What Shivambu Holdings really intends with his political maneuvering

Siseko Maposa 

POLITICAL economists have long entangled themselves in a circular debate – whether  politics shape markets or markets shape politics – as if parsing some grand cosmic  chicken-and-egg dilemma. 

To me, this has always been a false binary. The interplay is  self-evident: while reciprocal influence exists, history’s unrelenting verdict is that  material conditions shape everything, including politics and its actors.  

Which brings us to the spectacle of our moment. Floyd Shivambu has left many baffled following his recent press conference on June 19.

What are we to make of a man who  declares unwavering loyalty to a party while simultaneously plotting its potential  replacement? A loyalist who now embarks on a national tour to gauge whether the  movement he claims to cherish should be abandoned altogether. 

One who vows never to  resign yet taunts the MK Party to expel him. Let me not even unpack the comments he  made of the EFF’s Julius Malema, and other insinuations that Duduzile Zuma is both  chemically compromised and digitally unhinged. 

These seem bizarre but much of our confusion stems from a fundamental  misapprehension: we keep expecting politicians to behave as anything other  than market agents.

To cut through the noise, we must reframe our lens entirely. Consider instead an analogy  drawn from corporate theory – a framework both ruthlessly pragmatic and richly  explanatory. Modern politics operates on two irreducible facts: 

- Politicians operate as Strategic Business Enterprises (SBE), each leveraging their  unique competitive advantages – charisma, intellect, social capital, or regional  appeal – to broker advantageous deals with political parties – I will get to what  these are later. Like businesses, their influence varies: some remain small-scale  operators, while others grow so dominant that their personal brand eclipses the  very parties they align with (e.g., Jacob Zuma and MK Party). Note: The pursuit of  profit remains an inherent imperative for SBE’s.  

- Parties function like corporate conglomerates, some bigger than others,  controlled by elite "shareholders" (discreet funders) who curate a portfolio of  politicians (SBEs to maximise returns on their investment). A critical performance  metric for these shareholders is electoral support, as it directly measures their  capacity to influence state machinery in service of their interests. Standard  corporate governance applies: Underperforming or disruptive assets – say, a  Secretary-General or Party Leader – are swiftly replaced to protect shareholder interests.

This model strips politics to its transactional core - where allegiance carries a price tag  and influence obeys valuation. 

What is Shivambu’s business plan? 

I do not think he is misspeaking, rather he is executing. His provocations to the MK Party are not the ramblings of a disgruntled operative, but a deliberate baiting for expulsion.  

Resignation would be costly (2nd from two different political parties in less than 12  months), as it depreciates his brand equity (that essential USP of credibility), whereas  martyrdom by excommunication appreciates it.

And the trip around South Africa? This is not some earnest listening tour to “assess  national needs”. A man of his strategic acumen and experience long ago diagnosed the  market gap. Rather, its political venture capital. Shivambu Holdings is seeking seed funding  for a new political conglomerate. His prospective investor pool includes a calculated  consortium of disillusioned business moguls and charismatic religious leaders which he name-dropped at his press conference.  

I yield the floor. 

Maposa is Director of Surgetower Associates Management Consultancy,  views expressed are of his own opinion. 

CAPE TIMES