Julius Malema's Struggle for Relevance in a Changing South Africa

By Sandiso Bazana

Julius Malema’s recent article, ostensibly reflecting on the 3rd National People’s Assembly of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), exposes the contradictions and limitations of his leadership in the shifting political landscape of South Africa. Beginning with his critique of what he calls “pseudo-black unity,” Malema claims to address what he perceives as betrayals of revolutionary ideals. However, his analysis, rather than offering clarity or a compelling vision, reveals an alarming disconnect from the realities of 2024. What emerges is less a critique of political opponents and more a desperate attempt to assert relevance in a political moment that seems to have left him behind.

For years, Malema has cultivated an image as the uncompromising voice of the marginalized, a staunch defender of revolutionary ideals, and a self-appointed custodian of Steve Biko’s legacy. These titles demand consistency, moral clarity, and a commitment to transformative leadership. Yet, his latest commentary fails to live up to this persona. Instead, it betrays a leader grappling with insecurity, relying on rhetorical theatrics to mask glaring contradictions in his political record. The essay he pens seems less about advancing Black liberation and more about asserting personal dominance in an increasingly complex and competitive political arena.

The challenges facing South Africa today require leadership that transcends personality politics and focuses on tangible solutions. This article seeks to hold Malema accountable for his role in perpetuating the fragmentation of Black political movements. It is also a broader call for introspection—not just for Malema but for the EFF as a whole. South Africa stands at a pivotal crossroads as Malema correctly points out in his article, demanding not a personalized condemnation of other Black political parties but innovative strategies, genuine solidarity, and a willingness to adapt to the evolving socio-political landscape. Theatrics and divisive rhetoric are no longer sufficient in the face of mounting socio-economic inequalities, rising political disillusionment, and an electorate yearning for substantive change.

Malema must confront an uncomfortable truth: his leadership may no longer serve the best interests of the movement he claims to champion. To ensure the EFF’s survival as a transformative force for Black liberation, its leadership must evolve, recalibrate its strategies, or make way for new voices. South Africa’s future depends on leaders who can inspire unity, articulate a clear and forward-looking vision, and confront systemic oppression with unwavering resolve—not on those who dwell on personal grievances or use divisive rhetoric to mask their shortcomings. 

Malema’s framing of “pseudo-black unity” as the enemy of revolutionary progress is not only misleading but also dangerous, as it reduces the complexities of Black solidarity to a simplistic binary of authenticity versus opportunism. This rhetoric obscures the structural challenges posed by white supremacy and settler colonialism, which remain the true barriers to liberation. The 2024 elections highlighted both the potential and fragility of Black unity, with emergent parties like the MK Party gaining ground as the second-largest opposition, reflecting widespread disillusionment with established movements such as the EFF and ANC. 

However, this fragmentation among Black-led movements inadvertently strengthened white-dominated capitalist interests, as the ANC maintained power, though the ‘Government of National Unity” (GNU) by aligning with neoliberal agendas that reinforce systemic inequities rooted in colonial and apartheid legacies. Despite these setbacks, the elections underscored the enduring power of collective action. Black unity, flawed though it may be, remains an indispensable force for challenging entrenched systems of oppression. To harness this potential, leaders like Malema must abandon divisive rhetoric and focus on fostering authentic solidarity that transcends personal ambition and ideological purity, uniting the oppressed against a common enemy.

In a settler-colonial society like South Africa, the true enemy is not found in competing Black movements but in the deeply entrenched systems of white domination that exploit every weakness in Black solidarity. These systems thrive on division, using every possible wedge to weaken collective efforts. The settler-colonial framework is designed to sustain itself through the division of the oppressed, and Malema’s rhetoric of exclusion plays directly into this dynamic. His framing of “pseudo-unity” as a greater threat than the white power structures that dominate South Africa’s political economy reveals a dangerous prioritization of personal and organizational interests over the broader goals of liberation.

True Black unity, even in its imperfect forms, is a powerful force against South Africa’s entrenched settler-colonial structures. Malema’s failure to embrace this transformative potential exposes a critical weakness in his leadership. By prioritizing divisive rhetoric over solidarity, he undermines both the EFF’s credibility and the broader struggle for systemic change. Unity, however messy, remains the essential foundation for any effective liberation movement, and rejecting it risks perpetuating the very oppression that revolutionary efforts seek to dismantle.

One of the most glaring contradictions in Malema’s article is his critique of “self-preservation” among other political actors. This critique is particularly ironic given Malema’s own history and the controversies that have dogged his leadership. He positions himself as a defender of revolutionary integrity, yet his political career is marked by allegations of corruption, self-enrichment, and authoritarian tendencies within the EFF. These contradictions undermine his credibility and raise serious questions about his commitment to the principles he claims to uphold.

The lifestyle audits from Malema’s tenure as ANC Youth League president revealed discrepancies between his declared income and his extravagant lifestyle, casting doubt on his integrity. Compounding these concerns is the EFF’s financing model, which mandates financial contributions from its members of parliament and other officials. While such contributions are not inherently problematic, the lack of transparency in their management has raised ethical questions. Allegations—detailed in court proceedings by a former EFF executive—highlight the potential misuse of these funds, casting a long shadow over Malema’s leadership. 

While such contributions are not inherently problematic, allegations—once detailed in court proceedings by a former national executive member of the EFF—highlight the potential for misuse and raise pressing ethical dilemmas. Although these allegations were later dismissed in court, the lack of transparency and accountability in how these funds are managed continues to cast a shadow over Malema’s leadership style. This opacity has led many to view the EFF as functioning, to some degree, as Malema’s personal fiefdom, undermining the democratic principles and accountability that should anchor a movement purporting to champion the interests of the marginalised.

The VBS scandal is emblematic of these contradictions. Accusations that Malema and his allies, including Floyd Shivambu, benefited from the looting of the bank serve as a stark reminder of the very “self-preservation” politics Malema so readily denounces. By failing to address these allegations transparently, he undermines his moral authority and fuels disillusionment among those who once saw the EFF as a revolutionary alternative. Such controversies not only damage Malema’s credibility but also call into question the EFF’s ability to lead the fight for systemic change.

Malema’s invocation of Black Consciousness as a revolutionary principle further highlights the contradictions in his rhetoric. He frequently uses the term as a weapon to critique others while reducing it to a hollow rhetorical device. The distinction between Black Consciousness, rooted in Steve Biko’s legacy, and its misrepresentation as an abstract ideology is critical. Black Consciousness was never intended to serve as a tool for exclusion or division. Instead, it was a call to reclaim agency, challenge systemic oppression, and foster solidarity among the oppressed.

Malema’s use of Black Consciousness often appears opportunistic, prioritising personal ambition over genuine solidarity. This betrayal of Biko’s legacy undermines the revolutionary potential of the philosophy. Rather than unifying the oppressed under a shared vision of liberation, Malema’s rhetoric risks deepening divisions and alienating potential allies. This distortion is not only disingenuous but also dangerous, as it compromises the cohesion necessary to confront systemic oppression effectively.

Malema’s emphasis on past achievements in his article reveals a leader more concerned with justifying his position than with adapting to the current political moment. His recounting of the EFF’s past successes, while valid, does little to address the pressing challenges of 2024. South Africa’s socio-political landscape is rapidly evolving, with new political forces like the Patriotic Alliance and the MK Party reshaping the opposition. These shifts highlight the electorate’s growing disillusionment with established movements like the EFF.

Malema’s inability to engage constructively with these changes signals a troubling disconnect between his leadership and the needs of the electorate. His refusal to adapt diminishes the EFF’s relevance, risking its place as a unifying force in South Africa’s political future. This moment demands maturity, innovation, and a willingness to prioritise the collective good over personal ambition.

Malema’s critique of “skin colour” politics in his article dangerously aligns with the rhetoric of non-racialism—a concept historically weaponised to dilute Black political power and safeguard white dominance. By reducing the efforts of other Black-led movements to mere “unity based on skin colour,” Malema risks perpetuating liberal discourses that undermine African nationalism and weaken collective liberation struggles.

Non-racialism, far from being an inclusive ideology, has consistently served as a mechanism to consolidate white supremacy under the guise of equality, masking systemic inequalities while preserving existing power hierarchies. This alignment, whether intentional or not, diverts attention from dismantling entrenched systems of racial and economic oppression, instead sowing division within the liberation movement. Such rhetoric not only weakens Black solidarity but also reinforces the narratives of those invested in maintaining the status quo.

The discourse of non-racialism, which gained traction in South Africa's mid-20th century political debates, was infamously embraced by the founding ANC Youth League—the so-called “Class of 44”—during the 1950s. This ideological shift significantly eroded African nationalism, steering the liberation agenda away from the empowerment of Black South Africans and toward compromises that entrenched existing power imbalances. The consequences of this move remain starkly evident today, as the diluted framework of non-racialism continues to protect the interests of white economic and political elites while obstructing the progress of genuine Black empowerment and unity. Malema’s rhetoric, whether deliberate or unintentional, risks reinforcing this flawed narrative—a narrative that has consistently undermined Black solidarity and weakened resistance against systemic oppression.

In sum, Julius Malema’s article, for all its rhetorical flair, reveals a leader grappling with the challenges of maintaining relevance in a rapidly changing political landscape. His critique of opportunism and pseudo-unity, while raising valid concerns, is undermined by his own contradictions and failures. If the EFF is to remain a force for Black liberation, it must confront these contradictions head-on and embrace a new direction.

The 2024 political shift demands bold and innovative strategies. It requires movements that unite rather than fracture, inspire rather than disillusion, and act decisively against systemic oppression. Malema must ask himself whether his continued leadership serves the movement or hinders it. If he cannot provide the vision and solidarity required to navigate this moment, then perhaps it is time for him to step aside and allow the EFF to chart a new course—one that prioritises collective liberation over personal ambition. South Africa’s future depends on it.

* Sandiso Bazana, PhD in Business Administration, Lecturer in Organisational Psychology Psychology Department, Rhodes University.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.