Since Mr Jacob Zuma became president of South Africa various signs of possible policy shifts as well as a number of new plans and programmes emerged on the economic front. Yet it seemed none of it was really going anywhere. Thus, it had widely and keenly been hoped that Zuma’s Cabinet appointments a week ago would clarify the situation and kick-start whatever process is to follow. But did it?

Zuma and the African National Congress (ANC) are acutely aware that various failures to deliver as promised and expected have incited growing public dissatisfaction. This has been demonstrated by escalating community and other public protests, growing labour instability with socio-economic undercurrents, numerous court actions, negative media coverage, and most importantly, the loss of confidence in the ANC as demonstrated by especially urban voters in the recent general election.

Economic transformation needed

All interested parties are agreed that the key to addressing the many problems facing South Africa lies in growing and transforming the economy. But what they disagree on – in some cases fundamentally – is how to do it.

Being the product of its “broad church” doctrine whereby a variety of interest groups, organisations, competing political and ideological agendas, and various trends and tendencies are all housed under one political roof, the ANC sometimes is a rather amorphous, directionless entity trapped in its own contradictions. As it tries to be all things to most people, the contradictory and competing demands and expectations, with different forces pulling in different directions, are creating serious structural tensions that often tend to paralyse it.

An obvious example is the unworkable partnership between government and labour - partners today, enemies tomorrow, with a constant conflict of interests.

Government’s various economic policies and programmes are often similarly affected, with the most obvious example being the disparities between the National Development Plan (NDP) and the New Growth Path (NGP). The first seeks growth through a stronger partnership between government and the private sector and was drafted by an international group of experts led by the former national planning minister Trevor Manuel known for his market-friendly approach. The latter was overseen by the socialist-leaning economic development minister Ebrahim Patel and seeks a central, dominant role for the state.

Cabinet: balancing  many interests

Against this background, as we previously pointed out, Mr Zuma’s Cabinet appointments were also the result of having to balance a great number of interests, factions and demands. Although Mr Zuma has the final say, in keeping with the ANC’s culture of collective decision-making the appointments were preceded by intense behind the scenes lobbying and consultation. Different factions would have tried in various ways to influence the decisions and Zuma may have had to make some concessions and compromises too.

The eventual policies and how they are implemented by the new executive will also be subjected to such tensions, unless one or the other group or faction can rise to a dominant position. As stressed in his inaugural speech, the composition and mandate of Mr Zuma’s new cabinet seems to confirm that the state will play a bigger and more direct interventionist role in key areas over the next five years.

This will especially be the case  in respect of the “radical transformation” of the economy in the “second phase of our transition from apartheid to a national democratic society”.

Alliance left wing stronger

While reassessment or transformation of many aspects of the economy is needed, that in itself is less the issue than the interpretation and ideological preferences of those tasked with carrying it out. An analysis of Mr Zuma’s new cabinet  and other key appointments suggests the left wing - the ANC’s alliance partners, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)- has emerged in a stronger position than before, having special significance for the economic terrain.

The moderating influence of the former finance and later planning minister Trevor Manuel, and that of former finance minister Pravin Gordhan will no longer be around in the economic sphere of government. It seems on the surface that the appointment of Nhlanhla Nene as finance minister was designed to show continuity and reassure the private sector and the markets.

Minister Nene lacks clout

Nene served as deputy finance minister under both Manuel and Gordhan and is widely respected as their protégé but also in his own right. However, both Manuel and Gordhan and their policies were strongly disliked by the left, which has “tainted” Nene in the eyes of the left.

Furthermore, Nene lacks political clout and seniority within the ANC and is not a member of the ANC’s national executive committee. With stronger left wing opposition to moderate policies, and lacking clout, he may struggle to emulate his predecessors in having things his way.

In the economic and related cluster of ministries he will come up against several political heavyweights with ties to the SACP and COSATU.

“Prime minister” Radebe in charge of NDP

Before the cabinet was announced it was widely expected that Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, who is the deputy chairman of the National Planning Commission (NPC), was to be entrusted with overseeing the implementation of the NDP. However, despite the SACP’s dislike of the NDP, the job was given to SACP central committee member Jeff Radebe as Minister in the Presidency. He will also oversee the performance of  other ministers and as such becomes Mr Zuma’s very powerful de facto prime minister.

Although both the SACP and COSATU initially distanced themselves from the NDP and rejected its economic clauses, both expressed support for it prior to the elections, but that may have been little more than electioneering for the ANC. A joint committee of the three alliance partners is still supposed to be reviewing the economic clauses.

And while COSATU and the SACP have generally supported the Zuma administration and its policies, on paper, and in some speeches and statements, their take on economic policy to date differs radically from that of the Zuma administration. But for a while now there has also been a sense that Zuma’s own policies will shift leftward, partially in response to the rise of populism and the far left.

What role for Ramaphosa?

Meanwhile, apart from being appointed leader of government business in the National Assembly, no clear mandate or role has yet been spelt out for Ramaphosa. At this point it seems he will be little more than a figurehead who will be answering questions in Parliament, and most likely be used for trouble-shooting and diplomatic missions.

The other two key economic cluster ministers, Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies and Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel, both retained their jobs. Davies is an SACP central committee member, while Patel is both a communist and a former senior trade unionist.

Nene will take comfort that he will receive able assistance from the ministers appointed for local and provincial government, the public service, home affairs, and the new small business ministry. All of these ministries are important from a Treasury point of view.

But he may be concerned over the ministers appointed to energy, mineral resources, rural development and land reform, public enterprises and labour. While these ministries have to deal with some of the major pressure points in the South African economy, their newly appointed ministers come with less than ideal track records to do so.

Left laid early claim to economic domain

The alliance’s left wing was quick to lay claim to the economic policy terrain as its domain in the next five years. Even before the new cabinet had been unveiled the left wing already presented as its victory the fact that former Reserve Bank governor Tito Mboweni decided against going to Parliament, and would therefore not be available to become finance minister.  Despite his later denial, Mboweni also seemed to blame the left, particularly SACP general secretary and higher education minister Blade Nzimande for blocking him.

The SACP and COSATU have criticised Mboweni, former finance minister Manuel, former trade and industry minister Alec Erwin, and former president Thabo Mbeki for implementing “neoliberal policies”. They blame these policies, referred to as “the 1996 class project”, for having failed to address poverty, unemployment, inequality, growth and development.

In July 2008 the SACP’s Politburo issued a statement calling for “radical changes to our economic policies“ and “an interventionist, developmental state, aimed at creating an economic path to address the dire socio-economic conditions of the workers and the poor of our country”.

The second-stage transition

This almost exactly mirrors the ANC’s growing commitment since 2012 to implementing “radical economic transformation” in the so-called second stage transition of the so-called “national democratic revolution”.

The “second phase” transition was first contained in policy proposals presented by Radebe before the ANC’s 2012 Policy Conference where the notion was later adopted. Radebe and others in the ANC argued that compromises agreed on during constitutional negotiations in the early 90s that were needed for a successful political transition to democracy could now be ditched so that the ANC could proceed to the "second transition".

But at the same time President Zuma has consistently stated since the ANC’s 2012 policy and national conferences, and again last week, that the NDP will serve as blueprint and guide for the implementation of “radical economic transformation”.  However, the NDP and the left’s idea of “radical economic transformation” are two mutually exclusive concepts and cannot be made to work in  tandem.

The question is what do Zuma and the ANC mean by “radical”: radical in the leftist ideological sense, or radical as a measure of urgency?  Neither Zuma nor his colleagues have yet elaborated in any detail, but during twenty years in government the ANC has so far never shown any stomach for truly radical shifts and have always strived for equilibrium, continuity and favouring cautious economic management.

Policy battles not over

On the other hand, if the leftists are truly in a more dominant position now – and we believe they are -  how will Zuma persuade them to implement “radical economic transformation” according to the requirements of the NDP when they have rejected most of the economic sections of that document?

The question arises whether Zuma’s apparent shifting of control of the economic cluster to the left is just a smoke and mirrors move aimed more at appeasing his powerful left wing allies rather than allowing them to steer South Africa’s economic ship. That we will only be able to judge in the longer term once this administration’s legislative programme gets under way and its policies and programmes are being implemented.

But in the meantime it seems that the economic policy terrain will remain a vigorously contested one and that the ideological battles inside the ANC-led alliance are far from over.

Written by political analyst and editor Stef Terblanche, Africa-International Communications