'GNU A CONSEQUENCE NOT A PLAN', INTERROGATING MANTASHE'S WORDS

 In the minds and eyes of the ANC leadership, Government of National Unity is a consequence of the African National Congress' failure to obtain majority votes in the past elections as reflected by Gwede Mantashe's words. However, the GNU maybe a consequence of a plan that reached its apex to finally manifest. This is because of the design of the democratic system. Therefore either with or without ANC in leadership the consequence of the plan was ripe for harvest and GNU was its long-term purpose from the beginning. Some would ask, when we talk about the consequence of a plan, whose plan it is and what are the beneficiaries. Definitely not the ordinary people. The plan is founded by those who determine an acceptable democracy through defining it, and the defining of it, as it stands, is not intended to advance democracy's founding principle of politically empowering the electorate and serve the people, but to protect business interests and those interests currently can only be protected through a GNU. Note, democracy is a vague political concept whose acceptability rests on how it is defined and practiced. Two fundamentals of democracy consist of Free and Fair election and right to political association of choice. Right of political association is enabled by freedom to join any political organisation of choice. This is where the multiparty system comes in. However, Multiparty system theory within the democracy system is the substantial factor inevitably delivering coalition governments and has led to the current Government of National Unity in South Africa. It is indisputable in most cases that, with Multiparty system it is either outright winner, electoral disputations that are followed by legitimacy issues unless the electoral outcome is certified by external forces wielding economic power or absent outright election winner, agreement and coalition governance with direct or indirect approval of the business sector. The Multiparty system is allows anyone to freely compete for power through electoral contestation either as individual independent of party affiliation or as a party representative. This idea of free numerous political outfits has constitutional blessings, however, need to be regulated and be exercised within statutory constraints to achieve its intended goal of ensuring robust democracy. As it stands, the multiparty system is weakening democracy through disenfranchising the electorate of the power to decide who should lead them, bestowed on them by the same democracy and has been transformed by powerful vested interests into a weapon to divide and consequentially usurp power through the so-called negotiation, which is nothing but a public backdoor channel to hijack the levers of power. The right to exercise free will, free association and vote has been reduced into a conceptual tool to deceptively influence mostly illiterate electorate into some ineffective political groupings. Flock-headed  political groupings with questionable formation, attractive policies but unknown agendas led by opportunistic populists. The multiparty system disaster manifest on election outcomes, especially where there is numerous political parties holding meaningless vote percentages only useful when conjoined with that of other electoral participants. This is where the issue of interests comes in and will of the people is either ignored, defied or thrown into the dustbin. A sudden shift from expressed political will of the electorate to the 'interests' factor. The reason for such shift, is that negotiations in an electoral outcome where there is a spreadsheet of vote-accumulation is conducted through representations either on individual-level or party-level represented by individuals on a negotiating table. These individuals negotiators use negotiating capital to sway negotiations in their favour. The reason for pushing negotiation results into their favour is because all political parties have interests to protect and what protect their interest is their ability to use their negotiating capital to force negotiations into decisions that favours their interests. For example, South Africa elections had these results, ANC = 40.18%, DA = 21.81%, M.K. = 14.58%, EFF = 9.52%, IFP = 3.85%, PA = 2.06%, VF = 1.36%, ACTIONSA =1.2%, UDM =0.49% in that downward chronology. This is what the Multiparty System has achieved. It has divided the people based on political affiliation, race, ethnicity, region necessitating vote-splitting that produced an election with no outright winner. Absence of outright winner means there is no sufficient expressed will among participants who obtained a regulated percentage to assume power and govern. This does not strengthen democracy but creates infiltration vulnerabilities in its practice. However, the accumulated percentages represent the political capital of each political party determining the party's negotiating leverage in case of negotiations. This political capital allows the political parties to voice their disagreements to any decision that is against the will of the people if the need arise, provided the political capital is enough to make their voices forceful and politically relevant. But with such voices divide, it automatically means the electoral power to influence politics and political decisions is dormant. The second negotiating capital is the economic factor. Politics influences Economics and Economics influences Politics. Politics and Economics, therefore, are intertwined concepts that complement each other, and strangely businesses have much vested interest in the politics with habit to hijack politics for profiteering reasons at the cost of democracy. With multiparty divided electorate, the power to influence politics, political decisions and sway political negotiations rests with business that controls the economic capital. A shift from democracy of political capital to a democracy of economic capital where the ultimate deciding factor is not the people but the interest of the economy, and he who controls the economy of a country decide its leader.

A consequence of the plan.

.....................................................................................................................................Mr P Dekeya