Despite the new focus on Africa’s angry youth, the EFF and the NEFF are the latest generation in a long line of African populist parties.
African-style populism, which has swept many a party and leader into power on the continent following independence from colonialism after World War 2, has brought very little shared economic development or quality democracies.
Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Epafras Mukwiilon go’s Namibian Economic Freedom Fighters (NEFF), although different in that they are focusing on securing the youth vote, are the latest generation in a long line of African populist parties.
The EFF and the NEFF are claiming to be “radical left”, “anti-capitalist” and “anti-imperialist” movements, calling for the nationalisation of mines and banks and the seizure of white-owned land without compensation. They are, in fact, populist, albeit on the left flank of the political spectrum.
Conventionally, populism is usually seen as political movements and leaders constructing in the popular image an imaginary battle of “us” (“the people”) or the poor masses, which have little economic and political power, against the “them”, the elites dominating economic and political power.
African-style populist parties in terms of politics are either left wing or conservative, and in economic terms, use state capitalism, the freemarket (or neo-liberalism) ideas or socialism.
Most of the first generation, post-war African independence movements of both the left and conservative strands used populism effectively to rally the masses to overthrow colonialism.
These African populist regimes from both sides of the political spectrum politically emphasised the fight between the “people” and the colonial powers, and in terms of the economy, called for state capitalism, which included nationalisation and empowerment or indigenisation programmes.
In power, these African independence movements stayed the populist course, now positioning their inherited countries as the underdog, forever under attack by enemies — supposedly former colonial powers and Western imperialists.
Failures of these independence movement governments were often blamed on colonial powers and Western imperialists. Local critics of the state were often accused of being in the pay of these colonial powers and imperialists.
In power, military figures, such as Gaddafi set up populist regimes based on quasi Marxist -Leninism, mixing an African brand of socialism and state capitalism with populism. In power, these populist military leaders also portrayed their countries as victims under attack from Western imperialists.
A group of African guerrilla populist leaders also fought independence movement governments based on populism, by positioning themselves and the suffering masses as outsiders, and the independence leaders the new “them”, in control of political and economic power and corrupt.
A third group of populist African regimes have been ones that came to power at the end of the Cold War, upstaging independence movement governments in power. The late Zambian former opposition leader Frederick Chiluba, who formed the Movement for Multiparty Democracy (MMD), successfully won the 1991 elections against Kenneth Kaunda, the independence leader, who
had ruled the country with an iron fist since independence.
In power, Chiluba became increasingly populist, attempting to change the constitution to stay on for a third term, crushed dissent and opposition within his own party.
A new group of post-global financial and Eurozone crisis populist parties are now rising in Africa. Michael Sata was elected in 2011 in Zambia on a populist platform, attacking Chinese investment and the corrupt political and economic elite in Zambia, and claiming to espouse free market economics.
In May 2014, Malawi’s former president Joyce Banda reluctantly accepted defeat in a national election after her rival Peter Mutharika, a former foreign minister, won with 36,4% of the vote against Banda’s 20,2%. Banda took power in 2012 on populist, anti-corruption campaign, when her predecessor died while president, also claiming to espouse free-market economics.
Banda initially won praise for selling off the presidential jet her predecessor bought. However, it was later found that she had sold the jet to a company that allowed her to use it for free after the sale.
EFF and NEFF are only different from their predecessors in that they are focusing mostly on the continent’s angry youth.
Africa needs quality democracies, inclusive economies and caring leaders. Populism is not the answer.
Instructively, the African governing parties and leaders the past century that genuinely pursued democracy, inclusive development and governed in the interests of all their citizens have done better than any other African country.