South Africa has the wrong President at the wrong time

President Cyril Ramaphosa does not have the right skill set to lead South Africa through the crisis he inherited from his predecessors. 

His nature in searching for consensus and a middle ground, as opposed to taking strong action, has resulted in the continuation of policies that led to South Africa’s economic stagnation. 

If Ramaphosa had inherited a strong economy and healthy government finances, he could have gone into history as one of the great African leaders and the saviour of the ANC. 

However, ascending to the presidency in 2018, Ramaphosa inherited a state with poor financial health and a stagnant economy with record unemployment. 

This exaggerated the mismatch between Ramaphosa’s skills and the task at hand, political analyst Frans Cronje explained to the second BizNews Investment Conference. 

“He faces a party that has run out of most of the things one needs to function and a government that has run out of everything from money to electricity, support, and confidence,” Cronje said. 

“His nature is to find the middle ground between competing objectives in his party, which are largely ideological and corrupt. The middle ground between those is declining voter support.”

Cronje was clear in saying that this does not mean Ramaphosa is a bad person, a skilled negotiator, or an effective leader. 

Rather, it means that what makes Ramaphosa effective is not what is required from the President of South Africa in this set of circumstances. 

“Put it this way, had Ramaphosa inherited a country where the economy was growing at 4% or 5%, had a 10% unemployment rate and an electricity surplus, he would have gone down as one of the great African leaders,” Cronje said. 

“But what he inherited and his nature in responding to that were the wrong combination for the ANC and, rather than being its saviour, he is the person who sees it burnt to the ground.” 

These comments echo those of former Eskom CEO Andre de Ruyter, who said that Ramaphosa’s leadership has resulted in an extension of the lost decade South Africa experienced under Jacob Zuma. 

“That is 17 years we have been in the doldrums without a clear direction, and the scoreboard tells a very sorry tale of what we are achieving,” De Ruyter said. 

This set of circumstances has resulted in Ramaphosa’s next SONA in 2026, which will occur when South Africa is at a major crossroads, with vital decisions needing to be made about its future. 

“What is he going to say? Is he going to double down on policies that have seen a catastrophic increase in unemployment? Capital flight? Greater inequality?” De Ruyter asked. 

“The President, driven by the need to maintain consensus in his party, is shocked by this sorry state of affairs. But he can no longer point the finger at others,” De Ruyter said. 

Ramaphosa becoming a lame duck

Ramaphosa’s inaction is most noticeable in South Africa’s efforts to secure a trade deal with the United States, with the President unwilling to take strong action. 

This inaction can also be seen in the President’s unwillingness to exercise executive authority over parts of the state, particularly its military and law enforcement. 

This is coupled with an ANC that is becoming increasingly preoccupied with succession politics, with the party set to have its elective conference in 2027 to elect a new president and leadership team.

This has led to speculation that the country is headed for a period of significant political instability and perhaps a change in government. 

Efficient Group chief economist Dawie Roodt said he is deeply concerned about the situation South Africa finds itself in regarding the lack of decisive leadership in the government.

Roodt said that South Africa has seen an alarming rise in high-ranking officials in law enforcement and the military openly criticising the government, without consequence. 

While he may agree with certain points raised and considers some criticism valid, Roodt said they should be brought up in the political sphere and not come from law enforcement or the military.

What it tells me is that the President and the government are very weak. I will not be surprised if we see some dramatic changes in the ANC,” Roodt said. 

“I do not want to use this word, but I am very concerned about the political stability of South Africa.”

The inability of Ramaphosa and the government to act decisively can also be seen in other spheres, particularly that of the economy. 

Despite acknowledging that South Africa is in a state of emergency regarding its economy, Ramaphosa has failed to act decisively to revive economic growth. 

Furthermore, with the United States, the government has been unwilling to meaningfully engage with America’s concerns. 

The Centre for Risk Analysis (CRA) said this indicates that the ANC is focused on retaining its position as South Africa’s dominant political force and not on reviving the local economy. 

This points to a political party that is determined not to adapt to changing circumstances, both locally and globally.

Ramaphosa has referred to the Government of National Unity (GNU) as a “tactic” that “has enabled the ANC to continue to execute its agenda under conditions imposed on us by the strategic electoral setback we suffered last year”. 

As part of that tactic, the ANC is considering adding more parties to the GNU, which would dilute the DA’s influence.

The CRA said Ramaphosa appears to be entering the lame duck period of his presidency without much focus on reviving South Africa’s stalled economy or improving relations with the United States. 

It expects heightened political volatility within the ANC as individuals jockey for positions ahead of the party’s next electoral conference in 2027.