In 1933, the Nazis gripped the chancellery of Germany. It was a political miracle, since before 1929, their political clout was a joke. Many people today look at the EFF in a similar way, as if they have no capacity of being elected, and that their rhetoric can never bear fruit. I hope to convince you otherwise and I hope to convince you of the similarities between the two groups.
I want to be extremely clear here: The Nazis themselves stand on their own historical pedestal of evil. In no way am I saying that the EFF aspire to be like Nazis, or that they possess the same capacities of injustice. Rather, this essay simply highlights the scarily real similarities between the two groups, the similarities in the political climate in which they both manifest themselves, and how the public of South Africa should be vigilant of these facts, especially in the era of “fake news” and a wide-scale neglect of critical thinking.
I fear that neglect of such thinking in the South African context could have terrible consequences for the country, and in particular; the white population. This will become clear later on. For now, all I have is an alleged quote from the great Mark Twain:
“History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes,”
Political Climate
On the 11th of November 1918, the German Empire surrendered to allied forces. What would follow can only be accurately described as terrible political instability. Eventually, by 1933, Adolf Hitler is in power.
But how did this happen?
One of the main stems of the growth of Nazi popularity, was their ability to exploit the evident weaknesses within German society, namely the political paralysis of Weimar Germany of which gripped German society particularly hard in the period of 1929–33 in the midst of the Great Depression, where Hitler saw his popularity rise significantly. This society, which saw a dramatic shift from the Kaiser to democracy in such a short burst of time, experienced two economic crises combined with severe political mismanagement. There was a lack of commitment to the new system, illustrated through the increase of executive orders and deviations towards authoritarianism, even before Hitler became chancellor.
Meanwhile, South Africa too is quite a new country democratically speaking and is currently poisoned by political corruption, poverty, redundant economic growth, and extreme wealth inequality. As a result, this has further intoxicated the race relations of the country, by essentially condemning many non-whites to a life of poverty with little economic mobility. This is evident through the ‘townships’ in which many non-whites reside, the poor schooling these communities receive, and the stagnant possibilities for employment by virtue of the terrible mismanagement of the country. Simultaneously, whites for the most part reside in a ‘bubble’, where many have inherited their wealth through a system that benefited their race in the past.
The similarities here are striking. Both societies experienced a sudden shift to democracy, with the common denominator tending towards political mismanagement.
In the South African context, I reference the large scale corruption scandals in the country, most notably that of Jacob Zuma. Such scandals have largely gone unpunished, and have essentially stagnated the progress of the country. It is also worth noting that this stagnation has essentially reopened the gates of Apartheid to some extent, with the politicians of the ANC having essentially inherited the racist and oppressive apparatus of Apartheid, providing only ‘band-aid’ approaches for reparations. For instance, whilst BEE ( Black Economic Empowerment) sounds good on paper, the reality is that many people coming from generationally disadvantaged communities are given substandard education in the first place, and the economy is riddled with government intervention, meaning that entrepreneurship is slacking. The poor are condemned to be poor, and the rich remain rich. South Africa has done little to embrace the free market as a tool for economic upliftment and mobility, which again incentivizes the old racial divisions to persist.
So where is the link?
The EFF with much of their political strategy ( I’ll get into this later ), has to some extent successfully managed to exploit this current situation for political gains. For example, according to the IEC , in 2009 the EFF was virtually non-existent in the national vote. In 2014, the EFF received 6.35% of the national vote. Finally, in 2019 they received 10.8% of the vote. This is, to say the least, a fairly substantial increase. This indicates an increase in popularity for the party, congruent to the worsening conditions of the country. In short, as the country’s situation worsens, the EFF gets stronger.
Not only this but the two rivals of the EFF in parliament, the ANC and DA, have also seen their share of the vote decrease recently. In 2009, the ANC had 65.9% whilst the DA had 16.66%. 2014 saw an increase for the DA, and a decrease for the ANC. DA: 22.23% , ANC: 62.15%. Finally, in 2019, the ANC was left with 57.5% and the DA 20.77%. This signifies reducing confidence in the current establishment, by virtue of political mismanagement. The DA is unlikely to garner much more support. This is because it is seen as a ‘white party’ despite it ironically having policies that would probably support the economic upliftment of non-whites ( such as reducing the red-tape in commerce). The controversial comments made by members of its party have also made them seem insensitive to the issues of the black majority. Also, this ‘white party’ myth was likely reinforced after Mmusi Maimane resigned as the party leader.
A similar trend was followed in the years of Weimar Germany. The SDP saw its voter base stagnate during the tough times, whilst extreme parties such as the Nazis and the KDP saw their voter base increase.
A Common ‘Enemy’
Another common thread that is present between the two parties is their constant emphasis on a ‘common enemy.’ In the case of Hitler, it was the Jews, for the EFF it’s the whites. Now, to clarify, I am very much aware of the nuances in the two scenarios. Apartheid was of course orchestrated by whites, which to an extent warrants legitimate criticism since whites still have disproportionate wealth compared to the non-white population. Also, the Jews were by far more overtly targeted and subject to heinous hate crimes. One could argue this with respect to the whites from a standpoint of farm-killings, but this is a much more complex topic of which would require an article on its own. Nevertheless, the point remains the same. Both are seen as the common enemy by the respective parties.
For example, central to Nazi propaganda was the idea that every problem with the country could be linked back to the Jews. Lies were perpetrated under the Nazi party, such as the ‘stab in the back’ myth, of which all related back to an international Jewish conspiracy. An infamous quote by Hitler in Mein Kampf reads:
The art of leadership… consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.
Meanwhile, the EFF has provided some scarily persistent slogans of themselves. They iterate the concept of ‘white monopoly capital’ and the slogan ‘Kill the Boer.’ ‘Boer’ is a traditional label for the Afrikaans people, particularly the Afrikaans farmer. Julius Malema ( EFF leader ) also hinted that the murder of whites may be justified sometime in the future, saying:
We’ve not called for the killing of white people, at least for now.
Note that the use of the word ‘Kiss’ rather than ‘Kill’ was used, allegedly so that the party can not be targeted for hate speech.
Now of course, as previously stated, I am not suggesting that the white population of South Africa is under constant persecution. To do so would be to ‘gaslight’ the horrific suffering of blacks under the Apartheid and the poor living conditions many non-white South Africans find themselves in today. As an aside, to be fair to Malema, his message of land expropriation is not ill-founded, as there is genuine concern that the ANC has done little to repair the economic wounds that Apartheid inflicted.
What I am really arguing here, is that the rhetoric that the two groups deliver in regards to their ‘common enemy’ is not entirely dissimilar. True the Nazis were much more explicit, disgustingly referring to Jews as ‘rats’ and ‘parasites’, but still this does not excuse the current rhetoric that the EFF seemingly embraces. Again, saying that a ‘white genocide’ is taking place seems far fetched, but all things seem far fetched if we can not see future ramifications. What the Nazis proved, was that the constant targeting of a people through propaganda and rhetoric made the genocidal process much smoother. Jews gradually became more and more ostracized in German society, to the point where genocide became a palatable possibility. I’m not suggesting here that the EFF are set in their tracks for the eventual extermination of whites, but there is no doubt the seeds they employ in their attitude towards whites are rooted in hate. If left unchecked and unchallenged by South Africans, this hate could very well spiral.
Personally, I am not educated on the matter of farm killings, but as of now, I have not seen any sort of condemnation and concern of it from government officials. Whether or not these killings are as big an issue as people say, or if they are hate crimes I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem far fetched to assume that if they were occurring because of hateful rhetoric, they would be ‘swept under the carpet’, to dispel a political narrative of black government giving special treatment to whites. This is especially convincing when you see such horrific crime occurring already in non-white areas. Crime that has not been sufficiently tackled.
Eccentric Style and Crass Behavior
Moving on, another similarity between the two groups is that the customs they adopt easily set them apart from other political parties, and their behavior is often rather crass.
For example, Nazi members would often dress in a brown uniform, even in parliament. Moreover, these ‘brown shirts’ as they were called, refused to subscribe to political tradition, by actively assaulting Jews and humiliating them, even before the Nazis were in power; hence the crass behavior.
On the other hand, the EFF are famed for their wearing of the red jumpsuit. This provides a link, since both parties actively promote a deviation from political normality, arguably to give the impression that they are opposed to the status quo establishment.
Furthermore, there are also reports of EFF members actively humiliating white South Africans. Of course, this is on a much smaller scale than Nazi-Jew violence and appears to be isolated incidents. In fairness, I have yet to see evidence of the EFF encouraging random explicit attacks on whites.
These are just a few examples of the crass behavior that the EFF has displayed in the last few years. Parliamentary discussion is supposed to be civilized and a place where disagreement is conducted with respect. It is difficult to see that conduct played out by the EFF continuously. Of course, they are not the only party guilty of misconduct, for instance, you can see the DA member actively provoking confrontation at one stage. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that their behavior in parliament signifies a disrespect for civil discussion.
This is alarming. Whilst the EFF does not display the same extent of misconduct as the Nazis, they still seem to be using ‘Nazi tactics’ in their approach. For instance, the red jumpsuit provides an innocent revolt against parliamentary norms, as did to an extent the brown shirt of the Nazis. However, crass behavior within parliament is an alarming sign of the party's commitment to civil discussion.
Führerprinzip
Another factor worthy of note is the similarities between the leadership styles between Adolf Hitler and Julius Malema. Both incorporate titles within their respective parties that seek to glorify the party leader. In the case of the Nazis, this was known as the Führerprinzip, which essentially meant Hitler was the undisputed leader of the party, or more accurately the undisputed Führer. This represents more than just being a party leader. To be a Führer is to be the spiritual leader and commander of the nation, where your every word is deified and obeyed without question and your presence bleeds into every facet of the nation's cultural being. Hitler was referred to as Führer by members of his own party long before he ever became the undisputed leader of Germany. The Nazis believed Germany was being overrun by Jews, and that the nation needed the strong leadership of one man, a Führer to revert the country back to its glory. The EFF shows similar behaviour, though less explicitly. Within his party, Malema holds the title ‘Commander in Chief’. Currently, only one person in the country holds that title: The President of South Africa. The rhetoric sprouting from this is similar to that of the Führerprinzip. Malema is not just the party leader like any of the other ‘establishment parties’, but rather a commander of the people. This strongly suggests that to them (the EFF), South Africa is under attack, with the aggressors being capitalism ( they are a Marxist party) and ‘white monopoly capital.’ Consequently, to counter this attack, it is pitiful to have establishment ‘party leaders.’ From the rhetoric the EFF presents, the nation is at war, and thus with this logic, only a commander can save the nation from its strife, not a president and certainly not a party leader, both of which have their inceptions in ‘colonial’ western tradition.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the EFF and Nazi Party are quite similar in the ways in which they conduct their rhetoric, and the theater in which their rhetoric can gain momentum. Political climate, a ‘common enemy’ and crass behavior are the common denominators.
I have to say again that to put the EFF on the same level as the Nazis is unfair. Whilst common factors are present, both have unique circumstances that resulted in the development in their respective creeds. Without a doubt, the Nazis’ focus on ‘racial purity’ is much more sinister compared to a focus on combating economic racial inequality in South Africa, which is a noble goal.
Moreover, economically speaking the two parties couldn’t be further apart. The EFF is centered around Marxist/Leninist philosophy, whilst of course the Nazis were fascist in their approach.
However, there is no doubt that the EFF exerts worrying rhetoric about race within South Africa. By contemplating the ‘murder of white people’ in the future, Julius Malema ( The EFF Leader ) essentially admits that the EFF is not much different from the racist hyper-nationalist parties that have plagued and continue to plague Europe. Whilst it pains me to write the following, for I don’t want to illustrate whites as being an oppressed minority, I feel it to be necessary to demonstrate the gravity of EFF rhetoric. Before Nazi rule and arguably before WW2, there was no record whatsoever detailing a formulated plan for the extermination of the Jewish people. However, there was Nazi rhetoric and Nazi rhetoric as everyone knows was disgustingly anti-Semitic. The idea of a Jewish genocide would have been scoffed at earlier on, since people tend to play devils advocate when it comes to politics. For instance, phrases like “He’s putting on a show” or “He doesn’t mean it like that” come to mind. The significance of this, is that if left unchecked, Malema’s statements have a possibility of ripening under EFF governance. Just like crude comments about women have possibilities of evolving into sexual violence, racially charged language has capabilities of evolving into racially charged violence.
Therefore, in summary, do not underestimate rhetoric. Think critically when viewing political events, for a failure of thinking can result in a failure of society.
