The front-page headline in BusinessDay over last week's economic growth figures said it all: "Ramaphosa's growth dream in tatters." The operative word is "dream". Cyril Ramaphosa's promises about reaching a growth rate of 3% this year have never been anything but "dreams".
Unfortunately, his pronouncements have been taken seriously by newspapers and by various analysts. In essence, we have been told that he is a master negotiator who always plays "the long game". At the end of this "game", he will supposedly pull a rabbit out of a hat at a "jobs summit" or an "investment summit" or one or another of the "summits" the South African commentariat thinks are a panacea for whatever might be impeding economic growth.
BusinessDay was itself at it again in its comment on the fact that South Africa had now entered its first recession since 2009. Said the paper's editorial: "[Ramaphosa] needs to do what he does best and build a consensus on how to kickstart the country's economy."
As for the South African president himself, he was in China reassuring his hosts that "we have a revolutionary approach". According to Alec Hogg of BizNews he was also "happily citing Mao", one of the world's "most evil dictators" responsible for the deaths of between 40 and 80 million of his fellow citizens and a man who got a "mixed press" even in China.
Unlike the print media, the IRR has been sceptical about Mr Ramaphosa all along. Back in March we suggested that his "long game" was actually to bring about a Marxist-Leninist "national democratic revolution" in South Africa in accordance with the long-standing policy of the African National Congress (ANC). His fond remarks in China about "revolution" and "fraternal countries in the socialist camp" tend to confirm that the national democratic revolution may well be his long-term "game".
The print media, and nearly all practising members of the commentariat, nevertheless maintain their policy of avoiding any reference to any national democratic revolution. They continue with their silence even though the expropriation of land (and other property) without compensation would be in line with that revolutionary agenda. Can they not connect the dots? Do they still not understand the ANC?