Malema is no hero; he's a fraud who is betraying the poor

EFF leader Julius Malema likes to play the hero to the downtrodden, a voice for the poor and for petrol attendants and waiters.

Luckily for him, it doesn't take a genius to realise that poverty in SA is an enduring legacy of our colonial and apartheid past. Nor does it require great insight to realise that a party that positions itself as a friend of the poor, and that capitalises on their supposed envy of the rich, has an even chance of cashing in at elections.

That is what populism is about: hollow promises to gullible voters. As populists around the world trade in empty promises and rant against their respective political elites - "draining the swamp", to quote that noxious loose cannon in Washington - in SA Malema makes his own inestimable contribution to making the world a hostile environment for common sense, and indeed for growth, and the upliftment he professes to want so badly.

Of course, Malema is not alone in beating the populist drum. Until the ascension of Cyril Ramaphosa to the presidency, the ANC of Jacob Zuma flirted with notions of radical economic transformation, a message packaged in part in London by public relations firm Bell Pottinger. In Ramaphosa, SA now has a government that appears to grasp that growth and investment are wholly reliant on clean government, stability and policy certainty.

There remain elements in the ANC that have not yet dumped the radical economic transformation message, and continue to push simplistic notions like taking land without compensation and nationalising the Reserve Bank as one-off solutions to poverty.

It's a sad fact that our politics is blighted by people whose professed concern for the poor sits uneasily with the bling that marks their personal lives. When Ramaphosa says R1-trillion was lost to graft in the Zuma years, it's fair to assume much of it was blown at malls, fashion shops and car dealerships.

The notion that "service to the people" is to be rewarded by the big salaries and perks that fund a lavish lifestyle is entrenched. Hypocrisy is rampant. Bling rules.

That said, there is something especially galling about Malema, for whom poverty is a currency in which he trades, all the while promising the waiters and petrol attendants a better deal in their own lifetimes.

It must matter, surely, that while Malema profits from the fact of poverty, he himself is living high on the hog and seems to benefit, if reports are to be believed, from the corruption, cronyism and tenderpreneurship he claims are in part responsible for keeping the poor poor.

The truth is, Malema knows, as do teams of investigators, that unlike the waiters and petrol attendants his is not the wealth of a man simply enjoying the fruits of his labour. What labour? Apart from being an MP, how does one explain where Malema gets the money that keeps him in ostentatious La La Land?

If it's overalls he likes, wouldn't orange be a more appropriate colour for this bogus 'man of the people'?

Hard to fathom, that is, until one combs through the VBS Bank heist report, or studies the reasons for the financial collapse of the Limpopo provincial government several years ago, to conclude that Malema and his EFF are prime beneficiaries of the very misgovernance that provides that wealth.

Last week's report in the Sunday Times provided new details of a "slush fund" into which, it appears, VBS funds were paid. In part, it explains his searing hatred of Pravin Gordhan and those cleaning up after the Zuma years, in which he played a starring role.

Malema makes much of his not talking to the Sunday Times, which he likes to portray as a stooge of white monopoly capital. In this case, though, he did respond to questions, at some length, albeit with his usual bluster and innuendo. Few will be convinced.

This makes one wonder whether the contents of last week's report struck a nerve. There may be waiters and petrol attendants who believe Malema is a hero. But they will come to realise, hopefully not entirely at their own expense, that he is a political fraud.

He fancies his red overalls are a symbol of his working-class cred, whereas they are instead a camouflage for his dishonesty and grasping opportunism. If it's overalls he likes, wouldn't orange be a more appropriate colour for this bogus "man of the people"?