Political power is representative power

Millions of South Africans are conversant with the philosophy of the ANC. Stop spending so much time workshopping people on what they already know. In many instances, ordinary South Africans understand the movement's history, philosophy and convictions far better than some of those who claim to represent it.

The real question is no longer whether people know the philosophy.

The real question is whether we are translating that philosophy into their daily realities, their aspirations and, ultimately, their lives.

That is where the serious conversation must begin.

How much of a servant are the so-called servants of the people?

There was a time when leaders of our movement were expected to carry a certain moral and ethical standing in society. We must have the courage to ask whether those standards still carry the same weight today.

If they do not, then we must ask ourselves: What went wrong? Where did we lose our way? And how do we fix it?

This is not merely a question about individual personalities. It is a question about the character of political leadership and the standards we are prepared to accept.

THE QUESTION BENEATH THE QUESTION

The struggles of South Africans undoubtedly have a racial and historical dimension. But beneath the question of race lies another fundamental question: who owns the means of production, who controls capital, who owns productive assets and who has meaningful economic power?

That question cannot be separated from South Africa's history.

Colonialism and apartheid did not merely segregate people. They structured the economy, land ownership, labour markets and access to capital in profoundly unequal ways. The democratic project therefore inherited not simply a political problem, but an economic structure shaped by that history.

This is precisely why transformation policies such as affirmative action, B-BBEE, land reform, the Mining Charter and other measures of redress remain such contested political questions. Government itself continues to identify ownership, control of capital and access to productive assets as areas where historical exclusion remains relevant.

The disagreement, therefore, is not simply about whether South Africa needs development.

It is about what kind of development, for whom, and under whose ownership and control.

There is a school of thought that regards transformational interventions as a form of discrimination in reverse and argues that South Africa should simply move forward from the past without substantially altering inherited economic arrangements.

But there is another way of understanding the democratic project: that political freedom cannot be fully separated from the economic structures inherited from colonialism and apartheid.

That debate is not going away.

And it should not be reduced to slogans.

WHOSE FREEDOM ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

When we speak about freedom, we must ask what freedom means in material terms.

Does freedom mean simply having the right to vote?

Or does it also mean having access to land, capital, quality education, healthcare, economic opportunity, ownership and the ability to participate meaningfully in the economy?

These are not abstract questions.

South Africa continues to face extraordinarily high unemployment. Statistics South Africa reported an official unemployment rate of 31.4% in the fourth quarter of 2025, with 7.8 million people unemployed.

So when we talk about transformation, we are ultimately talking about the material conditions of millions of people.

THE POLITICS OF RESISTANCE

There is also a difficult conversation that political leadership must be prepared to have about opposition to transformational policies.

It would be intellectually careless to suggest that all white South Africans think alike or that opposition to government policy is determined solely by race. South African society is far more complicated than that.

But it would be equally simplistic to pretend that race, inherited economic privilege and political interests have no relationship to debates about transformation.

The political disputes surrounding affirmative action, B-BBEE, NHI, land reform, BELA, the Mining Charter and South Africa's international relations are not merely disputes about the provision of basic services.

They are also disputes about the direction of the South African political economy.

They concern questions of ownership, access, redistribution, institutional power and the extent to which the post-apartheid state should alter economic patterns inherited from the past.

That is the debate we should be having.

Not a caricature of it.

Not a racial shouting match.

The real debate is about power.

AND WHAT ABOUT STRUCTURAL CORRUPTION?

We must also be intellectually honest enough to confront corruption wherever it occurs.

If transformation is undermined by corruption, patronage and elite capture, then those responsible must be held accountable.

But accountability cannot be selective.

South Africa should be capable of investigating wrongdoing whether it occurs in government, politics, business or financial institutions.

The question must always be:

Who benefited? Who was harmed? Who was responsible? And what consequences followed?

We cannot demand accountability from one part of society while treating structural economic abuses elsewhere as simply the normal operation of the system.

The ordinary citizen deserves protection from exploitation regardless of who is responsible.
POLITICAL POWER IS ALSO ABOUT EXECUTION

Political power is not simply about occupying positions.

Political power is about strategy, planning and disciplined execution.

A political mandate without strategy is an aspiration.

Strategy without planning is a document.

Planning without execution is theatre.

And execution without accountability can become something even more dangerous.

The people ultimately judge political ideas through their lived experience.

They want to know whether their children can find work.

Whether their communities have functioning schools.

Whether there is reliable water and electricity.

Whether healthcare is accessible.

Whether their children can participate in the economy.

Whether they can own something.

Whether they can build something.

Whether tomorrow can genuinely be better than today.

THE ELITE OF LEADERSHIP

Perhaps our biggest crisis is that, for too long, we have sometimes represented ourselves as an elite of leadership rather than representatives of the people.

That distinction is fundamental.

The moment political leaders begin seeing themselves as superior to the people, the relationship between mandate and representation begins to collapse.

The people become an audience.

The politician becomes the centre.

The movement becomes an institution.

And the original political mission begins to disappear.

South Africa is not a politically passive society. It is a politically conscious and highly contested society. People understand politics. They debate it. They remember promises. They compare political programmes with their lived realities.

You cannot continually tell people what they should think while refusing to listen to what they experience.

The people are not merely recipients of political philosophy.

They are the source of the political mandate.

THE REAL CRISIS

A political party is only as healthy as the political mission it carries.

The moment it loses that mission, it begins to lose relevance.

And when the idea that binds people together is no longer visible in their lived experience, the organisation eventually faces a crisis of purpose.

A political party, at its foundation, is an idea.

The convictions that give birth to that idea cannot be short-circuited, diluted or replaced by slogans, conferences and endless workshops.

The challenge is therefore not to explain the philosophy endlessly to people who already know it.

The challenge is to live it.

To organise around it.

To plan around it.

To execute it.

To defend its principles where necessary.

And to correct its failures where they occur.

Most importantly, the challenge is to ensure that the people can see the meaning of that political philosophy in their own lives.

Because political power is not about the title attached to your name.

It is not about the office you occupy.

It is not about the faction you belong to.

It is not about how powerful you believe you have become.

POLITICAL POWER IS REPRESENTATIVE POWER.

It belongs to the people who give you the mandate.

That mandate carries responsibility.

It demands humility.

It demands ethical leadership.

It demands strategy.

It demands planning.

It demands disciplined execution.

And above all, it demands that those entrusted with political power never forget who they represent.

So, once again:

GET ME CORRECTLY — POLITICAL POWER IS REPRESENTATIVE POWER.

Humble yourself on that one.

We can engage scientifically, intellectually and honestly on the matter.

By Fundile Gade Writes in own personal capacity