Ramaphosa got away with Marikana, Bosasa, CR17 campaign statements, Phala Phala and now this Senzo Mchunu thing.
Kanti what will it take for yall to realize that we are being led by a crook who's priority is to protect other crooks?
Apparently illegal immigrants have stopped using clinics.
Instead they are now heading towards public hospitals, especially in townships.
South Africans, please report any foreigners at public hospitals.
The free for all is over. No more gravy train.
Shout Out to South Africa 🇿🇦 for housing us Zimbabweans 🇿🇼when our own Zimbabwean government neglected us , call them xenophobic and names but they did their best shame , thank you Mzansi 🙏
The enemy knows the power of EFF and MKP unity. It’s only us who seem not to understand this. The petty squabbles must end! It’s a betrayal of the historic mission to refuse to unite and fight!
Hayi kumnandi eMzansi. The way abelungu are fighting tooth and nail to stay in a third world country despite having an offer from a first world country. You’d think “30 years of incompetence” would be their motivation.
The plan is to push the false genocide narrative against #SouthAfrica as an attempt to undermine our moral authority & ultimately question the legitimacy of the ICJ case we've brought against Israel. They think we don't know.
Let’s talk about the MK Party.
MK has some notable public figures in its ranks, and it seems the prevailing view is that these well-known faces can be leveraged to show how intellectual the party is. This may be a flawed approach.
The truth is, if MK is going to make real use of people like Dr John Hlophe, Brian Molefe, Lucky Montana, or Tom Moyane, it won’t be because they produce brilliant policy documents or dominate parliamentary debates. That’s not what moves ordinary people.
What will matter is MK’s ability to deploy these high-profile personalities strategically, in spaces where their stories still carry emotional and symbolic weight.
No one expects Siyabonga Gama or Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane to win over suburban voters. The middle-class professionals in their gated estates, steeped in respectability politics and fixated on managerial competence, have long made their choices.
In that space, the DA dominates—and always will. That terrain is about obsession with “clean governance”, technocratic polish, and institutional discipline. MK shouldn’t compete there.
However, back in Mamelodi, Khayelitsha, and rural KwaZulu-Natal, it’s a different story. There, these individuals, Jacob Zuma included, still matter. Their names still ring out, not as cautionary tales of disgrace, but as testimonies to a rigged system.
Outside Kleva Black circles, Brian Molefe isn’t seen as controversial; he’s remembered as the man who tried to change things and was crushed for it. Hlophe isn’t disgraced; he’s the judge who stood his ground and paid the price.
In these places, people understand what it means to rise, to be scapegoated, and to fall with dignity. They can relate. But even if they don’t, they still can be made to. Unlike the middle class.
That’s where MK’s real opportunity lies: not in rehabilitating these men and women in the eyes of elites, but in turning them into symbols of unfinished battles of Black ambition punished and excellence silenced.
The people MK needs to win over aren’t looking for smooth-talking technocrats preaching about fiscal policy nuances. They are looking for a political party, not a think tank.
MK’s strength lies in its authenticity. Its appeal doesn’t come from white papers or conference panels, but from its ability to feel present, raw, and viscerally honest.
Like Zuma, MK doesn’t have to speak the language of the boardroom. It does not need to headline fancy seminars and university lectures. Of course, it will be involved in many such things by default, but that cannot be its image and calling card.
Parliamentary backroom performance is nice for internal credibility, but it’s not what builds mass legitimacy. When Julius Malema mocks MK for staying silent in parliamentary committees, it might make a good soundbite on Twitter, but it means nothing to ordinary people.
Parliament should be used symbolically, not functionally. This means the MK Party shouldn’t focus on using Parliament as a space for crafting detailed policies, debating legislation, or demonstrating procedural expertise.
The real power lies in connecting with people outside Parliament, not in “winning debates” inside it.
When Adv Mkhwebane left the EFF, she lamented how much work the party was putting in Parliament when it did not have the numbers to make it make sense. This is the crux of the matter.
Well-articulated input in a parliamentary committee is far less important than it has been made to look in the last ten years or so, especially when you don’t have the numbers to make anything happen anyway.
And as for figures like Dr Hlophe and Montana, they don’t need to be loud, as if to compete with the EFF hordes. Their silence can be powerful. Their presence, carefully managed, can suggest strength, depth, and resilience.
In other words, MK must resist the trap of trying to prove its seriousness or professionalism. The DA has that lane. The EFF is already cornering the space of Black sophistication. MK should aim for something else entirely, and trying to out-shout the EFF or out-technocrat the DA is a losing strategy.
Voters don’t care about abstract policy proposals and theoretical constructs. They just don’t.
MK must ignore the lure of respectability politics. Trying to look smart, disciplined, or elite-friendly is a losing game. Zuma never played that game, and he turned elite scorn into grassroots loyalty. MK should replicate this.
Let the DA win in Sandton. Let the EFF flourish in lecture halls. The real contest in South African politics today isn’t about ideology. It’s not Left versus Right. It’s about presence.
The DA offers managerial rigidity. The EFF delivers radical policy chic. MK should offer something messier, but perhaps more human.
And right now, that might be exactly what people want.
Now we get to the heart of the matter: land.
This is an EFF arena, no debate. Trying to play here will make MK look like a cheap copycat. A better alternative is to move away from “umhlaba”(land) to “izwe”(country/nation).
Where umhlaba zeroes in on land redistribution—a vital but often narrow and divisive issue—izwe invokes sovereignty. It signals a demand not only for physical territory but for full ownership of the nation’s soul: its economy, its justice system, its media, its symbols.
This reframes MK’s fight as bigger than land and makes it about who truly governs South Africa. While umhlaba/land is transactional (who owns what), izwe/nation is emotional, almost spiritual, it’s about belonging, heritage, and dignity.
Izwe resonates with people who feel that, besides the land, the economy, judiciary, and media are still in “foreign” or elite hands.
As important as it is, many Black people still don’t appreciate how crucial land is. However, they understand the significance of key institutions, or at the very least, they can relate better.
So, while land reform pits Black South Africans against (mostly) White landowners, izwe suggests a deeper betrayal, that even after Apartheid, the system itself is still against the people.
As a final note, the “professional middle class” may seem important because they dominate the noise—on Twitter, in newsrooms, in think tanks—but they’re a loud minority, not a mass constituency. Each of their votes still counts for one, just like everyone else’s, and there are not a lot of them.
Obsessing over their approval is a strategic misstep. The real numbers—the votes that shift power—are in the townships and the rural areas. That’s where MK must plant its flag, not in the court of elite respectability.
Of course, none of this is guaranteed to work. But what is guaranteed is failure if MK abandons what makes it distinct.
The DA and EFF will mock the MK’s stillness in parliamentary committees, its lack of polish—not out of concern, but as a strategy. Mockery is the bait; assimilation is the trap.
They will try to funnel MK into their mould—technocratic seriousness on the one hand, radical intellectualism on the other—and then defeat it with experience.
The EFF will try to provoke MK into competing on its turf with noisy Parliament disruptions and Twitter wars. If MK takes the bait, it loses its distinctiveness.
MK must therefore resist the temptation to prove itself on those terms. Its strength lies not in feeling real, not sounding smart. It wins not by impressing elites, but by reminding the forgotten that they still matter.