Media outlets have downplayed the sovereignty implications and highlighted the supposed benefits of foreign intervention, writes Gillian Schutte. File picture
OPINION: Under the guise of balanced reporting, these media outlets have downplayed the sovereignty implications and highlighted the supposed benefits of foreign intervention, writes Gillian Schutte.
With its dominant ideological apparatus, the global liberal order has significantly normalised and legitimised the recolonisation of South Africa.
It is the foreign-funded media outlets like the Daily Maverick and News24 that have been most instrumental in this process. These platforms seek to portray themselves as progressive voices. Yet their mandate is to shift the narrative to portray neoliberalism/recolonisation as a necessary and even benevolent step.
Under the guise of balanced reporting, these media outlets have downplayed the sovereignty implications and highlighted the supposed benefits of foreign intervention. By framing the discourse in terms of economic pragmatism and political necessity, they have obscured the profound ethical and political compromises involved. This media complicity is an ideological betrayal that buttresses the global liberal hegemony that re-inscribes severe inequality and exploitation.
In this way, they have been instrumental in facilitating what I refer to as a soft coup or colour revolution in South Africa.
To expand on this idea, the role of media in facilitating South Africa's recolonisation process is glaringly evident when examining the funding affiliations of outlets like the Daily Maverick and amaBhungane, including media organisations such as Code for South Africa. These embedded platforms get ample resource support from organisations tied to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and it is these affiliations that cast doubt on their editorial independence. It is currently popular knowledge that the NED and affiliates are known to push an agenda aligned with global liberal interests.
One of the signifiers of this agenda is seen in obsessive reporting on perceived failures of black leadership that undermines local governance while subtly endorsing external intervention. This method is so obvious it can be described as banal and we all know that evil is found most often in the banal. Added to this is the dogged use of anti-Marxist rhetoric to create a narrative that demonises humanistic ideals for equality. It is this skewed focus that has ensured that the media is weaponised to become an intrinsic part of the soft coup that has unfolded. One can even pinpoint where this particular soft coup began – starting with the State Capture report and the subsequent Save South Africa (SOS) movement aimed at unseating former president Jacob Zuma.
The manner in which this played out reflects the undoing of many an African administration that looks away from the West to the more progressive BRICS. It is via the relentless highlighting of alleged corruption and inefficiencies within black-led administrations that these media outlets work to erode public trust in local leadership, and thus pave the way for external forces to step in under the pretext of restoring order and stability. They wilfully use this strategic framing as a way to not only delegitimise the current leadership but also to justify and normalise the intervention of foreign powers and white oligarchs in South Africa’s political and economic spheres.
The consistent portrayal of Marxism and socialist policies as inherently flawed further aligns with the interests of global capital, creating a fertile ground for recolonisation disguised as economic reform. In essence, the liberal media has not merely reported on events but has actively shaped and facilitated the narrative that supports the recolonisation agenda, making it a crucial player in the soft coup we have just witnessed.
Both the Save South Africa (SOS) movement and the State Capture report have, in many ways, mirrored the characteristics of a colour revolution. “Colour Revolution” is a term used to describe movements that seem legitimate and possibly progressive, calling for democratic change against supposedly despotic governments.
What they are instead, are guises utilised by Western hegemonic forces transmogrifying what could sometimes be legitimate concerns into movements that are aimed at overthrowing governments through non-violent protests and strategic use of media.
Similar to the Maidan Uprising in Ukraine, these movements are funded and supported by foreign interests which are heavily influenced by Western funding and strategic narratives. Far from being rights based, these colour revolutions are there to pave the way for the drive for global dominance of the US and its Nato Allies.
The 2016 release of the State Capture report detailed extensive corruption within the Zuma administration, particularly focusing on the influence of the Gupta family.
While the report highlighted genuine issues, the intense media coverage and the subsequent mobilisation of civil society groups like SOS have the stamp of externally influenced political engineering. This movement gained significant traction in advocating for president Zuma's removal, an easy enough strategy since the media had paved the way with its ongoing propaganda and demonisation of Zuma.
In this way it was not merely a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment but was supported by Human Rights, Chapter 9s and a mushrooming of organisations with mercenary ties to Western liberal interests, notably those funded by entities like the NED.
The parallels with Ukraine's Maidan Uprising are striking. In both cases, there was a pronounced focus on exposing corruption and promoting democracy, with significant backing from Western NGOs and media. The co-ordinated efforts of the media, civil society, internal capital and foreign funding sources in South Africa reflect a broader strategy seen in other colour revolutions.
By systematically undermining the credibility of local leadership and amplifying calls for reform, these movements facilitate a form of soft coup. The ultimate goal is to establish a government that aligns with liberal democratic ideals and neoliberal economic policies, often at the expense of true national sovereignty and self-determination.
This strategy of externally influenced regime change poses significant challenges to the autonomy and stability of nations like South Africa, where the veneer of democratic reform masks a deeper agenda of recolonisation and control.
South Africa’s recolonisation in 2024 is a severe indictment of both the nation’s political leadership and the broader global order. The only choice now is for the collective to unite and resist recolonisation.
This resistance must be waged with the same fervour and determination that characterised the struggle against apartheid and colonial rule. South Africa’s future depends on its ability to defy these regressive forces and to forge a path that truly reflects the aspirations and dignity of its people.
* Schutte is a feminist, filmmaker, writer, poet, activist and author. This is the second in a two-part series.
** The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of IOL or Independent Media.