The fascism of the ‘leftist’ political parties

ONE of the most poetic statements about the death of the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler comes from the German playwright and poet Bertolt Brecht. In his 1947 satire showing how Hitler gained his fascist grip on Germany, The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui , he ends with a morbid epilogue in which he warns against the complacency of post-war political elites, saying it will allow the horrors of the past to reproduce. Brecht warns: “The bitch that gave birth to him is in heat again."

The implication is that although the Nazi Party had been uprooted, the factors and mindsets that led to systemic fascism, sociological resentment, intolerance and the dominance of authoritarian narratives were not truly eradicated. The motivations for the phenomenon could indeed flare up again, perhaps in a different guise but with the same or similar consequences. The end of the Nazi Party was not the end of the dangers it represented.

The same argument is valid regarding developments within the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) of Julius Malema. Even if the recent weeks of mutiny within the party lead to the red berets no longer being with us in the legislative and political landscape after the next national and provincial elections in 2029 – or even as early as the local elections of November 2026 – this does not mean the factors that led to the establishment of the party no longer exist.

The so-called progressive alliance in the National Assembly comprises about 20% of its members. Many voters have left the EFF, but with the MK Party it still represents an opinion that some see as political consolidation on the left of the public conversation. I am not convinced the ideology of the progressive alliance is understood correctly, but this informal political agreement in the National Assembly is organisationally almost as pertinent as the second-largest party, the Democratic Alliance (DA).

The binding material of authoritarian parties such as the EFF and the MKP are their centralised power, authority and coercion. Their way of working and thinking is not normally sustainable in liberal-democratic systems and legislatures. Neither the EFF nor the MKP can be described as a typical far-right or nationalist political party, but the leadership of each party certainly has an excessive or even fascist sense of power and intolerance towards competing opinions, not only in terms of opposing parties but also within the party itself.

Serious leadership problems

The MKP and the EFF have serious leadership problems. The biggest issue for the so-called progressive alliance is that the MKP has still not held a leadership or policy conference almost a year after the first initiatives towards its establishment. The EFF has similar problems. In an authoritarian political party like that of Malema, it is valid to ask to what extent the election of the leadership is free and fair. What would be the shelf life of the ambitious politician challenging Malema for the party presidency?

One of the primary reasons for the departure of Floyd Shivambu from the EFF is that branch leaders want to nominate the secretary-general, Marshall Dlamini, for deputy president at the leadership conference in December. This would have placed Shivambu in an impossible political position within the EFF. If he were not Malema's deputy, there would be no other position for him. The concentration of power in the leader and deputy leader of the EFF has the effect that the rest of the “elected" hierarchy merely have cosmetic power or authority.

The confidence of the branch leaders' proposal has to do with the knowledge that Dlamini and Malema have grown closer to each other over time and that Malema and Shivambu's established brotherhood has come under great pressure due to the political tension from the VBS graft scandal.

Contrary to what some analysts argue, there were no policy differences between Malema and his former deputy. There were also no substantial disputes about the party's stated willingness to participate in the government of national unity under President Cyril Ramaphosa. The tension arose when it became clear that the political and legal issues of the VBS “donation" made available by Brian Shivambu to his biological brother Floyd and Malema meant the money would have to be repaid. If you are willing to repay a donation, there is already some recognition of the probable illegality of the initial transaction or agreement.

Investigative journalist Pauli van Wyk recently reminded me of the case of the former EFF MP Thembinkosi Rawula, who was sued for defamation by Malema. He accused Malema and Shivambu of being involved in financial misconduct and the mismanagement of party funds. Malema demanded R1 million in damages but the court ruled in Rawula's favour and dismissed the case.

Malema and Shivambu resolved the matter by paying back the money, but it had to come from the EFF's coffers rather than their own pockets. All this happened against the background of Malema and Shivambu's enormous pressure on regional leaders and elected officials of the party to use their personal salaries to hire buses to drive voters to stadiums where the party leaders could address them, or even to polling stations.

The looting of elected EFF members' budgets and the absolute lack of personal and institutional confidence in the integrity of decision-making caused the centripetal forces that led to the mutiny, with Shivambu – accompanied by Mzwanele Manyi – abandoning the “sinking ” ship.

Not open arms for everybody

However, the political differences between the MKP and the EFF are important and not everyone who leaves the EFF will be welcomed into the MKP with open arms. The circumstances that made the EFF a proposition for a million voters are not necessarily the same as those that led to the establishment of the MKP.

Since its birth, the EFF has had more of a national footprint than the MKP, which is organically largely rooted in KwaZulu-Natal. The EFF is a black, lower middle class party while the MKP emerged from a complicated mix of rural and urban support, with a significant ethnic identity.

But do the EFF and the MKP really represent a so-called left-wing ideology? Is there a rise of leftist politics consolidating with real growth potential at the expense of the pragmatic middle ground of the GNU? In May, the MKP was the only party that grew significantly and at the expense of the majority party, the ANC. This naturally raises the question of whether the EFF and now also Shivambu's next political home are really left-wing parties.

In this context, I was somewhat surprised when in the past week political analysts and commentators referred to Shivambu as the intellectual voice of a left-wing ideology within the EFF and now the MKP. Not everyone who refers to himself as a Marxist or Leninist is necessarily an intellectual giant. Shivambu often talks about Marxism and Leninism in ways that would make the fathers of these theories frown deeply in their graves.

The EFF and MKP use populist rhetoric to mobilise a support base rather than maintain a consistent left-wing ideology. However, populism is not necessarily a left-wing phenomenon and can even be right-wing reactionary. The EFF and MKP differ in that the latter also prioritises ethno-nationalist themes while the EFF advocates Pan-Africanism.

There is much controversy surrounding EFF leaders' involvement in practices that are contrary to the economic equality they profess. The allegations of corruption against Malema in questionable business deals such as the VBS scandal and the unprecedented wealth of some party leaders undermine their credibility as the representatives of those excluded from the benefits of the market economy. Corruption in South Africa often comes to fruition in the value and supply chains of the market economy, even when public money is stolen.

The organisation and structure of the EFF is indeed compatible with left-wing political models, but the authoritarian relationships within the party are in defiance of a left-wing political philosophy. The EFF under Malema often revolves around his personal leadership, with decisions and policies heavily influenced by his political will rather than by collective or democratic processes within his party. As a form of fascism, it is more characteristic of an authoritarian or populist movement than the train of thought in a true left-wing party.

What Brecht refers to and what is still a reality in South Africa is massive inequality, entrenched poverty and the realisation of an absent state. These are the same circumstances that gave birth to the EFF and the MKP. However, it is true that economic inequality that corresponds to an ethnic and racial consciousness still drives the political narrative in poor and black communities, but there is no evidence that the solution is necessarily seen in the “dialectic" and Marxist-Leninist state formation.

As Carol Paton argued last week, it may be time for the government to realise that its poor management never really gave the market economy a fair chance to offer opportunities to the millions of unemployed. There are more South Africans who agree with this opinion than there are Marxist or Leninist philosophies in the country. This applies, ironically enough, to the middle-class support base of the EFF and probably also to the large numbers of voters who left the ANC for the MKP.

South Africans, including those impoverished by the corruption and mismanagement of the ANC, claim their democratic rights and do not declare that they are prepared to cede their freedoms to the political will of Malema or Zuma.

♦ VWB ♦

BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION: Go to the bottom of this page to share your opinion. We look forward to hearing from you.