The 2014 national general elections were characterised by a cloud of scandal hanging over the ANC, and the ANC president Jacob Zuma. The biggest and darkest cloud was the Nkandla scandal. Owing to a reported R246 million spent by the state to refurbish his private home, the president stood accused of wasteful expenditure and financial irregularity. In a country reeling from the continued effects of apartheid, which include high unemployment and poverty, the scandal was a bombshell. According to a vocal and often adversarial mainstream media sphere, the ANC went into those elections with an albatross around its neck. The dominant thought was that the ruling party would suffer a heavy loss of votes. This outcome did not materialise. The ANC lost a marginal share of its previous vote. Mainstream media and civil society were confounded. What had happened? Why had poor black South Africans continued to vote for a party that was obviously in breach of the constitutional order? Against the mismatch between what was predicted or purported and the outcome, this study investigates how young people in the township of Joza, Grahamstown, interpreted one of the biggest political scandals in South Africa’s fledgling democracy. Using a combination of subaltern studies, counter public sphere and audience study, the research looks into the interpretation of a mainstream media scandal that was supposed to diminish the chances of the ANC retaining power, but, instead, barely dented its majority. Through a combination of interviews and participant observation, the study found that young people in the township of Joza demonstrated that they chose to ignore the messages about the corruption of the ANC. The data suggests that they did so, not because of overt racial solidarity, but due to the fact that in a context of high inequality, and continued limitations on economic emancipation, the party shone brightly as a vehicle for economic development. Overall, the study argues that the seemingly dubious undertaking to continue with the ANC is a calculated decision that makes sense when viewed within a given socio-economic context.

Arising from Marxist theory, critical theory investigates the mechanisms that enable continued domination in capitalist society, with a view to revealing the real, but obscured, nature of social relations and enabling these to be challenged by subjugated classes. Within the broad spectrum of Marxist theory, social relations of domination and subordination are assigned according to the relationship of social classes to economic production. However, the neo-Marxist perspective developed by Antonio Gramsci locates relations of power within the broader context of the political economy. In doing so, the role of the State in a capitalist society assumes greater significance than that of maintaining and securing social relations on behalf of the dominant class through coercion and force. Instead, the State embarks on a range of activities in the attempted “exercise of hegemony”, or the cultivation of general acceptance by all social classes of existing social relations and conditions. Gramsci refers to this desired outcome as “consent”, the product of the successful exercise of hegemony, a political function which is thus crucial to the accumulation of capital. When unsuccessful, dissent cannot be contained by the State, and the extent to which contestation constitutes a threat is revealed by recourse to coercion. The manner in which relations of power are cemented through the exercise of hegemony lies at the core of this thesis. It investigates the relationship between the State and the administrators of an institution within civil society, the University of Fort Hare, as well as the responses to the activities of the State and University Administration within the University itself, over an extended period of time between 1916 and 2000. This period is divided into three specific time frames, according to changes in the expression of the South African State. In general, it is seen that conformity characterises the relationship between the State and the University Administration, underscoring the success of the State in fostering the role of education in the reproduction of social relations and values and in eliciting conformity. The nature of conformity is seen to vary according to different expressions of the State and changes in social relations, which are in turn informed by the overarching political economy and events taking place within society and the University of Fort Hare. Manifestations of consent and dissent, as responses to the attempted exercise of hegemony, are presented in the three periods corresponding to different expressions of the State. Four reasons for conformity, as presented by Gramscian scholar Joseph V Femia (1981), are utilised in order to explain and illustrate the nature of control and compliance at the University of Fort Hare between 1916 and 2000.

In South Africa, the right to protest is under constant threat as a result of the state response. Increasing cases of forceful policing and sometimes unlawful procedural prohibitions of protest attest to this. This study aims to firstly describe this situation through securitisation theory, essentially arguing that South Africa has become a securitised state. It also aims to understand how this is sustained by the state and why the state needs to use a securitised response to maintain power. Interviews were conducted with members of different communities and organisations. Their responses helped to illustrate the frustration of the right to protest or brutal policing during a protest. This provided primary evidence to support the claims of the study. The research shows that claims to protest are being delegitimised under the guise of security as protestors are being constructed as threats to the state. This is further substantiated by looking at how the reorganisation and remililtarisation of the South African Police perpetuates the criminalisation of protestors which necessitates a forceful response from the state. Furthermore, it shows that there is a distinct relationship between the prohibition of protest and the recent increase in ‘violent’ protests which legitimate forceful policing thereby creating a state sustained cycle of violence. The larger implication of this treatment is that these protestors are treated as non- citizens who are definitively excluded from participating in governance. In understanding why this is taking place, it is clear that a securtitised response is an attempt to maintain power by dispelling any threats to power, a response which is seen to have a long history in the African National Congress (ANC) when examining the politics of the ANC during exile. Maintaining power in this way distracts from the larger agenda of the state, which this thesis argues, is to mask the unraveling of the ANC’s hegemony and inability to maintain national unity. In other words, the increasing dissatisfaction of some of the citizenry which has manifested through protest greatly undermines the legitimacy of the government to provide for its people.