Anarchy in South Africa

By Naveed Qazi | Editor, Globe Upfront

Economic disparities and corruption often make masses revolt, and South Africa, the so‑called rainbow nation, became the most recent country where public protests regained their course in April 2017. Since 2009, more than thirteen notable protests had rattled the country, reflecting a growing disillusionment with the ruling African National Congress. The ANC, a 105‑year‑old political party once chaired by Nelson Mandela, was facing internal revolts that threatened to fracture the organisation which had dominated the political scene since the end of apartheid in 1994. As Al Jazeera reported at the time, tens of thousands of South Africans poured into the streets in the largest demonstrations in years, demanding accountability and change.

President Jacob Zuma’s decision to reshuffle twenty ministers, many of whom were regarded as competent, and replace them with personal loyalists without party consultation, triggered outrage. Opposition members drafted a no‑confidence vote against him, while the dismissal of Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, widely acclaimed for his anti‑corruption stance, fuelled mass unrest. Reuters noted that Gordhan’s removal was seen as a direct attack on institutional integrity, with suspicions that Zuma acted under the influence of the Gupta business family, accused of offering bribes and manipulating state contracts. The Guardian reported that Gordhan had been praised internationally for stabilising the economy, and his dismissal was interpreted as a blow to investor confidence.

Zuma’s reputation was plummeting, becoming increasingly roguelike in the eyes of the public due to his highly individualistic and anti‑public decisions accumulated over eight years in power. Many South Africans perceived his leadership as an assault on the poor, with frustrations and anger running high. Gordhan had already clashed with Zuma over management of the state treasury, attempting to root out nepotism in state‑owned companies. He also opposed Zuma’s ambitious plan for a nuclear deal with Russia, which critics argued was unaffordable and reckless. The Financial Times observed that Gordhan’s resistance to the nuclear project symbolised a broader struggle between technocratic governance and Zuma’s patronage politics.

In the post‑apartheid era, South Africans took to the streets demanding Zuma’s resignation over corruption and economic decline. The value of the rand had already devalued by around seven percent, and two credit rating agencies downgraded South African government debt to junk status. Food prices were rising due to inflation, compounding the hardship. The Constitutional Court had ruled against Zuma in a case involving millions spent on his private Nkandla residence, further damaging his credibility. The New York Times noted that Zuma’s repeated violations of constitutional norms had eroded trust in the presidency.

Although Zuma defended his cabinet reshuffle as necessary, critics dismissed it as a political gimmick unlikely to bring effectiveness ahead of the 2019 elections. Thousands of South Africans of all racial groups marched in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban and Pretoria to counter his populist rhetoric. Coalitions of civil groups such as Save South Africa Campaign, Outa, the Democratic Alliance and others contributed to the mass protests. Trade unions, business executives and members of the Communist Party joined in, while South Africans abroad, including in London, showed solidarity. Social media amplified the protests, with blogs and viral posts spreading images of placards and slogans. As IBTimes UK reported, the demonstrations were among the most significant since the end of apartheid, uniting diverse communities in opposition to Zuma.

Protestors held blue placards, formed human chains, waved flags, danced and sang protest songs, while motorists raised fists in defiance. Many participants admitted they had never marched before, underscoring the extraordinary nature of the mobilisation. Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu, frail but resolute, joined the protests in Cape Town, lending moral authority to the movement. The government urged citizens not to opt for a national shutdown, but rubber bullets were fired and several protestors were injured. Pro‑Zuma militants also attacked demonstrators. Despite constitutional guarantees of the right to petition and peaceful assembly, the atmosphere was tense, with fears of escalation.

The ANC’s history added poignancy to the crisis. Once banned for its armed struggle in the 1960s, the party had produced leaders like Mandela and Zuma himself, who spent ten years imprisoned on Robben Island. Zuma had played a role in organising youth camps in neighbouring countries and helped elevate Mandela to leadership. Yet by 2017, his legacy was overshadowed by allegations of corruption and betrayal of the movement’s ideals. The Soweto uprising of 1976 had once symbolised resistance against apartheid, but now the protests of 2017 symbolised resistance against corruption within the liberation party itself.

Zuma insisted that western colonial mentality and white monopoly capitalism were behind efforts to oust him, framing the protests as externally driven. Yet the mass uprising told a different story. As Al Jazeera noted, ordinary South Africans from all walks of life were demanding accountability, not foreign intervention. The protests revealed a society unwilling to tolerate corruption and economic mismanagement, even from a party that had delivered freedom. The Guardian observed that the ANC faced its gravest internal crisis since 1994, with the possibility of fracture looming.

By April 2017, South Africa stood at a crossroads. The protests were not merely about Zuma’s cabinet reshuffle but about the broader trajectory of the nation. Economic disparities, corruption and patronage politics had eroded trust in institutions. The downgrade to junk status symbolised the economic consequences of political instability. The marches, uniting diverse communities, reflected a yearning for renewal. As Reuters reported, the protests were a warning that the ANC could no longer rely on its liberation legacy to secure loyalty. The people demanded integrity, accountability and leadership that served the public rather than personal interests.

Zuma’s future was uncertain. He faced mounting pressure from opposition parties, civil society and even factions within the ANC. The protests of April 2017 marked a turning point, showing that South Africans were prepared to defend democracy against corruption. Whether Zuma would step down or cling to power remained unresolved, but the uprising demonstrated that the rainbow nation’s citizens were determined to hold leaders accountable. The legacy of Mandela and the sacrifices of the past demanded no less.