Strategic moves in South African politics: A chess game before the elections

South African politics is currently in a King's Gambit phase, with political actors sacrificing their most valuable pieces to gain a positional advantage ahead of the upcoming local government elections. Understanding this dynamic requires distinguishing between tactical errors and strategic foresight. In chess, the King's Gambit is a deliberate vulnerability, sacrificing the most valuable piece to create an opening.

In South African politics, this vulnerability is driven by sustained government ineptitude and the vacuum it has created in immigration, economic inclusion, and service delivery. The chain reaction of these factors has led to a situation where enemies become temporary allies.

The first move in this chess game was the appointment of Duduzane Zuma as the first deputy president of the MK Party. Zuma's support for contested policies like land expropriation without compensation, presented to a room of white, ultra-conservative business interests, signaled to both capital and his base that the party could negotiate with them on its own terms. This was a tactically risky move, but strategically coherent, as it repositioned the MK Party in a way that pleased all stakeholders.

The second move was President Cyril Ramaphosa's podium statement at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, expressing remorse over the treatment of illegal immigrants during protests and repatriations. At first glance, this statement seemed tone-deaf, given Durban's epicentre of protests against illegal immigration. However, when viewed from a different perspective, it was a strategic move.

By chairing the 46th Ordinary Summit of SADC Heads of State and Government in Durban and formally assuming the SADC Chairpersonship for the 2026/27 term, Ramaphosa avoided antagonizing SADC citizens and their leadership on his own soil. This apology served as diplomatic inoculation, allowing South Africa to present a united front and discuss immigration issues in Durban.

The third and most revealing move was the announcement of March and March, a new legal advocacy forum and humanitarian foundation founded by a diverse group of political parties. The movement aims to establish itself as an AfriForum for black South Africans through a new legal advocacy forum and humanitarian foundation. While this move can be seen as a strategic step towards civic advocacy rooted in human rights law, it also carries the baggage of being associated with an organization that has downplayed apartheid and internationalized discredited narratives.

Choosing AfriForum for this purpose risks creating an ideological contradiction that may not sit well with all constituents. Nevertheless, history has shown us that sworn enemies can meet and pursue reconciliation when states fail to resolve core contradictions.