Who thought it would be a good idea to have Julius Malema address the 46^th convention of the South African Property Owners Association? Was it an act of cynicism, rebellion, or naivety?

Malema himself seemed equally surprised by the notion. “We were shocked to receive an invite from you,” he told delegates at Cape Town’s International Convention Centre. “We thought we will be the last people you’ll want to hear from.”

Nervous titters of laughter were audible around the auditorium.

The theme of the convention was “Disruption”, which is the kind of corporate buzzword bringing an excited frisson to boardrooms globally. Uber, we are told, has a “disruptive” business model. So does Airbnb. Disruption might mean imposing changes on existing industries – but only up to a point. More often than not, disruption simply seems to refer to a way in which venture capitalists can get rich quicker. Is that really a message that the Economic Freedom Fighters want to help take forward?

Of course not. If the real purpose of Malema’s invitation was to make property developers sleep easier about the billions they are ploughing into unaffordable new developments while more of the country is on social grants than holds jobs, it was issued in vain. Malema took the theme of “disruption” and ran with it – except that it rapidly emerged that what he meant by disruption was a little different.

“This country was founded on a disruption,” Malema told his audience: “a crime against humanity which property owners sitting here are the beneficiaries of.” And not just that: “Sitting here today are beneficiaries of a crime against humanity, yet in addition you are the beneficiaries of the post-apartheid order.” The ethical dimensions of the property owners’ success were “questionable”, Malema said.

Why, he asked, were people gathering 20 years after democracy to talk about disruption?

“Do you want to disrupt yourselves, which is unlikely, or do you want to cause further disruptions in the lives of indigenous people?”

Malema suggested that South Africa’s elites suddenly feel themselves under threat in the face of corruption, an erosion of law and order, and the possibility of state failure.

Too bad. “The reality is that in the final analysis you should also take the blame,” the CIC thundered. “You have opposed the policies that could lead to greater equality. You have demonised the Freedom Charter.” Today students lived in toilets, he said, “when you account for R3-trillion in property ownership”.

In short? “Your riches made you self-centred.”

Malema laid out the crux of it: “You asked me to come and address you. I tell you: if we need a disruption today, it is of your neoliberal shortsightedness!”

What the EFF promises is true disruption. Malls or office spaces should have to include rent-free space for men and women to participate in the economy. In areas where big property developments are built, there must be a “deliberate programme” to empower the people in those places. Property owners must use their financial muscle to invest in affordable student accommodation – including lending buildings to universities. Banks should give preference to would-be black property developers and owners.

“We call on commercial property owners to invest in the revival of old city centres like Joburg CBD,” Malema said. “The majority of companies in the property space are there to make profit, but you can make profit while creating homes.”

Under an EFF government, all land would belong to the state – “including Malema’s house”. Then it would be leased back into private hands, as long as a purpose for the land was clearly defined.

Malema dismissed with derision the idea that this type of land reform would lead to capital flight. “Why would investors pull out?” he asked. “We will give them land, electricity and water at a reasonable rate, as long as you employ our people.”

Malema must have known that he was speaking to an audience who would be hard to budge. To come to a property owners’ association and talk overthrow of the capitalist system might seem, at best, pointless. In reality, though, there was one very good reason for the EFF to make time for this corporate event.

Money: the property developers have it, and the EFF needs it. According to some rumours, the EFF needs it increasingly badly. Even revolutionaries have to ask for funding.

Not that Malema was about to go beret in hand to the suits. You need us, was the way he framed it.

“You fight corruption on Facebook and Twitter and in air-conditioned offices,” he accused the audience, instead of them making “a contribution to the EFF or all parties that are engaged in litigation against corruption”.

When the EFF entered Parliament, Malema charged, “it was you who says EFF is disruptive… but today you are all hoping the EFF will fight for you”. Well, show them the money first.

“If you are going to invest in property today, it is also going to be wise to invest in the EFF,” Malema concluded. “There is no future without the EFF.”

His reception among the mainly white delegates was cautious, but polite. Then came the push-back. A white man in the audience said that Malema was “factually incorrect” in his claims about white property ownership, and demanded to know: “What are you going to do to educate yourself around economics? You have to educate yourself.”

One can imagine the Malema of yore taking justifiable offence to both the tone and content of that question, given that the leadership of the EFF boast postgraduate degrees aplenty and Malema himself has been in constant study for the past few years.

But his response was measured. “It is wrong to say those who hold a leftist perspective of the economy are economically illiterate,” Malema said. “I wish you to point to me the countries in Africa where capitalism has succeeded. The corruption we see in Africa is not the result of socialist policy. It’s capitalist policy.”

Addressing the underlying anxieties among white South Africans towards the EFF, Malema said: “None of my articulations has suggested that you are not South African. We want to share with you the wealth of this country. It’s not true that Malema wants to drive out whites.”

Even the EFF’s talk of nationalisation, he suggested, was poorly understood.

“When we speak nationalisation in the EFF we are not talking about taking Absa from Maria Ramos and Rupert,” he said. “We are saying let us establish a state bank… which must provide facilities for our people with reasonable interest.”

Property will not be forcefully removed from owners à la Zimbabwe, Malema continued. “I said there is a lawful means to change property ownership patterns.”

Gesturing to the audience, he said: “You, you, you, here. You just need a bit of a push. And that’s what we are doing.” DM

Photo: Julius Malema, the firebrand leader of South Africa’s Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in Etwatwa, a township near Benoni, South Africa. July 27, 2016. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko.