From promise to disillusionment: Ramaphosa's struggle with neoliberalism and corruption

President Cyril Ramaphosa's tenure in South Africa has been shaped by a careful balancing act between economic reform and political preservation.

On one hand, his administration has leaned into market-friendly policies aimed at attracting investment and stabilising public finances, reflecting a clear tilt towards neoliberal economic principles.

However, this approach has often come at the expense of social spending, exacerbating public frustration in a country already struggling with deep inequality and record-high unemployment.

At the same time, Ramaphosa’s leadership has been marked by a consistent tendency towards appeasement, particularly within the fractious dynamics of the ruling ANC. Rather than decisively confronting corruption or pushing through bold reforms, he has often chosen negotiation and consensus-building to maintain internal party stability.

While this strategy has helped preserve the fragile unity of the ANC in the short term, it has also contributed to policy inertia and a growing sense of public disillusionment.

As a result, South Africa remains caught between a reform agenda that struggles to gain momentum and a political environment resistant to disruption, leaving the country’s broader transformation incomplete.

Within the context of the Government of National Unity (GNU) formation, these dynamics take on even greater significance. The GNU, composed of multiple political parties with divergent ideologies and priorities, demands a leadership style that emphasises compromise and coalition management.

For Ramaphosa, this reinforces his instinct towards appeasement, as maintaining the fragile unity of the GNU may require avoiding hardline positions or bold, disruptive reforms. However, this also risks deepening the perception of indecisiveness at a time when the country needs urgent economic and institutional transformation.

The presence of more centrist and even pro-market parties within the GNU may further entrench neoliberal policy preferences—privatisation, fiscal restraint, and deregulation—while sidelining more progressive demands for redistribution, land reform, and expanded social welfare.

As such, the GNU could become a space where neoliberalism is reinforced and appeasement becomes institutionalised, potentially limiting the state’s ability to address the structural inequalities and socio-economic fractures that have long undermined South Africa’s democratic project.

In many ways, Cyril Ramaphosa now appears to be a casualty of shifting geopolitical and domestic pressures that have outpaced his cautious, consensus-driven leadership style.

As global economic headwinds, rising multipolar tensions, and shifting alliances redefine the global order, South Africa’s position—particularly in relation to BRICS, Western investors, and regional instability—has required stronger, more decisive leadership than Ramaphosa has often demonstrated.

Domestically, the idealism of the "Thuma Mina" mandate that brought him to power—rooted in a promise to cleanse the state, restore ethical governance, and reignite hope—has gradually eroded.

His moral authority has been weakened by slow reforms, perceived inaction on corruption, and a failure to deliver tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary South Africans.

As the head of a GNU that demands constant compromise, his ability to act boldly is even further constrained. Thus, while Ramaphosa may not yet be entirely displaced, his symbolic stature as a reformer and unifier has been diminished.

The “Thuma Mina” vision has been overtaken by the political realities of fragmentation, fatigue, and a public that no longer sees its president as the transformative figure they once hoped for.

Pulling away from neoliberalism and abandoning the politics of appeasement would represent a profound turning point for South Africa, carrying both significant opportunities and risks.

Moving beyond neoliberal orthodoxy could open the door to a more interventionist state role prioritising expansive social programs, aggressive land reform, and state-led industrialisation aimed at addressing entrenched inequality and unemployment.

Such a shift might restore public confidence by signalling a break from austerity and the prioritisation of elite interests.

However, it would also require navigating complex economic challenges, including potential capital flight, investor uncertainty, and inflationary pressures, which could destabilise an already fragile economy.

Similarly, rejecting appeasement in favour of firmer political leadership could enhance accountability, accelerate anti-corruption efforts, and enable decisive reforms in dysfunctional state institutions.

Yet, it risks deepening political fractures within the ANC and the broader alliance, potentially provoking internal power struggles or even government instability.

Ultimately, the decision to move away from these established positions would demand bold vision and strong leadership capable of managing both economic transformation and the delicate balance of South Africa’s diverse political landscape.

For the millions of South Africans living below the poverty line, the interplay of neoliberal policies and political appeasement has often translated into a daily struggle with little relief in sight.

Neoliberalism’s emphasis on fiscal restraint and market-led growth has frequently resulted in cuts to social spending and slow progress on job creation, leaving vulnerable communities without the support they desperately need.

Meanwhile, political appeasement within the ruling party has slowed meaningful reforms that could address systemic issues such as land redistribution, access to quality education, and affordable housing.

This combination means that poverty remains deeply entrenched, with limited pathways out of hardship for many families. The promise of transformation and economic inclusion that fuelled hope during Ramaphosa’s rise has largely failed to materialise for those at the margins, perpetuating cycles of inequality and social frustration.

For these citizens, the country’s political and economic challenges are not abstract; they directly impact their access to basic necessities and their prospects for a better future.

Addressing South Africa’s intertwined challenges requires a multifaceted and bold approach.

Firstly, the government must pursue a balanced economic model that combines market-friendly reforms with robust social investment, prioritising job creation through support for small businesses, infrastructure development, and the green economy, while expanding social grants and public services to cushion the most vulnerable.

Secondly, decisive action against corruption and state capture is essential; this means strengthening institutions like the National Prosecuting Authority and ensuring political accountability to restore public trust and enable efficient use of resources.

Thirdly, land reform must be accelerated with clear policies that protect property rights while enabling meaningful redistribution and agricultural support, empowering rural communities economically.

Lastly, political leadership should transcend appeasement by fostering genuine dialogue within the ANC and broader political landscape, encouraging transparency and inclusivity while decisively tackling factionalism.

These practical steps, if pursued with consistency and courage, could create the conditions for sustainable growth and social cohesion, ultimately improving the lives of those living below the poverty line.

*The opinions expressed in this article does not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.

DAILY NEWS