• 

As someone who has been away from social media for quite some time now, I have missed out on a lot of the rabble-rousing trends which South Africa’s infamous “Black Twitter” is known for. I did, however, stumble over this particular topic in the social media “village” – Facebook – a name popularized by the ama2000 generation as they affirm the move to Twitter as the cool kid in the tech-block.

The story of Zuki, which I believe started in the “village”, but was taken over by South Africa’s Black Twitter, came back to us “social media villagers” and we were able to see and follow some of the discussions happening in the Twitter timelines, otherwise known as the “TL”.

Zukhanye Lamani, popularly known as “Zuki” is no stranger to cause célèbre. From posing with the Springbok captain, Siyamthanda Kolisi, to Rachel Kolisi’s dissatisfaction, to trending for lambasting the President and Minister of Police, her many comic inducing live Instagram stories, and, of course, her alleged association with organized criminal syndicates, also known as “amaGintsa”. This time around the question of “amaGintsa” and her alleged consistent relationship with them has, yet again, resurfaced.

Though I do not plan to spend too much time analyzing the details of the popular case against her, it may be useful to give the reader who is rarely on social media a little context to the commotion. Perhaps to achieve this, it may be easier if I simply shared one of the many posts which trended when the story resurfaced.

@Danaigada tweeted;

“So Zulu Lamani was friends with Aviwe(murdered). Aviwe was murdered by her boyfriend in 2019 and the boyfriend happens to be Zukis current boyfriend.

Furthermore, because the boyfriend is a gangster Zuki uses him to go threaten pew pew on any of her trolls? Yah neh!”

This has essentially been the mood of the allegations against the rising social media star. Of course, among many other different interpretations and experiences about her alleged involvement and or association with criminal syndicates. Many have questioned the genuineness of her activism, as someone who has been very outspoken about the plight of women in South Africa. 

Be that as it may, as I had expressed quite early, I will not be dealing with the veracity of these very strong allegations against her. I have taken this position and approach for two reasons. The first, is simply because I am neither an investigative journalist nor am I a court of law. Therefore, that task rests beyond my proficiency. Secondly, and perhaps more specific to this paper, I have chosen to wrestle with the doctrines, symbolism and science of ideas which prompt the onslaught on Zuki. It may also be worth mentioning that the onslaught may very well be legitimate and justified, but, in line with reason number 1, I leave that burden and responsibility to those with the necessary proficiency. 

Mine, in a word, is to understand and present the ideological overtones and undertones which I believe not only steer the discourse around Zuki, but, as I will argue, create the conditions which place Zuki where she is alleged to be. In even simpler terms, I intend to persuade the reader, that many of those who claim to despise what they allege Zuki to have done or what she represents, are knowingly or unknowingly engaged in sowing the seeds which create and recreate the very environment they claim to detest.  

I will largely be borrowing from the Social Identity Theory (SIT), particularly as it relates to Popular Culture or “Pop-culture”. To maintain my position above the fray, I must, first and foremost, propose a theoretical frame of reference to the commotion. 

The Social Identity Theory owes it origins to social psychologist, Henri Tajfel. Of his many studies and experiments, we will be looking at the “Minimal Group Paradigm” as it was called. The experiment arbitrarily put individuals in random groups. It is important to emphasize that the allocation was completely random. There was no relation or basis, and the participants did not even know each other, nor did they share any similarity, other than being placed in random groups.

When the participants were then asked to allocate points and rewards to certain individuals in the study, the dominant trend was that they tended to reward and allocate more points to people who were in their superficial and arbitrary groups.

Even when presented with logical and objective truths, the study found that people favoured their groups, however random and superficial they were. Tajfel discovered, very early, that group membership is where individuals derive meaning in social experiences and interactions.

Three things happen when people define their place in society. First, they categorize, secondly, they compare, and thirdly, they identify. When one thinks about the emergence and energy of Pop-culture in South Africa, particularly as it is popularized, packaged and sold in social media platforms, one cannot help but think about it, in these three psychological processes.

Who does not want to pop bottles in the VIP section, dance on the table to amapiano, sip champagne or “champompo”, go strawberry picking or wine tasting, ride on a yacht, buy the latest designer clothes, and even more important than all of this; post about it on Instagram, Facebook or Twitter? It is as though the experience is wasted if it not posted online for others to see and emulate.

This sets in motion the psychological process defined in the social identity theory. Individuals categorize themselves by perceiving themselves in terms of the trending pictures, videos or snaps. Thereafter, they determine their value and social standing in relation to those who do not participate in the trendy pop-culture, and lastly, their own identity is implicated in the way in which they view their trendy social grouping against the other. In other words, people do not perceive pop-culture as detached observers, rather, their own sense of worth and meaning is derived from it.

When one observes the people, who are at the forefront of the onslaught on Zuki, you get to see the glaring inconsistencies and paradoxes. It is people who, themselves, subscribe to and encourage the social imagery and lifestyle which drives many to the tables of “amaGintsa”.

The proponents of “secure-the-bag”, and advocators of “soft-life” at all costs. Some may not sit with amaGinsta, but, they enjoy the company of corrupt politicians, fraudulent business people, the so-called “blessers” many of whom who make their money from criminality, drugs and or human trafficking. They enjoy all these niceties, whilst claiming oblivion and ignorance when it comes to the source of the funds which finance their weekends and getaways.

There is no average working salary which flies people to Dubai, fills up tables every weekend and distributes e-wallets like dust. Slovenian philosopher speaks of “known-knowns and known-unknowns”. However, he argues that the danger lies with the, “unknown-unknowns and unknown-knowns”. I want to suggest that the detractors of Zuki, and everyone else on the side-lines, pose as people who do not know what they do actually know. That it is a known-unknown, that pop-culture, in its current form, is financed by rampant corruption, iniquity and criminality.

The dishonesty in the craze is further exposed by the little and non-existent uproar towards the people who have allegedly committed the crime. The attention has wholly shifted away from the crime, itself, and has now become about Zuki. No one seems to be asking about the actual case, and whether justice has been served. Rather, it has all become a Zuki problem as though she is the one who pulled the trigger. What this suggests is that those making all the noise have no real and genuine concern about the case itself, nor do they have a problem with the spaces which harbour these abusers and criminal elements. They do not boycott any of these clubs and or restaurants. In fact, they still go to them and enjoy the luxury of VIP. Their only concern is Zuki. Even if she were to be removed from the picture, they would continue as though life were normal.

They are the worst kind of people. They hold a glass of champagne on the one hand, and a whip on the other hand, to police those who do, in public, what they do in private.  

The 109-year-old African National Congress prides itself as the oldest liberation movement in Africa, and arguably the most flexible modern political party, due to its broad-church posture. Furthermore, it purports to be a leader of society, thus the architect of many ideas permeating our public discourse.  Therefore, on the face of it, the ANC is arguably the most diverse political party in South Africa and Africa.  Notwithstanding this, the party has seen its electoral fortunes and general popularity decline over the last 10 years or so, despite retaining a majority at the national level for six consecutive national general elections. In the 2016 local general elections (LGE), the ANC lost control of a number of key metros in the country, and this loss was largely attributed to the then President, Jacob Gedleyehlekisa Zuma, if media reports are anything to go by. In fact, it was during the turbulent tenure of the erstwhile President that the theme of corruption being the root cause of the country’s problem gained traction.

Italian Marxist, theoretician and politician, Antonio Gramsci, argued that there is what is called manufactured consent, that is the prevailing common sense, which is produced through the media and various means by civil society to exert hegemony of the Capitalist, ruling class. In the democratic South Africa, particularly the era termed as ‘The Zuma Years’, the prevailing common sense has been that the ANC is a cesspool of corruption with Jacob Zuma, and the so-called Radical Economic Transformation faction, regarded as the chief mascots. In fact, the 9 years of his Presidency have been dubbed the ‘9 wasted years’ by mainstream media and the detractors of the ANC.  Which is why Cyril Ramaphosa’s theme for his election for the ANC Presidency in 2017, was not just on the premise of ‘clean governance’ but was called the ‘New Dawn’.

From the above, one can then begin to sketch out and trace the genealogy of the ANC’s fixation with shedding the “corruption” tag, and being seen to drum it out of our public service and government in general. It explains, in detail, why the incumbent ANC President, Cyril Ramaphosa, has said that the ANC is “accused number 1” in terms of corruption. The claim is that the blatant acts of corruption within our government and public service at large, are as a result of the ANC. Therefore, the logic follows that to curb corruption in South Africa, we must first root it out of the ANC. This logic is erroneously diagnosing the dominant contradiction in South Africa as corruption, which is ahistorical.

To this end, the party took a resolution, under a faulty premise of corruption being the dominant and antagonistic contradiction of South Africa, that “every cadre accused of, or reported to be involved in, corrupt practices accounts to the Integrity Committee or faces DC process; to summarily suspend people who fail to give an acceptable explanation or to voluntarily step down, while they face disciplinary, investigative or prosecutorial procedures.”  Whereas this is meant to be an indication of its seriousness to fight corruption and self-correct, the truth of the matter is this is a landmine for self-immolation.  The ANC over the years, in its attempt to be a modern political party that is amenable to change, open for criticism, and counsel of the ‘dominant’ voices in society, has abandoned its revolutionary mantle and tools of analysis that has assisted it to survive for over 100 years and instead allowed the noise from outside, the prevailing common sense, manufactured by the ruling class through media, dictate its course of action and thus take control of the party.  

However, the declining fortunes of the ANC are not remotely connected to corruption or the claims that it is accused number 1. To claim this is a historical simplism and revisionism. Firstly, South Africa, as a nation state, developed through the development of Capitalism post the Anglo-Boer War and together with the Rhodesian Grey Act, legitimized the genocidal dispossession of the indigenous people of their land. Secondly, after over 20 years since the “’94 Miracle”, the majority of the indigenous people of the land are landless, poor and disenfranchised.  As a result, the political imagination marked by the late Nelson Mandela’s rainbow nationalism has been dismantled by a political imagination steeped in the politics of Steve Biko and Robert Sobukwe. The people of South Africa, which are defined “according to the historical moment in which the land is experiencing and those who want what corresponds to the fundamental necessity of the history of the land”, have either stayed away from the polls or voted for the mercurial Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), precisely because the people’s party, the ANC, has abandoned its historical mission of ‘Mayibuye iAfrika’ and ideals of the Freedom Charter, as duly adopted in 1955 at the Congress of the People. The party’s failure to transform the lives of our people in a meaningful way is the chief reason why the party has faced a steady decline. The party, like many other former liberation movements, has fallen into what Frantz Fanon terms “the Pitfalls of National Consciousness”. Its apparent lack of preparedness to take over a modern government, let alone one that had been driven to bankruptcy by the predecessors, and the political will to take the right political decisions and follow through with them, is to blame for its current misfortunes.

The ‘Step Aside’ resolution is ‘unANC’ and an externally generated idea; it is evidently the voice of those outside the ANC, cajoling it into adopting self-destructive tendencies. The ANC ought to self-correct and not outsource its agency to the whims of a common sense produced by class enemies of the people it purports to represent. The only way to do this is to abandon the self-destructive resolution, at least in its current form and then implement the other progressive conference resolutions of land expropriation without compensation and the nationalisation of key sectors of the economy.

Lerato Lephatsa is a socio-political commentator with pieces published in the Daily Maverick and Mail and Guardian, and is a Black Conscious Pan Africanist. He writes in his personal capacity.