History provides an ominous lesson about demagogues like Malema

THERE is a perception, a firm belief among citizens, voters and pundits, that coalition governments are necessarily progressive, based, as they ought to be, on compromises and a willingness to collaborate with political opponents towards a stable future. All of that seems fair, but a little naive. Overly idealistic, somewhat utopian, but naive.

One significant problem lies in the exogenous threat to coalition governance which, in South Africa, leads us to the disruptive populism of the Economic Freedom Fighters, and weakening social and political economic conditions.

When we consider the way  the EFF have surged to the far-right fringes, a contentious but not invalid claim, and we reflect on the coalition government failures and chronic instability of Weimar Germany, especially how they paved the way for Adolf Hitler and his Nazis, we may want to reconsider coalition governance in South Africa over the next five to 10 years.

There should, by now, be very few people outside the rank and file members and supporters who do not know that the EFF have become increasingly fascistic at the level of perception, and in terms of their actual conduct. Last Sunday’s theatrical performances and the presentation of Julius Malema in sacral glory to a packed FNB Stadium was, for now, the apogee of the cult around the EFF leader, and had powerful parallels with the scripted presence of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during the interwar period.

To get a sense of the lurking dangers to coalition government during dreadful political-economic times, heightened fears and populism, we can start with the forces that threatened the Weimar Republic. Evidence points us to the rise of Hitler, mythmaking around the Führer and presentation of the Nazi leader as the German people's saviour. For the way Malema has been presented as godsent and the saviour of South Africa, see a fringe opinion here, a more spiritual opinion here, and Malema’s own claim that “the EFF is the second coming of Jesus…” Let’s set that aside for now and turn to the Weimar Republic.

Exploiting weaknesses

The set of conditions that led to “the Weimar disaster” are evident in South Africa today. Most notably among these conditions were disaffection with the political settlement (for Versailles see Codesa,  which I will elaborate on in the first chapters of a manuscript on the EFF I am preparing); political-economic failures (especially unemployment); and to a lesser extent brewing organised crime, especially in Berlin.

In Germany these conditions coalesced, as it were, threatened the cohesion of coalition government during the Weimar era, and paved the way for populists (Nazis) who promised to save the German people. Bear in mind that, like the EFF, the Nazis started out as a fringe group and became the largest party by the time of the Great Depression. Membership was bolstered by masses of unemployed people. Malema has specifically courted the unemployed. See here, here, here and here.

The saviour complex that was developed around Hitler helps us to better understand the way Malema has been elevated and presented as South Africa’s saviour. It is clear, by now, that Malema is the supreme leader of the EFF; his presence and visage reigns supreme at all events and in all propaganda material. This has powerful parallels with the way Hitler was elevated as the saviour of the German people.

As the chief propagandist of the Nazis, Joseph Goebbels worked hard at creating an almost religious cult and aura around Hitler. This much is evident from close reading of Goebbels’s writings, from his speeches and statements on or about Hitler’s birthday to his novel, Michael: A German Destiny in Diary Form.

In The ‘Hitler Myth’: Image and Reality in the Third Reich, the historian Ian Kershaw describes how a pseudo-religious symbolism and a myth of sacral superiority was latticed around the Führer by the Nazi propaganda machinery. Hitler was deified in a manner that was discomforting to non-Nazis, and presented as the man who would save the German people. Anyone who saw the spectacle of Malema rising to delirious applause and excitement at FNB Stadium last weekend would readily recognise the deification of the EFF leader.

In Germany, mythmaking gained momentum and had far-reaching appeal in the weeks and months before the 1932 election. Hitler as saviour benefited from the propaganda windfall provided by the conditions mentioned above, most of which are present in South Africa today. One relatively obscure fact, or set of facts, was the way that crime, especially in Berlin, and deep into the Nazi era throughout the war, undermined the state and added to the misery of the German people. This misery does not have to be explained to South Africans.

There is relatively little evidence about organised crime during the Weimar era, but enough to make the case that the Berlin Ringvereine (gang associations) were rampant for probably 15-20 years after 1925. Organised crime increased after 1933 with the Nazis in power. What has been established, nonetheless, is that organised crime and violence were distinct features of Weimar and the Third Reich. A lot more research probably needs to be done (by myself, to be sure), but the issue of crime in the inter-war period (after Versailles, and after Codesa in South Africa) cannot be ignored.

The deification of Malema and Hitler are powerful examples of the way dangerous demagogues, despots and dictators thrive under conditions of instability and uncertainty — and these were distinct elements of society and coalitions in Weimar Germany.

Undermining coalitions

As South Africa approaches the 2024 election, and real prospects of coalition governance come to the fore, the public and the media ought to look carefully at the conditions that gave rise to Hitler in Germany. Between 1919 and 1932, Germany was ruled, unsuccessfully, by a series of coalition governments. No single party was able to get a parliamentary majority, and this paved the way for increased political instability (on top of social and political-economic dissatisfaction and decline).

Much like the contemporary global political economy, and adding to the growth and spread of Nazism, the Weimar Republic, “congenitally flawed” as it was, faced serious externally driven headwinds. The expectation of reparations for Germany's role in World War 1 contributed to weakening the Weimar parliamentary system and fed the Nazi recruiting machinery.

In the 1920s, as today, global capitalism was going through a difficult period which reached its nadir with the Great Depression. My old textbooks attributed this to the 1929 stock market crash, the US's  disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff (there is no complete agreement on its impact) policies and consequent collapse of world trade, successive bank failures and panics, and a collapse of money supply.

The take-away here is that all these problems contributed to failures of coalition government during the Weimar era, and we see similar problems in South Africa today, with no suggestion that things will get better in the next five to 10 years.

One point we cannot ignore is that liberalism is in crisis. This is generally acknowledged, but see The Fate of the West: The Battle to Save the World’s Most Successful Political Idea by Bill Emmott, former editor-in-chief of The Economist; and The Retreat of Western Liberalism by Edward Luce, the US correspondent of the Financial Times.

During the 1920s a similar decline of liberalism was noted, not just by the left, mind you. The right-wing (some reports say he was a Nazi) German political philosopher Carl Schmitt (1888–1985) attributed Weimar constitutional and political failures to weaknesses and an unworkability (my word); to liberal defence of constitutionality, notably by the courts; and to identity politics, contested legitimacy and a culture of resentment. It does not take a great leap of imagination to see all these issues prevalent in South Africa, today, and recognise that they may not go away any time soon.

We get then to the question of whether coalition government will work in South Africa, where the EFF are bent on taking power and land “by any means necessary” and Malema has asked his followers to be prepared to kill for the revolution.

It seems unlikely for two main reasons. First, should the EFF be part of a coalition (national) government, it is difficult to see Malema taking orders or instructions from anyone. If they do accept a role in national government, it’s easy to see Malema dispatching one of his senior colleagues to the cabinet instead, and remaining outside the tent. This is a dangerous proposition. It’s hard, probably impossible, to see Malema containing himself.

Second, if the ANC goes into a coalition with the DA, there is every possibility that the EFF would make it impossible for the coalition to work. Malema would argue that an ANC-DA coalition would be a continuation of the status quo, and he would have a lot of ammunition for attacks on “white monopoly capital”.

Either way, the lessons from Weimar, and the fact that similar sensibilities (the Versailles and Codesa failures) and conditions exist in South Africa, make it difficult to see coalition government working after the 2024 election. As a footnote: We have not reflected on just how poorly coalitions have performed in local and provincial settings.

♦ VWB ♦

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