Political analysis seeks to explain why political outcomes occur. It identifies the institutions, actors, incentives and prevailing political conditions that produce a particular decision, before assessing why those factors prevailed over others.
It is this process that distinguishes political analysis from political commentary. Increasingly, however, a more troubling phenomenon appears to be emerging in South African political discourse. Instead of political outcomes being explained through identifiable political processes, they are increasingly reduced to the supposed preferences of an ethnic or religious community. The result is that political analysis gradually gives way to ethnic attribution.
This phenomenon was evident during a recent discussion on PowerTalk with Mondli Makhanya on PowerFM, where the Democratic Alliance’s reported selection of Helen Zille as its Johannesburg mayoral candidate was discussed. The explanation advanced was that “the Jews” were unhappy with Johannesburg. Jews were then equated with business, before it was suggested that “Jewish business” had influenced the DA’s reported decision. The proposition was presented as political analysis. Yet no evidence was offered that Jewish organisations, Jewish communal structures, Jewish business organisations, or any identifiable grouping had engaged the DA, advocated for Helen Zille or participated in the party’s internal decision-making processes. The conclusion was simply asserted.
The problem lies not merely in the absence of evidence, but in the absence of a political mechanism. Political parties do not arrive at decisions by accident. They do so through internal deliberations informed by electoral incentives, organisational priorities, coalition considerations, candidate recognition, governance records, fundraising realities and prevailing public sentiment. Consequently, where influence is alleged, that influence must be demonstrated. If organised business is said to have shaped a political decision, then the analyst must identify which business organisations, through what engagements, exercising what influence and to what effect. If a religious or ethnic community is said to have influenced a political outcome, then there must be an identifiable relationship between that community and the decision being explained. Political analysis requires an observable political mechanism. Without one, the conclusion remains an assertion.
Johannesburg itself demonstrates why reducing politics to ethnic attribution is analytically unsustainable. Every major political party approaches the city against the same political backdrop. Johannesburg remains South Africa’s economic engine, yet years of deteriorating infrastructure, unreliable service delivery, financial instability, crime and governance failures have fundamentally altered the political environment. Residents have become increasingly frustrated. Businesses have become increasingly frustrated. Investors have become increasingly frustrated. Ratepayers continue to pay ever-increasing tariffs while questioning the quality of the services they receive. Political parties do not require elaborate conspiracy theories to understand this environment. They require only an appreciation of the political realities confronting millions of Johannesburg residents every day.
It follows that the strategic decisions of political parties are themselves capable of ordinary political explanation. If the DA reportedly believes Helen Zille offers it the strongest opportunity to reconnect with Johannesburg voters, there are obvious political considerations that warrant examination. She remains one of the party’s most recognisable political figures, a former mayor, a former premier and a former party leader whose political identity is closely associated with municipal governance. Whether that strategy ultimately succeeds is a question for the electorate. Equally, if the ANC reportedly considers someone such as Frank Chikane, the analysis naturally turns to questions of electoral renewal, public credibility, moral authority and the party’s attempt to appeal beyond its increasingly unpopular Johannesburg structures. Those are political calculations, produced by identifiable political circumstances and capable of political explanation.
This is not to suggest that business interests, ethnic communities or religious communities fall outside the scope of political analysis. They do not. Political scientists routinely examine voting behaviour, campaign financing, organised lobbying, public advocacy and the influence of organised interest groups on political decision-making. Where evidence demonstrates influence, that influence ought to be analysed. The discipline of political analysis, however, requires the evidence to precede the conclusion. Once the conclusion precedes the evidence, analysis gives way to speculation.
The proposition advanced during the discussion is particularly difficult to reconcile with South Africa’s demographic reality. The country’s Jewish community numbers approximately 50,000 people nationally, making it one of South Africa’s smallest minority communities. Johannesburg, by contrast, is a metropolitan municipality of millions of residents representing every conceivable political, racial, religious and economic interest. Businesses operating within the city are similarly diverse, reflecting every sector of the South African economy. To reduce the politics of Johannesburg to the supposed wishes of South Africa’s Jewish community, or to “Jewish business”, is to ignore the overwhelming range of competing political and economic interests that shape the city every day. The frustration with Johannesburg is not uniquely Jewish. It is shared by residents, businesses, investors, commuters, ratepayers and civil society alike. It is a Johannesburg problem before it is anyone else’s.
Perhaps the greatest casualty of this approach is political analysis itself. Once political outcomes no longer require evidence, identifiable actors or an observable political mechanism, virtually any conclusion becomes capable of being advanced. Institutions become irrelevant. Electoral incentives become irrelevant. Coalition politics becomes irrelevant. Governance records become irrelevant. The explanation has already been decided; all that remains is identifying a community to which political agency can conveniently be attributed. That does not make South African politics easier to understand. It merely replaces political analysis with ethnic attribution, and in doing so lends intellectual respectability to one of history’s oldest prejudices.
