Many individuals in South Africa are not aware that their country experienced a “colour revolution” in 2017, which is primarily responsible for the ongoing power blackouts. A colour revolution refers to a foreign-sponsored movement aimed at destabilizing and overthrowing a nation’s government, whether attempted or successful.
These revolutions are often associated with a particular color or flower, such as the Rose Revolution in Georgia (2003), the Tulip/Pink Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2014). NGOs lead these revolutions through activities like marches, strikes, media campaigns, petitions, and court actions to discredit and undermine the government.
The most powerful weapons employed in these revolutions are constant propaganda and financial and psychological warfare. The basis of a colour revolution lies in mobilizing well-intentioned individuals with false promises and deceptive notions of defending democracy and combating corruption, as seen in South Africa.
Indications of a colour revolution in South Africa began surfacing around 2011 when the government released an updated 20-year Integrated Electricity Resource Plan (IRP) outlining the country’s approach to meeting its electricity demands. The IRP emphasized the necessity of incorporating new nuclear capacity into the South African energy grid to ensure stability by 2030. The estimated cost was $50 billion over a 20-year period from 2010 to 2030.
While the IRP was presented as a significant step toward fulfilling South Africa’s commitments in mitigating climate change, the belief in climate change by the Zuma administration is irrelevant. The critical point is their intention to establish a nuclear power base.
This focus on nuclear energy did not sit well with Renewable Energy Independent Power Producers (REIPPs), who began a campaign to portray wind and solar energy as competitors to nuclear and coal, instead of supporting the proposed energy mix. Consequently, an aggressive anti-nuclear campaign emerged in the media, frequently emphasizing negative aspects like the “R1 trillion” and “Zuma/Putin nuclear deal.”
It is important to note that Zuma was not against solar and wind energy; they were included in his energy mix. In fact, he initiated the construction of solar plants. The problem arose when he introduced nuclear energy into the equation. Since renewable energy companies cannot engage in nuclear projects, they sought to secure the substantial funds allocated to it.
South Africa signed a Request for Proposal (RFP) with Russia to explore the potential of constructing nuclear facilities, and a similar memorandum of understanding was signed with China in 2014, both proposing what each country would offer if chosen. In 2015, Zuma dismissed Nhlanhla Nene, who had expressed concerns about the expenses and advocated for renewable energy, similar to Pravin Gordhan before him.
China and Russia played prominent roles in South Africa’s pursuit of nuclear energy, aligning with Zuma’s commitment to nuclear energy and the BRICS project. When Pravin Gordhan revoked authorization for the RFP signed with Russia, President Jacob Zuma had to dismiss him. This marked the turning point when South Africa’s Colour Revolution gained momentum.
It is worth mentioning that the South African regime change agenda was already underway in 2012, exemplified by the Waterkloof incident. The Waterkloof Airforce Base has never been a National Keypoint, prompting questions about the reasons behind the controversy.
During a meeting in December 2014, Barney Pityana, a graduate of Kings College London, expressed the desire for regime change, emphasizing that it is an essential aspect of democracy. This aligns with the nature of colour revolutions where “democracy” and regime change go hand in hand. Pityana made these remarks at a gathering organized by “Democracy Works,” a project funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, a US agency dedicated to promoting democracy abroad, which often involves supporting regime change efforts.
Under President Zuma’s energy plan, significant progress was being made. At the beginning of 2016, there were no power outages, and in May of that year, President Zuma announced that the era of load shedding was behind them. South Africa enjoyed a load-shedding-free period throughout 2016 and into 2017.
However, after years of relentless media attacks on the government, with various political parties, CEOs, fleeting NGOs, court actions, and numerous motions of no confidence in President Zuma, the color revolution in South Africa reached its culmination with the Save SA march, which was financially supported by corporate entities.
It is no mere coincidence that the first renewable energy contracts were signed shortly after Zuma left office, nuclear plans were abandoned, and load shedding returned to South Africa shortly thereafter. Renewable energy companies were well aware that the path they were advocating would lead to disastrous power outages. Zuma himself understood this, which is precisely why he sought to establish a reliable energy source through nuclear power. However, like much of the world, South Africans proved susceptible to manipulation and misinformation. Now, they are experiencing the consequences of their actions.
To those South Africans who believe that voting out the ANC will solve the current crisis, it is crucial to reflect upon the positions and statements of their preferred political parties between 2011 and 2018. Consider whether these parties would have pursued a different approach regarding renewable energy compared to the current ANC administration.
In case it is unclear, the current leadership of the ANC actually wants to lose the upcoming elections. They did not put themselves in power, and when the time comes for them to step down, they will comply obediently. If this seems puzzling, it is because that’s precisely how psychological operations are designed to work.