The implications of Floyd Shivambu's demotion from the MK Party

The Umkhonto Wesizwe (MK) party’s announcement on Tuesday that Floyd Shivambu had been removed from his position as Secretary-General during a press briefing has ignited debate about the stability and governance of the MK party, which has long been perceived as a volatile and informal organisation. 

During a tense press briefing in Durban, the party said the decision follows an internal investigation into Shivambu’s recent trip to Malawi, which officials say contravened the party’s constitution and raised questions about leadership discipline within the organisation.

According to MK party officials, Shivambu’s visit to Malawi to meet with fugitive pastor Shepherd Bushiri's Enlightened Church was the catalyst for his dismissal. 

The party’s statement confirmed that the trip was unauthorised and inconsistent with its constitutional guidelines, which explicitly prohibit members from engaging in activities that could undermine the party’s integrity or expose it to external scrutiny.

The party’s leadership cited the trip as emblematic of deeper systemic issues, namely, a leadership style characterised by unpredictability, casual decision-making, and a lack of institutional discipline.

Independent political analyst Sandile Swana weighed in on the implications of Shivambu’s removal, drawing parallels to the leadership patterns associated with former President Jacob Zuma.

“I have observed that part of the HR strategies of Jacob Zuma—where even when he was the President of the State, ministers and top officials were often removed abruptly—mirror what we are seeing in the MK party,” Swana said.

“It’s a pattern of instability and informal governance. Leadership positions are often shifted overnight, with little transparency or consistency.”

Swana further argued that this informal style fosters an environment where leadership is unpredictable. 

“The character of the MK party's leadership resembles Zuma’s era - characterised by casualness and personal loyalty rather than institutional stability. 

“This creates a fragile political landscape where alliances are fleeting, and leadership is often driven by personal whims rather than strategic planning,” he added.

Sanet Solomon, a political analyst from the University of the Free State’s Department of Political Studies and Governance, expressed concern about Shivambu’s removal's broader implications.

“The decision to recall Shivambu was not entirely unexpected, especially given the controversy surrounding his Malawi trip,” she said.

“Such actions risk alienating voters and could negatively impact the party’s prospects in upcoming elections.”

Solomon criticised MK's apparent lack of precise succession planning, noting that the party’s leadership operates “casually and informally.” 

“This pattern of instability suggests a leadership style that is personal rather than institutional, which can be detrimental to the party’s credibility and long-term viability,” she warned.

The ousting of Shivambu has raised questions about the future direction of the MK party. Analysts speculate the party may be heading into profound introspection or further instability.

Some political commentators suggest that the leadership’s decision to remove Shivambu rather than confront him publicly reflects a strategic attempt to avoid further internal dissent.

However, critics argue that such moves only deepen the perception of disorder within the MK party, especially given the party’s history of leadership upheaval and infighting.

Swana pointed out the parallels between MK’s leadership chaos and Zuma’s style of governance, adding another layer of complexity. 

“The informal and personal nature of MK’s leadership echoes Zuma’s approach - where loyalty and personal connections often trump institutional norms,” Swana said. 

“This could indicate that the party is becoming a mirror of Zuma’s political style, which may have long-term consequences for its stability.”

thabo.makwakwa@inl.co.za

IOL Politics