The Viral Mic Grab: Playful Banter or Violent Confrontation?
In a recent video that has taken social media by storm, a seemingly heated exchange between two prominent figures has sparked a wave of discussions and debates.
The footage captures John Hlophe forcefully grabbing a microphone from Floyd Shivambu, an act that many interpret as aggressive.
However, the context surrounding this incident is far more nuanced than it appears at first glance.
As the video unfolds, viewers witness Hlophe, a respected figure in his field, suddenly seizing the microphone from Shivambu while shouting, “Owethu!”
This moment, which some have characterized as violent, has gone viral, leading to a flurry of reactions across various platforms.
The initial shock of the incident quickly gave way to a barrage of comments from viewers, each offering their own interpretations of the events.
Many commenters rushed to defend Hlophe, asserting that he is a disciplined and respectful individual.
They argue that his actions were misinterpreted and that the situation was blown out of proportion.
One user remarked, “Dr. Hlophe is a respectful person; he wouldn’t resort to violence.”
This sentiment resonates with those who know Hlophe personally or have followed his career closely.
They emphasize that his behavior in the video does not reflect his character and that the act of grabbing the microphone was likely a spontaneous reaction rather than an indication of aggression.
Conversely, other viewers have taken a different stance, suggesting that the interaction was indeed confrontational.
Comments such as, “There was no fighting at all; these comrades are colleagues,” indicate a belief that the individuals involved were simply engaging in a playful back-and-forth rather than a serious altercation.
This perspective highlights the camaraderie that often exists among colleagues, suggesting that what may seem like a conflict could simply be a demonstration of their dynamic relationship.
The debate continues as more viewers weigh in on the matter.
Some argue that the public’s perception of the incident is skewed, stating, “It did not look right in the public eye.
Hope we are not reading too much into a non-issue.” This comment reflects a growing concern about the tendency to sensationalize events without fully understanding the context.
In a world where social media amplifies reactions, it is crucial to consider the implications of such viral moments.
The incident involving Hlophe and Shivambu serves as a reminder of how quickly narratives can shift based on limited information.
As the video circulated, many began to question the motives behind the reactions, pondering whether the uproar was justified or merely a product of the online echo chamber.
Moreover, the incident has reignited discussions about the nature of public interactions among political figures.
In an era where every action is scrutinized, the line between playful banter and potential aggression can often blur.
The public’s fascination with conflict—whether real or perceived—fuels a cycle of sensationalism that can overshadow more pressing issues at hand.
As the video continues to garner views and comments, it has become evident that this incident is more than just a fleeting moment in time.
It has evolved into a case study of how social media influences public perception and the narratives that emerge from it.
The differing opinions on the nature of the interaction between Hlophe and Shivambu highlight the complexities of human communication, particularly in high-stakes environments like politics.
Ultimately, the viral mic grab serves as a microcosm of the broader societal dynamics at play.
It raises questions about how we interpret actions, the motivations behind our reactions, and the potential consequences of our judgments.
As viewers, we must navigate this landscape with a critical eye, recognizing that what may appear as a clear-cut situation is often layered with context that demands deeper exploration.
In conclusion, the incident involving John Hlophe and Floyd Shivambu is a compelling reminder of the power of social media to shape narratives and influence public opinion.
While some may view the mic grab as a moment of aggression, others see it as a playful exchange between colleagues.
As discussions continue to unfold, it is essential to approach such events with an open mind, acknowledging the complexities of human interaction and the role of context in shaping our understanding of the world around us.
As we reflect on this incident, we are reminded that the truth often lies beyond the surface, waiting for us to delve deeper and seek a more nuanced understanding of the events that capture our attention.
The MK party’s year of living dangerously – from a dramatic political debut to internal turmoil
Illustrative image: Floyd Shivambu, Jacob Zuma and John Hlophe. (Photos: Luba Lesolle / Gallo Images) | Background soldiers. (Photo: Darren Stewart / Gallo Images)
Despite a startling electoral debut, Jacob Zuma’s political party finds itself grappling with litigation, disenchanted supporters and internal power struggles.
On 16 December 2023, former president Jacob Zuma unveiled his new political party, uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK), declaring a political war to be fought with ballots, not bullets, in the name of radical change. A year later, although the party hasn’t reached the top, it has undeniably shaken up the political landscape.
The big question now is: What’s next for South Africa’s third-largest political party?
“Come 2029, the MK party will be in government without a shadow of a doubt,” MK’s head of presidency, Magasela Mzobe, told Daily Maverick this week.
It is a bold prediction from a party whose post-elections journey has been more turbulent than any other. Then again, its trajectory so far has wrongfooted many doubters.
The party was launched just five months before the 29 May 2024 elections, without any clear policies, branches or leadership structure, but was able to get more than 4 million votes.
Mzobe believes that if the party had been launched earlier and established a greater number of branches, which play a key role in campaigning, it would have achieved far greater success, but Zuma could not afford to take the risk.
“The conditions were not favourable for him to announce the party earlier,” Mzobe said. “The ANC would have used each and every trick in the book to make sure it killed MK before it even contests [the elections]. Did you see how much it was pained by the launch, and even took us to court?”
Yet the paradox of MK is that despite its strong electoral debut, the party has found itself in a kind of political limbo, unable to translate its ballot success into tangible political control.
In the months since the elections, it has been in virtually constant litigation. Once faithful supporters have taken to social media to complain about being saddled with the costs of campaigning material. And recent by-election results suggest a significant problem in winning support in areas considered to be strongholds.
Say hello to DM168 home delivery
Get your favourite newspaper delivered to your doorstep every weekend.
Delivery is available in Gauteng, the Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, and the Eastern Cape.
What the MK party’s journey over its first year of existence points to most strongly is that its unique selling point is also its greatest liability: Zuma himself.
MK leader Jacob Zuma (centre) during a press conference in Sandton on 22 August. (Photo: Emmanuel Croset / AFP)
Court papers lay bare extent of Zuma control
MK has been in court so often this year that its legal papers offer some of the best insight into how the party operates. In an affidavit answering 10 disgruntled MK MPs asking for reinstatement after being ditched, Zuma stated that the party is being run by an “interim leadership core” until it holds its first democratic congress.
That leadership core allows Zuma, in his “sole discretion”, the power to “deploy all members of the MK party until the elective conference, including the power to include and remove persons from any structure of the party”.
This was necessary, Zuma maintained, for “serious political and security reasons”. He added that it fell to him to subsequently replace many of the names on MK’s party lists because “more than 90% of these individuals were not known to me”.
The Western Cape Division of the the High Court in Cape Town took a dim view: “Mr Zuma paints a worrying picture as to the manner in which the MK party currently operates, manages its operations, its membership and the apparent impunity with which it appears to take decisions outside of the control of its own constitution.”
The man who has been battling Zuma for control of MK, Jabulani Khumalo, would be the first to agree.
It was Khumalo who registered MK as a political party, and he maintains Zuma had “zero” involvement in the formation of the party until the former president started to see it as a potentially useful vehicle.
“After he saw that our [registration] application was successful, then he started to say, ‘Let me support you.’” Khumalo told Daily Maverick this week. “Then he started talking about his years as president [and saying], ‘There were things I didn’t finish that I would like to finish. I would like to go back and finish what I started.’”
Khumalo attributes MK’s electoral success to the genuine grassroots energy that he said characterised its campaign.
“The people on the ground were fed up of the ANC and any other party in the country. The people on the ground were fully involved. They ran with it, [campaigning] without any leadership. Mostly, they were doing meetings without us.”
MK party supporters march to show their support for former president Jacob Zuma on 23 July 2024 in Johannesburg, South Africa. (Photo: Gallo Images / Luba Lesolle)
Where is MK’s money coming from?
One of the biggest questions swirling around MK has been the source of its funding. Other political parties have estimated that the election campaign run by MK, including stadium hire and fancy merchandise, would have cost somewhere between R100-million and R200-million.
So far, MK has declared just one “in kind” donation to the party, in terms of the political party funding disclosures mandated by the Electoral Commission of SA. The June 2024 donation was valued at R380,555 and was credited to an entity called the South African Policy Education Initiative. Department of Social Development records show that it was registered in March 2024 in Gauteng and is described as a “youth services and youth welfare voluntary association”.
DA leader John Steenhuisen alleged in an interview that MK was receiving Russian funding, which the party has denied.
In KwaZulu-Natal, meanwhile, speculation swirls about money flowing in from Congolese businessmen.
Zuma is known to have many wealthy friends, from Edison Power Group founder Vivian Reddy and Pietermaritzburg businessman PG Mavundla to diamond dealer Louis Liebenberg – who hosted a campaign event for Zuma in March in Johannesburg.
But the party has been adamant that its funds come from donations from ordinary party members.
Khumalo says the same thing. “MK’s election campaign was funded by individual members of MK, small businessmen,” he told Daily Maverick.
“Those people today? They are nowhere. Zuma took out all those people and replaced them with his cronies.”
MK’s current financial situation is not clear. In November, X user Sphithiphithi Evaluator posted online that she was one of a number of MK supporters who had been saddled with political campaign debt. She claimed that she and others had raised R14,000 to fund a billboard featuring Zuma’s face in Newcastle with the understanding that the party would fund the balance – only for it to renege on its promise.
For its one-year anniversary celebrations, MK is selling “hospitality packages” at steep rates. Prices start at R5,000 for tickets to its rally at Moses Mabhida Stadium in Durban on 15 December, “including access to stadium hospitality suites, food and drinks, and official MKP regalia”.
To secure a place at the “Platinum spear table” at the party’s official gala dinner at the Olive Convention Centre on 16 December, you’ll have to shell out R2-million.
By-election disappointment
One might expect to see MK’s forceful electoral debut in May translate into strong showings in by-elections in the six months since. But that simply hasn’t happened.
“What is consistent is their unflattering performances,” says elections analyst Wayne Sussman. “It is somewhat surprising to me that they could emerge [from the May elections] as the largest party in KZN [and] the second-largest in Mpumalanga, and make a big entrance in Gauteng, and just not be able to sustain that.”
Particularly noteworthy, suggests Sussman, is the fact that MK has been able to win just one ward councillor seat in KwaZulu-Natal, the party’s supposed heartland.
He points to the results of Wednesday’s by-elections in Mtubatuba, in rural KwaZulu-Natal, as illustrative. MK could manage only 13% of the vote, compared with 36% in May, with the ANC beating MK in all five voting districts.
“That is just a stunning result for a party supposed to have the wind behind them,” Sussman says. “Is it [because] Zuma is not on the ward councillor ballot?”
Khumalo, unsurprisingly, has the opposite take. He believes that voters have already grown disenchanted with MK after seeing the likes of former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane and former EFF deputy leader Floyd Shivambu parachuted in to take positions originally held by those who worked to launch the party.
“If you do things wrongly, people are not foolish. They worked so hard to get MK where it is, and Zuma comes in and moves everybody out. They [voters] are punishing Zuma,” he told Daily Maverick.
Former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane and her lawyer, Dali Mpofu, at the Western Cape Division of the High Court in Cape Town in 2022. (Photo: Brenton Geach / Gallo Images)
No party for young women?
MK media briefings and leadership structures remain dominated by men over the age of 35 – a concern that has been raised by younger women and members who aspire to take over the reins one day.
“Coming to the MK party, some of us just wanted an opportunity to lead, but it’s hard even here, it’s a constant struggle. It is about connections and who you know, and hardly about merit and qualifications,” an MK Party Youth League member told Daily Maverick this week.
MK official Dali Mpofu, who is also the party’s lawyer of choice in its many court battles, told Daily Maverick that MK is working to rectify the representation of women.
“Our constitution says – bearing in mind the realities of the patriarchal society we come from – we are going to strive to have 40% female representation,” said Mpofu.
“It also says that there is an effort to make sure that within five years that number must go up to 50%.”
MK leaders still bullish
Yet, despite disappointing by-election performances and a revolving door in terms of the party’s leadership, in interviews with Daily Maverick this week MK’s bigwigs were adamant that all is well.
Mzobe said the party is now targeting more prominent leaders to penetrate the provinces where it underperformed in May, including the Eastern Cape and Limpopo.
“We are quite excited about the journey ahead. We are engaging a number of high-ranking officials and community leaders who will assist us in a number of provinces,” said the presidency head.
MK also has its eye on taking control of important metros, including eThekwini and Ekurhuleni.
In KwaZulu-Natal, it is considering a motion of no confidence against the premier, Thami Ntuli, and his executive in an effort to correct what it believes is a direct assault on democracy. The plan for a motion of no confidence is already at an advanced stage, according to Mzobe.
He confirmed the party has no plans to go to an elective conference, where party members would be permitted to vote for leaders, any time soon. Zuma retains the prerogative to hire and fire as he wishes – and Mzobe said there was nothing untoward about this.
“MK is only 11 months old. Once president Zuma and his collective are convinced that the organisation is stable and can resist infiltration, it will gradually go to conferences,” he said.
“For now our most urgent task is building solid branches going into 2026.” DM
This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
