By Nco Dube | 27 February 2025

The political landscape in South Africa has undergone a significant transformation in recent years, with the rise of political parties that employ militaristic language, symbolism, and organisational structures. Parties such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) have adopted military and paramilitary terms to describe their leadership positions and internal structures. 

From “commander-in-chief” to “commissar,” “ground forces,” and “high command,” these parties have embraced a lexicon that evokes images of armed struggle and revolutionary warfare. The MKP has taken this further by donning military-style fatigues as their uniform in parliamentary sessions. While this trend may seem like a harmless nod to historical struggles, it raises serious concerns about the militarisation of politics and its implications for democracy, social cohesion, and political stability in South Africa.

This opinion piece critically examines the origins, ideological underpinnings, and dangers of this phenomenon. It also explores international examples where the militarisation of political parties has led to destabilisation, authoritarianism, and violence. By drawing parallels, we can better understand the risks South Africa faces if this trend is left unchecked.

Historical Context: The Legacy of Armed Struggle

To understand the militarisation of political parties in South Africa, one must first examine the country’s history of armed struggle against apartheid. The African National Congress (ANC), the ruling party since 1994, established uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) in 1961 as its armed wing. MK’s role was to wage a guerrilla war against the apartheid regime, and its members were celebrated as heroes in the post-apartheid era. The EFF and MKP, both breakaway factions of the ANC, have sought to tap into this legacy by adopting military terminology, symbolism and imagery.

The EFF, founded in 2013 by Julius Malema, positions itself as a radical leftist party advocating for economic emancipation. Its use of terms like “commander-in-chief” and “ground forces” is intended to evoke the spirit of revolutionary struggle. Similarly, the MKP, which emerged in 2023, draws directly on the legacy of uMkhonto weSizwe, using its name and adopting military-style uniforms. While these parties claim to be honouring the sacrifices of the past, their approach risks glorifying violence and militarism in a democratic era where such tactics may no longer necessary or appropriate.

Ideological Underpinnings: Revolutionary Rhetoric and Populism

The militarisation of political parties in South Africa is not merely a matter of symbolism; it is deeply rooted in their ideological frameworks. Both the EFF and MKP employ revolutionary rhetoric to mobilise support, particularly among disaffected youth and marginalised communities. They frame their struggle as a continuation of the fight against oppression, portraying themselves as the vanguard of a new revolution.

This rhetoric is inherently populist, appealing to emotions rather than rational debate. By casting themselves as “soldiers” in a war against inequality and corruption, these parties create an “us versus them” narrative that seeks to polarise society. This approach is dangerous because it undermines the principles of dialogue, compromise, and peaceful coexistence that are essential for a functioning democracy.

Stifling Democracy: The Authoritarian Core of Militarised Party Structures

The militarisation of political parties is often a deliberate ploy to stifle internal democracy and establish a rigid, hierarchical command structure that mirrors military organisations rather than democratic institutions. By adopting titles such as “commander-in-chief,” “commissar,” and “high command,” these parties create an environment where decision-making is centralised and dissent is discouraged. 

In such structures, members are expected to function as “soldiers” who follow orders without question, rather than as active participants in a democratic process. This top-down approach undermines the principles of accountability, transparency, and collective decision-making that are essential for healthy political organisations. Leaders who position themselves as “commanders” often demand unwavering loyalty, marshalling their “forces” to execute strategies without room for debate or critique. 

This militaristic framework not only entrenches authoritarianism within the party but also sets a dangerous precedent for how political power is exercised in the broader society. It replaces the ethos of democratic engagement with a culture of obedience and subservience, where the voices of ordinary members are silenced, and the party becomes a vehicle for the ambitions of a select few. In this way, the militarisation of political parties serves as a tool to consolidate power, suppress internal opposition, and perpetuate the dominance of those at the top of the hierarchy.

The Dangers of Militarisation

The militarisation of political parties poses several risks to South Africa’s democracy and social fabric.

By adopting military terminology and imagery, parties like the EFF and MKP risk normalising violence as a legitimate means of achieving political goals. This is particularly concerning in a country with a history of political violence and high levels of crime. When political leaders portray themselves as “commanders” and their followers as “ground forces”, they create a mindset that views conflict and confrontation as acceptable.

This normalisation of violence can manifest in various ways, from aggressive rhetoric and intimidation tactics to physical violence. For example, the EFF has been involved in numerous incidents of parliamentary disruption and public altercations, often justified as acts of “revolutionary defiance.” Such behaviour undermines the rule of law and sets a dangerous precedent for political engagement.

Democracy thrives on pluralism, tolerance, and respect for differing viewpoints. The militarisation of political parties undermines these values by promoting a zero-sum approach to politics. When parties frame their struggle as a “war,” they leave little room for dialogue or compromise. This polarisation is evident in South Africa’s increasingly fractious political climate, where constructive debate is often overshadowed by grandstanding and hostility.

Furthermore, the authoritarian tendencies of militarised parties pose a threat to democratic governance. Leaders who style themselves as “commanders” are less likely to tolerate dissent or accountability, both within their parties and in the broader political arena. This concentration of power undermines the checks and balances that are essential for a healthy democracy.

Social Division and Instability

South Africa is a deeply divided society, with stark inequalities along racial, economic, and geographic lines. The militarisation of political parties exacerbates these divisions by fostering a sense of exclusivity and antagonism. When parties present themselves as “armies” fighting for a particular group, they alienate those who do not identify with their cause.

This divisiveness can lead to social instability, particularly in a country with a history of communal violence. The rhetoric of “us versus them” can easily spill over into real-world conflicts, pitting communities against each other. For example, the EFF’s very valid and politically correct calls for land expropriation without compensation have sometimes been accompanied by inflammatory language that some fear could incite violence. 

International Parallels: Lessons from Abroad

The militarisation of political parties is not unique to South Africa. History provides numerous examples of where this phenomenon has led to devastating consequences.

One of the most infamous examples is the Nazi Party in Germany, which adopted military terminology and paramilitary structures to consolidate power. The Sturmabteilung (SA), or “Brownshirts,” served as the party’s paramilitary wing, using violence and intimidation to suppress opposition. The militarisation of the Nazi Party was a key factor in the erosion of democracy and the rise of totalitarianism in Germany.

Closer to home, Zimbabwe’s ZANU-PF provides a cautionary tale. The party’s roots in the liberation struggle against colonial rule were reflected in its militaristic rhetoric and structures. After gaining power, ZANU-PF maintained its military ethos, using violence and repression to suppress dissent. This militarisation of politics and populist use of military veterans contributed to Zimbabwe’s descent into authoritarianism and economic collapse.

In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution employed military terminology and imagery to rally support. Chávez, a former army officer, styled himself as a “commander” leading a “socialist revolution.” While this rhetoric initially resonated with many Venezuelans, it ultimately contributed to the concentration of power and the erosion of democratic institutions.

These examples highlight the dangers of militarising politics. While the contexts differ, the underlying pattern is the same: the use of military symbolism and rhetoric to consolidate power, suppress dissent, and undermine democracy.

Conclusion: A Call for Vigilance

The militarisation of political parties in South Africa is a troubling trend that threatens the country’s democratic progress. While the use of military terminology and imagery may seem like a harmless nod to history, it carries significant risks. By normalising violence, eroding democratic norms, and exacerbating social divisions, this trend undermines the very foundations of South Africa’s democracy.

It is imperative that South Africans remain vigilant and reject the militarisation of politics. Political parties must be held accountable for their rhetoric and actions, and civil society must play a proactive role in promoting peaceful and inclusive political engagement. The legacy of South Africa’s struggle for freedom should inspire a commitment to democracy, not a return to the militarism of the past.

As the country navigates its complex political landscape, it must draw lessons from both its own history and international examples. The militarisation of politics is a slippery slope, and South Africa cannot afford to slide into the abyss of authoritarianism and instability. The stakes are too high, and the consequences too dire.

In the words of Nelson Mandela, “Democracy is the only system capable of reflecting the complexities and diversities of a nation.” Let us honour his legacy by safeguarding South Africa’s democracy against the dangers of militarisation of our society.

(Dube is a Political Economist, Businessman, and Social Commentator on UkhoziFM and various newspapers. Read more of his articles here: www. ncodube.blog)