect. But the move is transparent: it is a calculated attempt to legitimise a process that lacks both urgency and a clear path to impact.

The people of South Africa are not fooled. Increasingly, they recognise in these gestures the actions of a president overwhelmed, cautious to the point of paralysis, and seemingly bereft of new ideas.

South Africans must therefore ask the right answers: What exactly will follow this National Dialogue? Will the Eminent Persons draft a report with recommendations? If so, what guarantees exist that it won’t be ignored like so many reports that now gather dust in the archives of this administration?

In a previous article on this platform (OPINION | Summits, Imbizos, and Advisory Panels: Ramaphosa Just Wants to Talk), I argued that Ramaphosa’s presidency will not be judged by the number of dialogues he convened, but by the number of problems he actually solved.

If current trends continue, history may remember him not as a reformer or a unifier, but as the president who talked the most, and did the least. The time for talking has long passed. What South Africa needs now is action.

Critic of the Critical Critics — Cornerstone!

17/05/2025

SNAPSHOT| Will the rich pay their share?

According to 2021 survey data collected by Afrobarometer, a majority of South African citizens support the introduction of a wealth tax, believing it is fair to tax the rich at higher rates to support the poor.

Unlike income taxes, a wealth tax targets accumulated assets. Estimates suggest that such a tax could generate between R70 billion and R160 billion annually—equivalent to 1.5% to 3.5% of South Africa’s gross domestic product (Woolard, 2019; Chatterjee, Czajka & Gethin, 2021).

Will Minister Godongwana consider this alternative when he presents Budget 3.0 in the National Assembly next Wednesday? We shall soon find out.

The Voiceless is the mouthpiece of the marginalised.

28/03/2025

OPINION | Summits, Imbizos, and Advisory Panels: Ramaphosa just wants to talk

If South Africa’s political landscape in the post-apartheid era has been defined by anything, it is the ANC’s unwavering commitment to the National Democratic Revolution (NDR). This ideological framework, meant to guide the transformation of the state, now appears to have evolved into an endless cycle of dialogue, discussion, and deliberation—without much tangible action.

Under President Cyril Ramaphosa’s leadership, this tendency has become a hallmark of governance, where every pressing issue demands yet another summit, imbizo, or advisory panel.

The pattern is predictable and tiresomely familiar:
1. A crisis erupts, perhaps a major service delivery failure, a shocking abuse of power, rolling blackouts, or a water supply collapse. The public reacts with justified outrage.
2. The President, in his usual style, appoints an inter-ministerial committee, an expert advisory panel, or convenes an imbizo to “engage stakeholders” and “seek solutions.”
3. A lengthy and often costly report emerges, rehashing the same issues that South Africans already know exist, and proposing recommendations that history tells us are unlikely to be implemented.
4. The media picks up on the report, selectively amplifying its most damning findings. Headlines dominate for a week, creating the illusion that something significant is happening.
5. The country moves on. The next crisis emerges. The cycle repeats.

Ramaphosa, for all his supposed commitment to consultation, appears to have perfected the art of political pacification through dialogue. His approach fosters an illusion of responsiveness while ensuring that no immediate action is taken. Instead of decisive leadership, South Africans are treated to yet another talk-shop where problems are meticulously analyzed but never solved.

The Cost of Endless Talk

To be fair, deliberation is an essential component of any democratic society. National dialogues can serve a valuable role in fostering inclusivity, ensuring diverse perspectives are heard, and improving the quality of decision-making. Public participation, after all, is enshrined in our Constitution as a cornerstone of governance. However, Ramaphosa’s excessive reliance on summits and advisory panels raises an uncomfortable question: When does dialogue become a substitute for action rather than a precursor to it?

South Africa’s governance failures are not due to a lack of expert reports or insufficient dialogue. We already have a robust framework for public consultation in policymaking and legislation. Parliament, provincial legislatures, and local councils all have mechanisms to incorporate public input. So why, then, does every issue demand yet another layer of discussion?

One could be forgiven for thinking that the entire point of electing a government was to ensure that decisions, especially urgent ones—are made efficiently. If we needed every citizen to participate in every governance decision, we might as well grant each person an office at the Union Buildings. But governance does not work that way. Leadership is about making choices, not endlessly deferring them to panels and conferences.

A Presidency Defined by Paralysis

Ramaphosa’s leadership style is often praised for being consultative, but there is a fine line between inclusive governance and executive paralysis. South Africa’s most pressing challenges—load shedding, water crises, corruption, and economic stagnation—require decisive action, not endless roundtables.

Consider Eskom: South Africans do not need another task team to confirm that the country has an electricity crisis. They need a government willing to make firm, sometimes unpopular, decisions to fix it. Yet, under Ramaphosa, Eskom has been subjected to multiple reports, interventions, and restructuring plans—none of which have ended the crisis.

The same applies to crime and corruption. The Zondo Commission on state capture produced thousands of pages detailing how billions were stolen, yet meaningful prosecutions remain scarce. Instead of a swift response, we got yet another advisory panel to “consider the recommendations.”

The Illusion of Action

Ramaphosa’s excessive reliance on dialogue is not just a governance flaw; it is a political strategy. The endless summits, imbizos, and panels create an illusion of action without the discomfort of actually making hard decisions. They allow him to appear engaged and responsive while effectively maintaining the status quo.

South Africans should begin asking: What has actually changed as a result of these endless dialogues? Have advisory panels fixed our failing municipalities? Have imbizos restored economic growth? Has consultation stopped crime and corruption?

At some point, leadership must move beyond talking and start doing. Otherwise, South Africa risks becoming a nation where problems are endlessly debated but never solved—where governance is reduced to a perpetual cycle of discussion with no real delivery.

Ramaphosa’s presidency will ultimately be judged not by the number of summits he convened, but by the problems he actually solved. And at this rate, history may remember him as the president who talked a lot but did very little.

Critic of the Critical Critics — Cornerstone!

COMMENT | AfriForum, “national interests” & “treasonous activities”AfriForum, a civil society organization representing ...
23/03/2025

COMMENT | AfriForum, “national interests” & “treasonous activities”

AfriForum, a civil society organization representing the voices of my people in Orania, has recently been branded as “treasonous and unpatriotic”—even by the President and some Members of Parliament. This accusation stems from the belief that the organization does not prioritize South Africa’s national interests. But what exactly are “national interests”? Do they even exist in a tangible sense, and how do we define them?

A nation is often described as a collective of people occupying a specific geographic space. But can we truly define a singular set of national interests? Interests inherently vary from person to person. Even within a family, a son may have different interests from his father, just as twin sisters may pursue different interests. AfriForum may claim to represent the interests of the Afrikaner people, but can we assume that all Afrikaners share the same interests?

Society is ultimately composed of individuals, each with their own unique priorities. The very reason relationships fail and marriages break down is that even the closest of partners: husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends, often struggle to reconcile their differing interests.

What South Africa truly needs is not an abstract notion of national interests but rather a culture of tolerance and understanding.

Critic of the Critical Critics — Cornerstone!s

COMMENT | AfriForum vs South Africa, is there such thing as “national interests”?AfriForum, a civil society organization...
16/03/2025

COMMENT | AfriForum vs South Africa, is there such thing as “national interests”?

AfriForum, a civil society organization representing the voices of my people in Orania, has recently been branded as “treasonous and unpatriotic”—even by the President and some Members of Parliament. This accusation stems from the belief that the organization does not prioritize South Africa’s national interests. But what exactly are “national interests”? Do they even exist in a tangible sense, and how do we define them?

A nation is often described as a collective of people occupying a specific geographic space. But can we truly define a singular set of national interests? Interests inherently vary from person to person. Even within a family, a son may have different interests from his father, just as twin sisters may pursue different interests. AfriForum may claim to represent the interests of the Afrikaner people, but can we assume that all Afrikaners share the same interests?

Society is ultimately composed of individuals, each with their own unique priorities. The very reason relationships fail and marriages break down is that even the closest of partners: husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends, often struggle to reconcile their differing interests.

What South Africa truly needs is not an abstract notion of national interests but rather a culture of tolerance and understanding.

Critic of the Critical Critics — Cornerstone!s

14/03/2025

OPINION | What, if anything, would make the ANC listen to the people on the ground ?

One could be forgiven for expecting the African National Congress (ANC) to engage in deep introspection after suffering a historic electoral setback. Losing its parliamentary majority for the first time since 1994 should have been a wake-up call, an opportunity to reconnect with the people, address governance failures, and usher in meaningful reforms. Yet, two recent developments make it abundantly clear that the ANC has learned little, if anything, from its declining support.

Tone-Deaf Governance: The VAT Hike and Bloated Cabinet

The first and most glaring misstep was the party’s attempt to increase the Value Added Tax (VAT) rate by 2%. This proposal was met with immediate public outrage and fierce opposition from political parties within the Government of National Unity (GNU). In the face of mounting pressure, the ANC was forced to settle for a staggered 1% increase over the next two years. While this adjustment may appear to be a concession, the fact that the party, through it’s deployed Minister of Finance even contemplated such a drastic tax hike the face of severe financial strain on ordinary South Africans highlights its growing disconnect from the electorate.

Raising VAT disproportionately impacts the poor and working class, who already struggle under rising food and fuel costs, high unemployment, and stagnant wages. It is a regressive tax that places a heavier burden on those who can least afford it, while the political elite remains shielded from the economic hardships facing ordinary citizens. If the ANC were truly in touch with the struggles of the people, it would have explored alternative revenue-generation strategies, such as curbing government waste, increasing corporate tax compliance, or reducing unnecessary expenditure.

The second indicator of the ANC’s disregard for public sentiment is its defense of an excessively large cabinet and continued ministerial perks. Instead of demonstrating a commitment to streamlining government and cutting unnecessary costs, ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula defended the bloated executive, in a way, dismissing concerns over wasteful spending. His justification reveals an entrenched culture of entitlement within the ruling party—one that prioritizes political patronage over the responsible use of public funds.

At a time when South Africans are being asked to tighten their belts, it is indefensible for the government to maintain a cabinet that is both oversized and inefficient. More ministers mean more salaries, more luxury cars, more VIP security, and more unnecessary bureaucracy — resources that could be redirected toward service delivery, infrastructure, and social welfare programs. The ANC’s failure to recognize this glaring contradiction suggests a party more interested in self-preservation than in genuine governance reform.

A Party in Denial

What is particularly troubling is that the ANC still claims to be the “leader of society” while repeatedly ignoring the grievances of ordinary citizens. The expectation was that, after losing its majority, the party would reflect deeply on its failures, prioritize good governance, and take decisive steps toward renewal. Instead, it appears determined to maintain the very practices that led to its decline in the first place.

One would have expected a party that suffered such a major electoral rebuke to embark on a serious reform process—rooting out corruption, cutting wasteful expenditure, and prioritizing service delivery. But the ANC seems to believe that it can continue governing as if nothing has changed. This arrogance is not only politically reckless but also unsustainable in the long run.

The consequences of this denial are already visible. Public trust in the ANC has eroded significantly, and voter apathy is rising. Many South Africans no longer see the party as a vehicle for progress but rather as an obstacle to it. If the ANC does not take urgent steps to reform, it may find itself facing an even greater electoral loss in the future.

Will the ANC Ever Listen?

South Africa stands at a crossroads, and the ANC’s refusal to heed the electorate’s warning signals a dangerous trajectory. If the party continues to govern with arrogance and disregard for public sentiment, it risks further alienating itself from the very people it seeks to lead. The question remains: What, if anything, will force the ANC to finally listen?

Will it take another dramatic electoral loss? Mass protests? A complete collapse of service delivery? Or is the ANC so deeply entrenched in its ways that it will only change when it is no longer in power?

The future of South Africa depends not just on whether the ANC can hear the people, but whether it will finally choose to listen.

Critic of the Critical Critics — Cornerstone!

Address

Braamfontein
Johannesburg Central
2001

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Voiceless posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category