Why is Motsepe ahead, if he is eyeing the top political job?

The succession contest to lead the ANC after Ramaphosa is more about leveraging the advantage of such a victory than securing the country’s presidency, which is the ultimate goal in South African politics. 

Since the 2016 Local Government elections, when the urban vote began showing signs of a possible coalition government-driven democratic order, the ANC has been declining as a majority party. It had already begun dismantling its basic units of organisation, branches, as nodes of interaction with communities or voters, through the strange, yet left to reign, member-of-member gatekeeping system. The linking of in-party political office with offices that accrue after an election made being an ANC leader about the benefits of such positions to the individual rather than to society. 

 

This untenable situation benefited the growing opposition complex. Unlike the early post-1994 years, by 2016, there were more political parties with the requisite social and demographic appeal among RSA voters. The articulation of what was possible without the ANC at the centre of government was led by leaders who wore the shoes of the previously oppressed; they know the pinches. This worsened when identity-vote mobilisation began to undermine non-racialism and anti-tribalism as vectors for building a National Democratic Society. 

 

In these circumstances, what an organisation represents to voters quickly mutates into what the organisation's leader can make it represent. The contest for voter support became a function of the charm offensive the leader could mount to secure a significant number of votes. By 2016, two distinct approaches drove how political parties appealed to voters. 

 

First, reliance on accumulated social and political capital during the anti-colonial and anti-apartheid struggle was used to justify the moral right to implement the required change and transformation. This was accompanied by complacency about "our people" rather than "the people" as the voter constituency to appease. The ideals of a free South Africa occupied centre stage. The claim that freedoms do not accrue to 'the, or our' people became the dominant rhetoric to plaster over the cracks caused by greed, personal aggrandisement, corruption, state capture, inept delivery, and overall dysfunction in how the state was governed across all spheres. 

 

Second, it focused on pragmatic service delivery issues. This followed the Amil Cabralian edict that "the, or our people are not voting for ideas, for the things in anyone’s head. They are voting to get material benefits, to live better and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children.”

 

In pursuing these approaches, voters began to identify with leaders or individuals who offer the best prospect of gaining the benefits they seek from voting in a particular way. Under these conditions, a track record of giving rather than taking from society will form part of the criteria. A relationship with ethical values, institutions known to be substrates of moral regeneration, such as churches, and a friendly engagement with earned money, wealth, and power have become central to leadership selection criteria. 

 

In the past 30 years, among the contenders for South Africa's top job, there is arguably none that would meet the principles of the Amil Cabralian edict, except insofar as giving is about securing in-party gatekeeping requirements to make the grade as members-of-members. The key ingredients of a post-2016 election victory include putting up candidates who address the taps that have water, electricity that switches on, an economy that produces jobs, a country that is safe from crime, and leaders who earn their wealth and power. 

 

Leadership under these conditions began to be about demonstrating how you would address poverty, unemployment, and inequality. It is about translating words into tangible improvements in people's living conditions, reinforcing the need for leaders to earn societal trust through real social change.

 

When asked whether he was standing for the position of ANC President, which, as argued herein, is not the same as President of South Africa, Patrice Motsepe said he was walking straight and therefore would not stand, to allow those who have challenges in walking straight to do so. This is notwithstanding him having stood up in the front row at the ANC's 2025 National General Council and being singled out by the ANC Secretary General for a request to sit down, the “dula fatshe” moment. What we don't yet know is whether he is eyeing the presidency of South Africa, leaving his ambitions uncertain and inviting the audience to feel intrigued by his true intentions. 

 

In the event he is, and the Amil Cabralian edict becomes the context or substrate for determining who should be President of South Africa, he is ahead of all those being touted. However, success in business and philanthropy does not automatically translate into success in politics, reminding the audience to remain cautious about equating wealth with political capability.

 

Global experiences with billionaires and politics do not inspire any courage to risk, given the fragility of South Africa's democracy. What is sure to happen is that he would have volunteered his meteoric rise to being one of Africa’s leading billionaires to scrutiny reserved for political battles. The jury is still gathering on whether he will throw in the proverbial hat in the contest.