A FEW years ago, Smuts Ngonyama, then head of ANC policy and a right-hand man of former president Thabo Mbeki, was publicly lynched for being crudely honest. He once caused an outcry when he stated: "I did not join the struggle to be poor"

His remarks were seen as arrogant and inconsiderate to the plight of the poorest of the poor. He was not, according to critics, sympathetic to the plight of "our people".

This was during the controversy about his role as a political merchant who facilitated an Elephant Consortium BEE deal. He was rewarded handsomely for it.

For the purposes of being intelligible, we need to clarify the concept. A political merchant refers to a politically connected individual who plays the role of a middle-man to help clinch business deals - clean or dirty - that deliver a quick buck. He or she is not a conventional entrepreneur.

He or she makes a living by converting proximity to political power into a commercial value. In business parlance, such people "unlock commercial value" from politicians. It's the kind of thing that textbook economics never teaches.

It's not part of the factors of production as taught to economics students at university. Yet it is a reality of political and commercial life.

Post-1994, the origin of the merchant class in South Africa can be traced back to the infamous arms deal. Such is the legacy of what a colleague once referred to as a "darn" deal.

We were given the impression that the unashamed crass materialism of political merchants that Ngonyama apparently represented would be discarded when the Julius Malema-propelled government of Jacob Zuma took over the reins.

But that was not to be. The political merchants merely changed tactic. They became more brazen.

Malema, who also trades as a part-time political merchant, now says his struggle, which seems to have just begun, is about making sure that black people get what whites have.

"Everything whites have, we also want," he says.

Bar the use of "I" in the case of Ngonyama and "We" by Malema, the message is the same: we didn't struggle to be poor and we'll do whatever it takes, including using political power, to amass wealth.

Ngonyama was way too individualistic in his rhetoric. Malema is a collectivist in rhetoric but individualistic in action. Malema speaks for the poor. But he acts for himself.

He marches with the poor. But he enjoys the finer things in life with his emergent class of powerful friends.

He tells aggrieved business people in Limpopo, protesting against the alleged unfair awarding of tenders to companies linked to his friends, not to march against their government.

But when it suits him, he marches on the office of Zuma.

His business dealings in Limpopo suggest he is serious when he says he wants to have the wealth equivalent to whites. The lawfulness - or otherwise - of his business dealings, is being investigated by the Hawks and Public Protector Thuli Madonsela.

One wishes that the zeal to be rich was guided by the desire to build factories.

Businessman Moeletsi Mbeki is correct when he says we need independent black industrialists.

Zuma has very lately woken up and joined the call. But black industrialists won't obviously emerge from the political merchant class.

There are similarities between the wealth creation model of apartheid, the "Elephant" model of Ngonyama and Malema's model. All three are based on political connections.

They all divert public resources that could be used for the poorest of the poor.

The apartheid model was by law designed to exclude black people and empower the white elite.

The "Elephant" model was structured to give a semblance of empowering blacks, while in effect public resources were used to empower a few black elites.

The Malema model exclusively serves him and his coterie of friends, while denying poor black people quality service delivery.

The difference is that under apartheid, deals based on political connections were struck with an illegitimate government. In the current scenario they are struck with those linked to the country's most popular political movement and a democratically elected government.

What set of ideas drive this kind of wealth creation? It is what one might call crass liberalism. For some time now our so-called analysts have invented the idea that there is a battle between "nationalists" and "leftists" in the ANC. It's a fat lie.

The ideology of crass liberalism - which emphasises the self over everything else - is what has gained unquestionable ascendency in the ruling party and the tripartite alliance.

There is hardly any distinction between so-called nationalists and leftists even at the level of government policies.

Although he didn't label it as such, Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe could have been referring to crass liberalism when he spoke of how things have changed in the ANC.

In the past, ANC members at funerals and weddings would take the lead in dishing out meals for the community. They would be the last in the queue for a meal when everyone had eaten.

But now, they are the first in the queue. They have become too individualistic.

The same applies to the manner in which business deals are facilitated by political merchants.

While the poor fend for themselves, political merchants and their friends display their opulence in style on exotic islands.

And according to the liberal ideology, which was once a swearword in the liberation movement, there is absolutely nothing wrong with people spending their money in ways they regard as appropriate.

Welcome to the new culture.

One wonders what happened to the lofty ideals of human solidarity.

• Mkhabela is Editor of Sowetan