Much as unemployment is a major scourge, job creation should not determine ICT policy. Democracy should; then employment policy would follow. Unequal access to information and unequal power to be heard should be the entry points in the ICT policy debate.

States are sites of struggle - as in Gramsci's term "war of position." The Keynesian concessions made in "the West" in the mid-20th century were not only responding to class struggles within those societies, but the presence of a competing bloc. Political independence of colonies also involved concessions of rights previously denied the majorities, for similar reasons.

A general statement, but why Phoenix in particular? The answer could relate to the history of Zulu ethnic mobilisation in the area as part of the confrontation between the apartheid state with its minions, and the UDF in the mid-80s. The then-unarmed "Indian" community at and around the Gandhi ashram was forced to flee in 1985 and buildings such as the mahatma's home (which had become a museum) and the school named after his wife, were razed.

As described by Abahlali baseMjondolo in their recent statement. No non-Zulu is safe from such chauvinism.

The first and possibly worst blow was simply the redeployment of labour leadership into govt; again, Ramaphosa personifies this. Furthermore the cold winds of globalising capital, mentioned in a note above, meant it was not the doing of the ANC alone.

Perhaps the only new feature is the paralysis of the police force, which was previously reliable in defence of "property." Most police can be considered lower-middle-class and in the areas where poor/working-class Zuma supporters are plentiful, so are lower-middle-class ones.

Most of the members of which were long-time ANC elite. Nor did old sponsors necessarily disappear; under Zuma deals were cut with Multichoice (Naspers/Prosus) and NetOne (a World-Bank-supported consortium)

Obviously there have been, and no doubt still are, leftists within the ANC (and later, the EFF) who are willing to tolerate authoritarian & hypocritical leadership on the basis of "my enemy's enemy is my friend"

The end of apartheid coincided with the accelerated roll-out of neoliberal globalisation; not only did global capital deploy in sectors of South Africa's economy which had previously been closed to it, but South African capital began to deploy globally.

In order to avert a bloodbath and create a space for further negotiation, the transition had to offer some material gains to some of the majority. There was not much direct transfer of wealth, but significant redistribution of opportunities, such that the middle class is no longer overwhelmingly "white." Even the poor experienced immediate relief via the introduction of social grants and free basic services - though both have been steadily eroded by inflation and service delivery failure.

If we put aside the debate over definition of the working class, and the fact that many middle-class people also took part in the public looting, and just speak of the poor, it could still be said that many poor people exercised their power, in the sense that while undeniably seeking immediate material gain, they tended to target businesses perceived as belonging to the other base (crudely understood, "white" & "Indian" capital).

These 2 "ruling class power bases" could better be described as comprador power bases, though there is overlap between the comprador and ruling classes, as in Ramaphosa himself.

Or, even worse, to frame the ending of apartheid as a result of the armed struggle of MK. To the extent that armed struggle did contribute, it was that of Cubans, Angolans & Namibians.

Mamdani has interesting ideas about the possibility of redefining the concept of "nation" away from imagined community, towards shared struggle.

Isn't the causality the reverse of this?

SRWP & NUMSA both entangled themselves with RET politics during the run-up to the election, by supporting the coal-trucking mafia's assault on Eskom.

Right until his expulsion, Malema vowed to remain loyal to the ANC unto death.

Not only vague discontent, but specific historical grievances.

Tolsi's piece omits two important parts of the picture: from 1946, the Natal Indian Congress (whose leadership included some of Gandhi's children & grandchildren) had incurred the wrath of local racist elites with its "Passive Resistance" campaign; secondly, the 1980s targeting by ethnically mobilised Zulus of the "Indian" community at and around Gandhi's ashram in Phoenix, where his house (converted to a museum) and the school named after his wife were among the buildings razed.

Are there no other govts responding with austerity?

Both the RET faction and the EFF are alliances containing some genuine leftists who are prepared to tolerate authoritarian & hypocritical "leadership" on the dubious basis of "my enemy's enemy is my friend."

Two areas of the country - not even two whole provinces.