’NB: Please note that I’m not “for” or “against” DA. This essay’s political analysis, not an endorsement (or not) of a candidate or any party mentioned.”
After the dust has settled down, reality and its ruthlessness ushers themselves in, questions on ethics are asked and no one is there to pay for answers. In every rare “public” occasion I try to hold myself back. I think it’s a subconscious reflex action developed at a young age that happens to make me a great thinker and a thought leader. I hold back, willingly – to avoid having my thoughts polluted by public opinion and protecting my rational against fake influencers: sneaky little campaigns that will prey on my weakness. It’s not a mere practice for me it’s just my human nature. Be it a new track, Zahara’s Loliwe, or Kendrick Lamar’s b*tch don’t kill my vibe or even that Nomvula song. I avoid the buzz, and wait for the dust to settle so that I too can hear it with my own sincere judgment. I owe myself that.
I think this is because I was raised by my grandparents and as the only child in the household. One thing I had to learn fast is trust no one’s opinion but that of my own and it always works. One time your teachers give you a heavy assignment and summons you to ask your parents, and living with your grandparents who never had their fair share of education was not a fair thing to ask, at least me given that background. The reality was a little blurry for me so I had grown my own set conviction and had to know it all without asking. I had to know the good and bad too, without consulting anyone. And so whenever someone tells me something is good. I shall nod, but never agree or disagree. I have to know that it is good for its ‘goodness’ and not necessarily that of other’s version of goodness.
There are two ways to tell if your word against the world is true or not so true. That is through reaction and action. If you react, you don’t trust your own word, so to emphasise your word, you fill it up with dramatic effects. It’s an internal contradiction erupting inside of you. It’s almost as if you are prompted to do something out of your own will so the chances of you making the right choice are low. The game was rigged for you to not make any right choices. If you act on the other side, you trust yourself, you are whole with your thoughts, your ideals and your decisions, the chances of you making the right decisions are high.
Why these arguments you may ask? Well this is an important lesson in decision making, always check if or not, you are reacting or acting. If you react, you will probably guess, you compromise your rational functionality to judge what’s presented to you. Conversely when you act, you suspend all unwanted influential possibilities, i.e. you are acting at your won will to do something, to do something and judge it purely so. And so then, you will agree if I say, in rare occasions you need to act more than you react.
Where am I going with this you may ask?
This is the same trap that DA also followed without knowing for however long I have known them for. They always preyed on something to show their strength. They always preyed on their victims for power, and acceptance, the DA always reacted.
“When will you pay back the money?” Mmusi Maimane’s acclaimed pick up line…
At this stage now the DA appears to be a by-product of ANC’s failures, or so it looks that way, even though I hold that DA too once had a legitimate founding proposition, just as the ANC has one. Over so many times, I guess after holding their grounds they got fed up. They started to react instead of acting (their big mistake). The problem with reaction is, after you’ve reacted for so long, you fail to notice that you are reacting and ultimately fail to see what you have become, a product of being frustrated. I always hold that if someone makes you react instead of acting in a good or bad way, there is no reason to hold on to those kinds. You need something that makes you act in a justly manner, despite the course. That thing, which makes you react or overreact, is as bad because it has the same potential to bring the worst in you.
Think about your girlfriend or boyfriend how he/she not returning your calls brings out the worst in you. ANC brought the worst in DA. If you sit from a DA side, the ANC looks like the problematic boyfriend but ANC is not a problem, DA is. They chose to react instead of holding their grounds. And like any anger, it started to spread like wildfire- it’s a cape thing I guess. They started to preach it. They became the opposition instead of the better alternative. Anger spread through reaction leads to metainfluence. Now the aim becomes to tell anyone that these guys are bad. A crash course on metainfluence – narrated in quotes by Umair Haque
“Metainfluence is about manipulating social incentives: planting perceptions in people’s minds about what everyone else believes, thinks, and knows to be true. It is not about influencing people, but influencing people’s perception of everyone else.”
Principle One: Redefine legitimacy
The aim here is to create the perception that since opponents have failed in some regard, they are “losers” generally: that they will fail in every regard.
Sound very familiar does it not?
Principle Two: Intimidate your opponents
The aim here is to create the perception that everyone else already believes that they are “losers” or “failures”. This involves citing instances that the opponent has failed at. How many times have we heard DA hammering ANC in parliament through this tactic?
Principle Three: A sense of inevitable destiny
The last principle’s aim is to create the impression in the listener’s mind that everyone else already believes that DA is the inevitable choice. Here the opponent creates a portrayal of dominance, victory, inevitable destiny. This is found in DA’s story of how well governed Cape Town is which happens to be your favourite destination?
Principle Four: Discredit your critics
DA does not truly have critics but they also don’t have something or someone that vouches for them, something that their opposition has, which is a non-critic. The aim here is to discredit whoever thinks that ANC is not corrupt, loser and all, i.e. the SABC. It’s just not about the SABC, discrediting its functionality, its bosses makes everyone believe the SABC is nothing but a worthless dysfunctional house. Why would you then listen to that which they have to say?
“Metainfluence, in other words, preys on people’s need for social approval, validation, and acceptance. By creating a sense of belonging, the metainfluencer enforces conformity and repression. And that is how the metainfluencer creates the impression that they are the champion of destiny.”
So in essence, the DA never truly told us what it is that makes them special, but made it an effort to convince people that voting for ANC is bad, which technically made ANC lose their voting share. So now if DA had a voting share of 50 people and ANC 100, they convinced you and everyone that ANC is bad, reducing the ANC share to not vote they know they will be even at 50:50 share base.
This is how they claimed victory and if you don’t see a problem here you are a problem yourself. And although there’s a problem there, that’s not really a big problem, for this essay at least.
“The simple pitfall for metainfluence is this: he whom the mob crowns the mob can just as quickly jeer, scorn, and shun.” Umair Haque
DA did not win the elections because DA won the elections. DA won the elections because the ANC did not win. They did not increase their share base as much but decreased that of the opposition. And if they did increase their share, it was not because of what they genuinely stand for as a party (Transparency) – something that wins or make you lose social approval, validation, and acceptance.
The Tactical Leadership
The big problem then is having a leadership that devalues others to manipulate, discredit the other to win your vote and if that was not enough, the people bought it. You bought it.
Can you trust someone who tactically tells you that someone is bad for you but they can never give you one good reason why they are or will be good for you?
Can you trust someone like that to lead you to a greater path despite it all?
And if so, what path will you be led to, how will it be tactically, given that the route of the victor DA, was filled with tactics and not the truth?
The Tactically Buying People
Then it is the people who believed and voted, how can I trust you if you can be easily manipulated into a scam of an empty promise.
A problem awaits, but again, remember what I said, don’t react, not as yet. Whenever someone tells you something is good or bad. Just nod, never agree or disagree. If you can’t or have a possible reason to act, remain still. Wait for the dust to settle so you too can judge anything with your own sincere judgement. At least that way you have given yourself an opportunity to know that it is good for its ‘goodness’ and not necessarily that of other’s version of goodness.
Article By By NELSON MOROPANA
Nelson is the founder of The Brand Studio.
Highly devoted to building authoritative and trusted brands & businesses.
Personal Quote: “I’m a work of art, progress is my guide – always and forever changing”
Connect with Nelson via:Twitter , Facebook or Medium
