Political analysts and journalists have churned out thousands of column inches describing divisions in the ANC over its continuing tolerance of the DA as a partner in the government of national unity (GNU), while differences of opinion within the DA over its continued participation in government have been studiously ignored.
Last week, in response to the firing of deputy minister Andrew Whitfield, DA federal leader John Steenhuisen issued a breathless 48-hour ultimatum to the president, threatening calamitous consequences for the GNU if he failed to act against allegedly corrupt ANC members of Ramaphosa’s cabinet. “Should the ANC fail to meet our ultimatum, all bets are off and the consequences will be theirs to bear,” Steenhuisen promised.
He also suggested that the future of the coalition government in KwaZulu-Natal would be at risk. But when the 48 hours were up, instead of withdrawing his party from the GNU as was widely anticipated, the best Steenhuisen could muster was withdrawing his party from the national dialogue.
In addition, the DA would not support the individual budget votes of departments headed by ministers they regard as implicated in corruption, despite having already supported the overall budget by voting for the Division of Revenue Bill.
Growing differences
This is more damp squib than calamity, and reflects growing differences within the DA between Steenhuisen (a member of cabinet) and his senior colleague, DA federal council chair Helen Zille (who is not a member of cabinet). According to sources within the DA, the party issued its 48-hour ultimatum without a consensus position on what the consequences would be if the president did not respond to its demands.
The DA’s leaders couldn’t agree on whether to stay in the GNU (with Zille keen to leave and Steenhuisen keen to stay). Because they had to announce something after their ultimatum was ignored, they turned to withdrawing from the national dialogue as a proxy, or fig leaf, issue.
Targeting the national dialogue with its mooted R700m budget is easy; far easier for DA leaders to countenance than collapsing the unity government and forfeiting a bunch of jobs and perks. But it is a dishonest distraction.
The DA leaders have spent much of their time since Saturday whining about the implementation of the GNU’s statement of intent, claiming there was no consensus on convening a national dialogue, and seeking to position the dialogue as a presidential pet project. The truth is that clause 12 of the statement of intent, signed off by all members of the GNU, including the DA, expressly commits the parties to “an all-inclusive national dialogue process”.
Targeting the national dialogue with its mooted R700m budget is easy; far easier for DA leaders to countenance than collapsing the unity government and forfeiting a bunch of jobs and perks. But it is a dishonest distraction.
Zille’s complaints that she has not received responses to correspondence on the national dialogue addressed to ANC secretary-general exposes her manipulativeness and/or lack of understanding of what she signed the DA up for.
What is the point of writing to the ANC secretary-general about the national dialogue? He has no position in, or sway over, the GNU. Whether Zille likes it or not, the GNU is not a coalition between the ANC and the DA — it is a 10-party coalition and the DA is one of the 10. The DA may be the second largest party, but all parties are equally subject to the statement of intent and the workings and structures of government.
Two political structures govern the GNU: the Political Party Leaders’ Forum, chaired by the president, on which Steenhuisen serves, and the Clearing House, a dispute resolution committee chaired by the deputy president, where the 10 parties are represented (and on which Zille serves). Both structures have met at least six times since June 2024, when the GNU was formed. If the DA wants to change decision-making clauses about the national dialogue or any other GNU policy matter, it must do so through these two structures. Neither raised any objections before Saturday’s newly minted proxy crisis.
Zille will argue that the Clearing House has yet to adopt its terms of reference. But this did not stop the DA from raising the only formal dispute within the GNU at the very first Clearing House meeting (its opposition to the president signing the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act into law), a dispute the Clearing House entertained and settled. The DA has not used the GNU structures to raise any concerns about the national dialogue, and appeared to have developed a problem with it only when it needed something to announce on Saturday.
• Herron is secretary-general of the GOOD party.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.