Mediaboss Marketing

Axios published a scoop Wednesday about the misgivings a certain presidential candidates advisers are having about his strategy. Even for those close to the center of power, the story alleged, there is a hesitance to raise skepticism or doubt about the current path, for fear of being viewed as disloyal.

I know what youre thinking, reading that. But youre wrong.

The candidate in question isnt the man whose party now operates as a cult in which personal loyalty to him is the supreme virtue. The candidate described by Axios is Joe Biden, whose inner circle remains intent on making Jan. 6, political violence, democracy and Donald Trumps character central themes of their campaign.

The main advocate for that approach internally is Biden crony Mike Donilon. Turning the election into a referendum on the soul of the nation worked in 2020, Donilon has reportedly reasoned, so why wouldnt it work again? Elsewhere hes compared the relevance of January 6 in this campaign to the importance of 9/11 in the 2004 campaign, believing that Democrats lost that year because they failed to grasp what the race was about. Hes determined not to make the same mistake again.

Per Axios, Donilon is apparently also prone to saying that Joe Biden is a great president, and great presidents get reelected, an opinion not shared by the vast majority of American voters. No wonder his colleagues on Team Joe worry that he doesnt have his finger on the pulse of the electorate.

Were now almost three weeks removed from Donald Trumps criminal conviction in Manhattan, plenty of time for the public to process the verdict and to have it influence their presidential vote. According to the national polling, it hasnt: Trump has gone from leading by 0.9 points on May 30, the day he was found guilty, to leading by 0.8 points now. In the battleground states that will decide the election, hes actually gained two-tenths of a point on Biden over that same stretch in the RealClearPolitics average.

If the sudden prospect of electing the first president who is a convicted felon hasnt put Americans off Trump, why would Joe Biden, Mike Donilon, or anyone else think that reminding them of his coup plot and the insurrection it led to will do so?

On the other hand, how can one run against Donald Trump and not make his authoritarian ambitions the centerpiece of the campaign? Hes not shy about expressing those ambitions; should he win in November, the next four years will in fact be defined by his attempts to subvert the constitutional order. The rights hostility to Western liberalism is the elephant in the room of this election. How can the president resist making a spectacle of it?

I think his and Donilons strategy of making the race about democracy is simultaneously weak and quite possibly the strongest one available to them.

If you dont think protecting democracy should be Team Bidens central argument, what should it be?

Certainly, well hear from the White House before November about Americas stupendous job growth since 2021 and the stimulus supplied by Biden initiatives like the infrastructure bill. And if the campaign is smart, itll deploy sympathetic economists like Larry Summers to explain why Trumps protectionist agenda is a prescription for the mother of all stagflations.

But the reason Summers opinion carries special weight is because he predicted three years ago that Democrats passing another round of COVID relief would result in inflationand was roundly ignored by his party. Thats Bidens economic problem in a nutshell: Why should any voter trust him more than Trump when the cost of living soared under his administration but did not under Trumps?

By wide margins, poll after poll shows that Americans trust the Republican to handle the economy more than they do the incumbent. Inflation has darkened public perceptions of the economys health so starkly that the White House ended up quietly dropping the term Bidenomics last year, fearing that it would become a byword for soaring prices rather than for rising employment and GDP.

Im skeptical that Democrats can talk voters into greater economic optimism in the next four months after dismally failing to do so over the past three years. Perhaps they could if Bidens opponent were unknown and untested, but Trump is a former president with an economic record of his own. Good luck getting voters to believe his program will be more inflationary than Bidens when theyve already lived through both and seen otherwise.

Economic comparisons arent going to win Biden the election, so what should he focus on instead?

Immigration policy? Please. The less said about that, the better.

Ukraine? Hes been solid on the war, but Americans dont let foreign policy dictate their votes unless U.S. troops are in the field.

Abortion? Democrats will get some mileage out of the backlash to Roes demise on Election Day but I doubt that the issue is potent enough to drive presidential preferences, especially with Trump straining to moderate on it. Pro-choice Republicans may have little difficulty reconciling support for abortion rights on their state ballot initiatives with support for a second Trump presidency.

If none of those issues can provide Biden with a trump card (no pun intended) in the election, whats left except trying to make it a referendum on democracy and January 6?

Remember, this race will be decided by the vast number of double haters who hold unfavorable opinions of both candidates. Among the presidents own supporters, more than half say theyre voting for him mainly to oppose Trump; just 27 percent say theyre voting for him because they like him. The winner in November will have prevailed not by persuading Americans to like him more than the other guy but by persuading them to hate him a little bit less.

The Donilon strategy recognizes that. Sure, Joe Biden gave us inflation, a border crisis, and an era of high international tensions, it concedesbut he didnt plot a coup, or rile up a mob to attack Congress, or commit any crimes, or make retribution a higher priority for his second term than serving the American people.

The least unfit candidate will win. January 6 is Democrats strongest argument that Grandpa Joe, for all his flaws, remains less unfit than Trump.

Theres another case for the Donilon strategy. Namely, its worked before. And I dont just mean in 2020.

Five days before the 2022 midterms Biden delivered a speech warning Americans that, with so many Trump-backed post-liberal populist Republicans running for major offices, democracy is on the ballot. He called on voters to ask themselves this question when considering a candidate: Will that person accept the legitimate will of the American people and the people voting in his district or her district? Will that person accept the outcome of the election, win or lose?

Some pundits called the address head-scratching in light of polling that showed the economy, not democracy, dominating when voters were asked what the most important issue in the election was. Yet five days later Republicans ended up underperforming badly in a midterm in which the out-party typically cleans up. One Trump-endorsed MAGA acolyte after another fell short in key races, holding the GOP to modest gains in the House and helping Democrats gain a seat in the Senate.

The polling shows that democracy ended up a top issue of concern for voters in 2022, Biden advisers reminded Axios this week. For swing voters, fear of what a Trumpy Congress might do to undermine American elections may have been decisive.

Go figure, then, that Donilon might see merit in revisiting the subject now that the coup-plotter-in-chief himself is on the ballot. In fact, protecting democracy appears to carry special weight with the huge bloc of senior citizens whom Democrats are courting this year, with more than a third in one recent poll listing it as the most urgent issue facing the country. Seniors are famous for turning out at a high rate in elections; if Biden convinces them that this race is a choice between American politics as they remember it and American politics as Trump would like it to be, they just might drag the president over the finish line.

Really, you cant go wrong attacking Trump for being unfit for office. Across eight years and three presidential cycles, never once has he reached as high as 48 percent in the head-to-head polling average at RealClearPoliticsand thats despite having had the advantage of running against two freakishly unpopular Democrats in Hillary Clinton and 2024 Joe Biden. A durable majority of Americans refuses to support a figure as loathsome as Trump even when his opponents are objectively terrible.

So January 6 really might be the strongest hand the president has to play. Which is different from saying that its a strong hand.

Even if we agree that Democratic chatter about the soul of the nation was a key ingredient in their victories in 2020 and 2022, theres reason to fear itll matter less this year.

The 2020 comparison is frankly inapt because Biden had no presidential record to speak of at the time. The choice before voters was between a safe, familiar generic Democrat and a madman who had failed to contain a pandemic. Since then, that generic Democrat has saddled them with inflation not seen since the early 1980s and migrant crossings at the border not seen since ever. Hes four years older too, and appears confused at times in his public appearances at an unnervingly regular rate.

Intangibles like the soul of the nation are good arguments for ousting an already unpopular president, as Trump was four years ago. Theyre not as stirring as reasons to keep an unpopular president, especially when that presidents term has generated real kitchen-table pain.

The 2022 comparison is also troubled. Typically, if a president is unpopular, his party will lose big in midterm elections. That happened in 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018but not in 2022 for Biden, and Democrats have argued over why ever since. Maybe the democracy talk really did save them. Or maybe, as the White House prefers to believe, the public likes the president more than his job approval numbers would indicate.

My theory is different. I think Bidens age and infirmity have, ironically, insulated Democrats down ballot from his unpopularity to an unusual degree because many voters view the country as functionally leaderless right now. When the White House fails on policy, its easy for voters to assume that its due to Biden being elderly and incompetent, no longer fully in control of events. When they do that, theyre not blaming his ideology; the problem as they see it is specific to him, and so younger Democrats dont share the usual blame for his failures.

That may explain how weve ended up with Biden reliably trailing in presidential polling while Democratic candidates reliably lead in key Senate races.

But it also poses a problem for the White House. If Im right that voters arent holding Bidens failures against other members of his party, hand-wringing about the soul of the nation might be enough to rescue Democrats in a midterm. When Biden himself is on the ballot, though, and the full weight of his apparent infirmity is pressing on voters, it might plausibly not be enough.

I wonder, frankly, if returning yet again to the well of protecting democracy will be treated by weary Americans as evidence that a very old president has run out of ideas and lacks any affirmative argument for his own reelection. Hes had two years to fix inflation and hasnt; hes had three years to do something about the border and hasnt. All he can think to do to convince them to prefer him to Trump, it might seem, is to jump up and down and shout January 6!

To me, thats more than enough reason never to trust Trump with power again. But to those who havent yet been moved by it despite having heard about it every day since January 7, 2021, it will probably be unpersuasive. The insurrection is completely priced in to Trumps political stock.

To find a demographic that hasnt formed a firm opinion about it one way or another, youd have to look to very young voters. And if you do, you might be disappointed: As we saw recently, young Americans might not view coup plots as electorally disqualifying. In the country theyve grown up in, coup attempts are standard operating procedure.

In the 2016 and 2020 cycles, Trump never made it as high as even 46 percent in head-to-head polling with Clinton and Biden. This year, post-impeachments, post-indictments, and post-insurrection, hes come within a whisker at times of 48 percent. Reflect on that and tell me how much political juice is left in reminding Americans what a disgrace he is.

Maybe just enough. Ultimately, the best argument for the Donilon strategy is shame.

The insurrection is priced into Trumps stock, as Ive said. Everyones heard about it ad nauseam. Warning Americans that democracy is on the ballot wont educate anyone about anything.

But insofar as the matter is front and center this fall, it might shame a meaningful few into reconsidering their vote.

Most Trump supporters are unreachable, but millions will go into the booth in November intending to vote for him yet nagged by their intuition that doing so would be grossly irresponsible. Traditional conservatives, Nikki Haley Republicans, centrists who bear Biden a grudge over inflation or some other policy failurethey know that absolving Trump for January 6 by reelecting him would be an indefensible betrayal of Americas civic tradition.

They know it, but knowing it and letting themselves be persuaded by it are two different things. The mind has a remarkable ability to rationalize and compartmentalize indefensible behavior, especially when its otherwise preoccupied. Between now and November 5, Trump is going to fire off an armorys worth of demagogic nonsense to preoccupy the American mind.

Given Bidens record, Im not sure theres a more effective response available to Democrats than to rhetorically look voters who are leaning toward Trump in the eye and say, You know whats at stake. Youre not really going to do this, are you?

For me, the great virtue of the Donilon strategy is that itll leave America with no excuses if Trump wins. An election framed around the economy or immigration that ends in Republican victory will let denialists about the countrys decline insist that things would have been different if only Biden had taken a different approach. He should have emphasized the coup attempt and January 6, theyll say. Surely Americans wouldnt have reelected Trump if the election had been about that.

Im not sure of that at all, personally. Id like to test the proposition. And if Trump is returned to power, Id find comfort in knowing that we maximized our collective shame by approaching the race as a referendum on the constitutional orderand chose the other option. If we do this, lets be clear-eyed about it. No excuses. Trump 2024: Maximum Shame.

Go here to read the rest:
Gambling on Democracy - The Dispatch

Norsk versjon.

On Monday, the debate series High Noon starts as part of the Arctic Arts Festival in Harstad, Northern Norway.

Over the course of four days, topics such as child-rearing environments and resilience in the North, Nordic democracy, arts and moral, will be raised.

Voices from arts and culture, research, politics, public agencies, and other parts of societywill contribute with input.

The debates will be led by Arne O. Holm, Editor of High North News.They can be followed from 11.30 AM at caf Prandium on the campus of UiT the Arctic University of Norway in Harstad.

"This year's debate series during the Arctic Arts Festival takes the major challenges of our time seriously, seen from the High North and the Arctic. With participants from Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland, we are facilitating an international dialogue on topics that are significant to us all, across country borders," says Holm and continues:

"In addition, we also offer world-class artists in each debate, placing us at the core of our journalistic mission. Combining arts and politics this way is only possible through a close and good cooperation between the Arctic Arts Festival and High North News."

Read the original here:
High Noon 2024: Northern Debate on Youth, Preparedness, Democracy and Moral in the Arts - High North News

Our nations Founding Fathers assumed that candidates for elected office would be God-fearing, moral, highly principled folks committed to the ideals enshrined in the Constitution.

To further safeguard the integrity of the American experiment, the states established free, public schooling (Horace Manns Common School Movement), equipping future voters with the ability to differentiate statesmanship from political chicanery.

Specifically, the schools were charged with teaching citizens to separate fact from opinion; to recognize authors and speakers biases, purposes and intended audiences; to identify inconsistencies and contradictions in written and oral discourse; to draw conclusions based upon relevant, timely and influential facts; and to remain open-minded by setting aside personal feelings.

When followership abandons these aforementioned problem-solving techniques, democracy is imperiled.

Sustaining a democratic form of government requires cognitive effort and critical thinking on the part of those who elect their representatives. Once elected, these government servants must be held accountable by their constituencies. While in office, oversight should be wielded by Congress itself but, ultimately, the voting public passes judgment by exercising its will to reelect (or not).

It is my hope and prayer that statesmen and stateswomen who are committed to the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, the uplifting of all people, the pursuit of justice, fairness and domestic tranquility will replace self-serving ideologues whose conduct can be described as hateful and treasonous. Their conduct also seems fearful and beset by feelings of perceived persecution, which scapegoat the disenfranchised for ones imagined loss of past bounties.

For my prayer to be answered, those casting ballots Nov. 5 must vote rationally, reasonably and empathetically, while minimizing prejudices, biases, distortions and uncritically accepted false narratives.

James L. DeBoy

West Lampeter Township

Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

More:
Public education and maintaining democracy [letter] | Letters To The Editor | lancasteronline.com - LNP | LancasterOnline

Story comments on theday.com are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. Please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report" link included on every post.

Please note that comments are monitored by theday.com staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove comments that are off-topic, unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code of any kind, or include hyperlinks to objectionable material may not be posted.

Read the full policy here.

Close

Go here to read the rest:
Voters sound off on disinformation and democracy - theday.com

Three decades ago, on April 27, 1994, a seismic shift reverberated across South Africa. After centuries of white minority rule and legalized racial segregation, Black South Africans stepped into the polling stations to cast their votes in general elections for the first time.

It was a historic moment marking the official end of apartheid, a system that had entrenched racial segregation and denied basic freedoms to Black South Africans. Just days later, Nelson Mandela, the head of the African National Congress (ANC), was inaugurated as the countrys first Black president, symbolizing hope and the dawn of a new era of equality, liberty and justice. The ANC was swept to power on a tidal wave of Black enthusiasm as previously disenfranchised voters voted for the first time, motivated by promises of a better life for all.

Three decades later, that promise rings hollow for millions across the rainbow nation, a term coined by Archbishop Desmond Tutu to describe the multicultural diversity of post-apartheid South Africa.

For the born free generation those who were born after the 1994 transition, the oldest of whom mark their 30th birthdays this year 2024 marks a bittersweet milestone, as the anniversary of apartheids demise coincides with another important event on May 29, when South Africans go to the polls to elect their new government.

The born frees were supposed to be the first generation to experience true freedom and equality in a democratic South Africa. However, the reality for many of these young South Africans is far from what was promised.

Dreams of middle-class life in the lush suburbs of South Africa, or even of affluence, have instead been met by the nightmare of continued poverty, deteriorating services and power blackouts on a scale unimaginable in a country once considered a beacon of hope and shining example for the rest of Africa.

On paper, and in the minds of South Africas ruling classes, the rupture of 1994 has brought about some profound changes to the social landscape. The advent of democracy has helped to create a growing Black middle class, increased access to education across racial lines and restored basic human dignity to Black South Africans.

South Africa also boasts a constitution hailed as one of the most progressive in the world. It enshrines the rights of all citizens, regardless of race, religion, gender and sexuality, and is celebrated for clearly defining and practicing key democratic principles. Yet despite its lauded constitution, the reality on the ground tells a different story of poverty and extreme inequality.

Tessa Dooms, author of The Colored, a book that delves into the history of mixed-race people in South Africa, and who is mixed-race herself, says that the born frees are disillusioned with the concept of democracy in South Africa. The lack of development in South Africa is giving democracy a bad name. We are one of the few countries in the world that tick the boxes of good governance but our people are not seeing the benefits and dividends of democracy. The youth are struggling to transition into having a fully fledged life. All they know from birth is democracy, and democracy only, so they think its democracys fault, she told New Lines.

Katlego Mahoa, a 30-year-old hairdresser from Soshanguve in Pretoria, voiced her disappointment at the countrys failure to live up to its rhetoric: I was born three months after the historic elections and as I was growing up I would hear stories from my grandmother and my mother about the dark apartheid days. In all fairness, we now have the freedom to move wherever we want to, vote for who we want, live where we want but honestly, that is not the reality. We are still living in an unjust society.

In a startling survey by Afrobarometer, a pan-African research network, taken prior to South Africas 2019 elections, it was revealed that 70% of South Africans were willing to trade elections for jobs and security. Five years down the line, this sentiment is still alive in parts of the country.

Kgomotso Modise, a 31-year-old recovering drug addict, said he turned to drugs out of hopelessness after failing to finish primary school. This led him to the streets, where he got hooked on nyaope (a street cocktail drug composed of cannabis and heroin, bulked out with powder-based substances including antiretrovirals).

Eish, he said, expressing annoyance, life in the ghettos is no walk in the park. We struggle to make ends meet and are driven to get involved in criminal activities. Where is the better life that we were promised? Where are the jobs and good schools in the shanties? Mara [but in South African slang], we were better off in white regime.

As the country gears up for its seventh election since the end of apartheid, the nation faces a myriad of challenges that threaten its progress. Almost 12 million people between the ages of 18 and 30, the born frees, will form one of the major voting blocs in the most contested election since the ANC took power in 1994.

Polls suggest South Africa is headed for a historic turning point in the upcoming election. For the first time, the ruling ANC could lose its outright majority. In 1994, the ANC won 62.6% of the vote. In 2014, the ruling party garnered 62.2%, which later fell to 57.7% in 2019.

This decline in the ANCs fortunes is directly linked to its failure to drastically change the lives of the majority of Black people. The latter rallied solidly behind the party when the winds of change blew across the South African political landscape in 1994 and repeatedly came back to the polls in its support, despite the lack of delivery on the ground. Yet with one of the highest unemployment rates globally, millions are now trapped in poverty, relying heavily on social grants, such as the social relief distress grant, popularly known as the 350 rand grant (equivalent to $19 per month). This grant is given to South Africans, permanent residents and refugees who have no financial support from any source.

The situation has worsened since the end of apartheid, with unemployment standing at 32.9% in the first three months of 2024. The latest statistics from Stats SA indicate a 45.5% unemployment rate among young individuals aged between 15 and 34 years. Unemployment rates are highest among young and Black people.

To many, the harsh realities of unemployment and a lack of economic opportunities mirror apartheid inequalities. According to the World Bank, South Africa is the most economically unequal country in the world, with 10% of the population owning 80% of the wealth, and Race remains a key driver of high inequality in South Africa due to its impact on education and the labor market.

Wealth disparities have left millions of Black South Africans mired in poverty. The explosion in the number of informal settlements across the country epitomizes South Africas economic decline since 1994. The collapse of inner-city services, with potholed roads, dead traffic lights, uncut grass and broken water pipes, is a clear indication of a country whose leadership has lamentably failed to live up to its promises.

This years election represents a watershed moment. A born-free revolt against the ANCs incumbency could shake up South Africas politics and accelerate demands for more radical reforms to tackle inequality and improve service delivery.

If young people turn up en masse to vote, I dont think any of us can predict what they are going to do because they are not monolithically voting on any political lines, not on race or class lines. If they turn up we are going to have an unpredictable election, Dooms told New Lines.

The history of previous elections shows, however, that given South Africas apartheid past, as long as opposition parties are perceived to serve the interests of non-Black racial groups, not even their promises of a better future can sway the opinions of enough Black voters to make an impact.

Despite the born frees being born into a nonracial democracy, racial inequalities and segregation still persist for them, with unequal education opportunities and continued residential segregation along racial lines Blacks living in townships and whites in the suburbs.

Bronwyn Leigh Davies, a white 22-year-old fine arts honors student at the University of Witwatersrand, grew up well aware of the racial tensions in the country. She believes that generational racism still exists in South Africa and that this too will spill into voting patterns. We still have a lot of institutional and structural echoes of what happened in the past, even just looking at where people live, Davies told New Lines. People still link together culturally, even during breaks at the university. We automatically group together based on race and culture. Given South Africas history of racism, it is almost impossible for the nation to escape the grip of identity politics. Race remains an inescapable fault line that cuts across generations.

Raeesah Chandlay was 8 years old when apartheid ended. She is Indian and grew up in Lenasia, a predominantly Indian neighborhood that was proclaimed an Indian township under the apartheid group areas act of 1958. Chandlay, who is a conservationist and writer, told New Lines that a lot of the youth are disillusioned and justifiably angry. So much has trickled down from the apartheid regime and this has continued to shape the mindset of the youth. Realistically, race dominates everything in everyday South African life.

Against this backdrop of inequality, the likelihood is that the born frees will cast their votes in alignment with their identities and traditional party allegiances. Political parties across the country are actively trying to win the youth vote, as they recognize their potential to swing the upcoming elections. In its campaign messaging, the ruling ANC has been emphasizing its legacy as the party that ended apartheid and brought democracy. It promises continuity and stability after serving for three decades. However, the ANC is grappling with disillusionment among the born frees over corruption and a lack of economic opportunities.

Earlier in the year, during the February State of the Nation Address, President Cyril Ramaphosa told a fictional story about Tintswalo, a child born at the dawn of democracy whose life has since benefited from the governments policies after apartheid. In his speech, Ramaphosa highlighted Tintswalsos upbringing with access to essential services like water, electricity, education and health care, basic services denied to many Black South Africans prior to 1994.

The speech was met with much criticism. When you look closely at the reality of Tintswalo, the society Tintswalo is growing up in, its increasingly becoming a state where we are losing faith in a democratic institution. We are in a state where the national coffers are completely eroded, Xolelewa Kashe Katiya, of the civil society group Indlulamithi, told the South African broadcaster Newzroom Afrika.

As the May 29 date draws nearer and the major opposition parties race to win the youth vote, many of them are cognizant of the fact that this group of voters has little or no experience of apartheid and that their issues are different from those of their parents and grandparents.

Typically perceived as a white party, South Africas second-largest party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), has rebranded itself as a nonracial, pro-business alternative to the ANC as it makes inroads with South Africas young electorate. The DA has campaigned aggressively to shed its minority, white party image and appear as a party for all races that is committed to job creation and economic growth.

Twenty-eight-year-old Nicholas Nyati was born and raised in a rural farming community in Kirkwood in the Eastern Cape. Nyati, who is both Black and the DAs interim youth leader, dispels the idea that the DA is a party that only looks after the interests of white South Africans. Thats pure propaganda and politicking by the ANC to tarnish the DAs image, he told New Lines.

Although he was born two years after South Africas first democratic elections, Nyati does not agree that he was born free and is urging the youth to vote for a party that will give all South Africans equal opportunities. I was not born free. I went to school at a school that has a pit toilet. I had to sleep in a laboratory. Thats not freedom. Even if Im lucky enough to graduate from an institution of higher learning, I struggle to get a job. Even to get a job, I must bribe someone, thats truly not free.

The vacuum created by the mismanagement of South Africa by the ANC allowed those who disagreed with the way things were being run internally to leave and form their own parties, seeking to do things differently. The biggest break from the ANC happened in 2008, when, in the aftermath of the ouster of Thabo Mbeki as president by a faction led by Jacob Zuma, disillusioned members formed the Congress of the People (COPE). In the election a year later, they took 1,322,027 votes, winning a 7.42% share of the total.

Three years later, the ANC expelled former African National Congress Youth League president Julius Malema for bringing the party into disrepute. The following year, he founded the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and his fledgling party won 25 seats in the national assembly in the 2014 national election.

Under the radical leadership of Malema, the EFF has adopted a populist platform that seeks to appeal to disillusioned youth. Malema and his fellow members of Parliament attend the august house dressed in red industrial work clothes, rubber boots, miners hats and domestic workers outfits, to symbolize that they represent workers and the poor masses.

In its campaign messaging, the EFF is calling for economic transformation and pushing for the expropriation of land without compensation to white owners. Other key policies include the nationalization of banks and mines, a subject that has struck a chord with disadvantaged young people.

In universities and townships, the EFF has launched an aggressive outreach campaign where millions of youth reside. The EFF is pressing upon the desperation of the youth and they are making promises that they cannot easily fulfill. The EFF says the things that young South Africans want to hear, but when it comes to implementation their track record is not good, said Dion Forster, a South African Methodist minister and academic who serves as a professor of public theology at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

South Africas economic woes, coupled with a lack of opportunities, have seen the rampant enthusiasm that manifested around the 1994 election visibly wane, particularly among the young. The ANCs attempts to encourage participation by wooing popular musicians and other artists to be part of their campaigns have failed to translate into voting numbers.

In recent elections, there has been a trend of low voter turnout among young people. In 2019, the Independent Electoral Commission reported that only 56% of eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 29 registered to vote and that the voter turnout in this age bracket was significantly lower than the national average of 66%.

The social activist Malik Dasoo, who comes from a middle-class family, has had a privileged upbringing and went to good schools. He was not subjected to the socioeconomic challenges that millions of Black South Africans face. Things have gotten worse from the promises of 1994. As a kid you wonder why? But as you grow up you see that its the deficiencies of our government and an uncaring attitude of the private sector, Dasoo told New Lines. The youth havent mobilized as a coherent demographic to the extent that they did during the anti-apartheid movement. They can do it by voting but they are disillusioned by the voting process. Thirty years of democracy, but every time you go out to vote, things get worse.

The country once viewed as a shining example to all other African countries of how to get it right has fallen off its pedestal. The disillusioned youth are likely to be a key factor in deciding what direction South Africa will take in the foreseeable future. It remains to be seen if the divisive color lines that define South Africa, even today, will be breached by the desire for a better life.

Theres anxiety about what is going to happen. Theres also this quiet hope because for the first time in 30 years we have a chance of unseating the ANC. This has never been presented to us as a possibility before, says Dasoo, as the clock ticks toward an election that could drastically change South Africas political future.

Become a member today to receive access to all our paywalled essays and the best of New Lines delivered to your inbox through our newsletters.

Continued here:
South Africa's 'Born Frees' Are Disillusioned With Democracy - New Lines Magazine